But if we define it as something that the society should
    encourage because it's beneficial to the society then
    for-profits are arguably on a higher ground ... KKK is a
    non-profit.

And Comcast is a company. Just because people give money to an organization and extract value from it doesn't mean society should encourage that company's behavior. Your argument makes no sense. You're saying:

    1. Moral ground is "something society encourages because
       it's beneficial to society"
    2. People give for-profit companies their money
    3. Therefore, companies have a higher moral ground since
       companies are "demonstrably beneficial to people"

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? You then throw an example of a bad non-profit (KKK) as I can equally give you an example of a bad company (Comcast) that takes people's money, provides a necessary service to their customers, but is by all accounts one of the worst, most parasitic organizations on the planet.