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-...