This is one of the stranger ethical dilemmas I’ve encountered in a while, and it’s made even stranger by the fact that this blog post must dip into the world of politics. To make certain I do not drag myself into the political argument, I will not take a political stance. So if your candidate is Bernie or Hillary, Donald, Ted or John, all of the above or none of the above, I just do not care for 
the sake of this argument. The question facing Amazon related to Donald Trump is what does Amazon ethically owe its customers?
It also needs to be said that we are living in an age of hypersensitivity, entitlement, “outraged anger,” and cyber-bullying. We have become afraid of having an opinion, speaking or writing “our truth,” or doing anything to offend anyone. It is an impossible task and also a moving target. Tomorrow’s chump can turn into tomorrow’s champ. Balance is in order.
So we are clear, I do not advocate blatant hate speech of any kind. However, we must be careful on that account as well. What is offensive to a hyper-sensitive, may not be especially offensive to 99 percent of us! If I order French Fries at a fast food chain, I’m sure someone (maybe with French heritage) may find it offensive. But I’m still going to order them.
The Donald and UltraViolet
In case you did not know, Donald Trump is running for president. A group called UltraViolet hates Donald Trump. The group claims to have a petition with more than 13,000 signatures that they have apparently sent to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.
According to a CNN article by Hope King (April 11, 2016), the petition:
“…asks Bezos to stop selling menswear from the Donald J. Trump Collection. Trump currently has eight items on Amazon.”
The article also tells us that: “Dozens of companies and media outlets have distanced themselves from Trump since the billionaire businessman declared his presidential candidacy last year.”
The UltraViolet organization positions itself as being a women’s rights advocacy group. I am all for women’s rights. However, their website is almost a surrogate for Democratic candidates. The website is hardly neutral, but political. Again, I am not revealing either my political party or candidate of choice, but the issue is not as clear cut nor as innocuous as we might have been led to believe.
The article tells us that dozens of companies have distanced themselves from Donald Trump. “Dozens” implies what? Thirty-six companies? Sixty-four? A review of the companies reveals only a paltry handful of national brands and a few retailers.
The petition also followed a rather questionable narrative when they stated:
“He (Donald Trump) has encouraged violence at his rallies, mocked his opponent’s wife, and even refused to denounce his campaign manager who was recently arrested for violently assaulting a female reporter.”
The charges were all dropped against Trumps campaign manager for there was no violent assault. Yes, Trump did stupidly mock his opponent’s wife (but his opponent has mocked him) and as for violence, there are as many examples on the “Left” as on the “Right.”
I will agree that in 2016, all civility seems to have gone out of the political process and that greatly saddens me.
No comment and no comment
The hard hitting petition of 13,000 names may seem impressive, but I don’t know how many of those people are Amazon customers. I say that because Amazon has a whopping 244 million customers with 80 million of those being “Prime” members. No wonder Amazon has made no comment – and neither has the Trump campaign.
Again, being politically neutral here, I would imagine that at least 13,000 Amazon “Prime” members are Trump supporters. In other words, “I would not want to go there either.” Also Amazon understands that if they did submit to the whims of the petition, and did force the Trump Collection off the site, they could not force other vendors from selling the same goods.
Ethically, does any group have the right to exert its political position on a retailer? It sets up an interesting puzzle.
If the Donald Trump products were dangerous or if the products showed graphic images or if they represented offensive symbols, I might see the point. They don’t. I am reminded of the Chick Fil-a controversy of a couple of years ago, and Nike shoes and other situations where political pressure group agendas tried to block retail sales.
I admire free speech and I admire passion, but using veiled political messaging to influence free trade ethically bothers me a great deal. No matter your candidate, it should bother you as well.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
