Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
I only think it's morally wrong.
All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.
Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.
And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.
Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?
And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?
Why must it be through an online payment processor?
My bank will send payments for me. And I can write a check and mail it to whoever I want.
you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards
We're talking about a candidate's campaign fundraising operation. Which is odd in and of itself, because as far as I know that candidate isn't actually running for any office.
You've moved the goalposts far enough, haven't you?
Except there isn't a duopoly in online payments. In fact, Stripe is just one of many (and not anywhere near the largest) payment processors[0].
[0] https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/largest-...
No, it's not a private business.
> They were within their rights to make a blacklist
No, making an agreement in restraint of trade is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
They didn't do that, just like the tech giants are not doing that now, as they take the same action at the same time against the same target.
Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.