
Patagonia Vests: Wall Street Will Need to Work for Them Now - tshannon
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-03/sorry-wall-streeters-you-now-need-to-earn-your-patagonia-vests
======
munk-a
This appears to just be a dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19558512](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19558512)

------
SilasX
Since the title wasn't clear what the core change is:

>The outdoor gear maker won’t create the products for just anyone through its
corporate sales program. Recently, Patagonia has shifted its focus to
“mission-driven companies that prioritize the planet,” the company said in a
statement late Tuesday.

------
MagicPropmaker
How is this any different from a baker deciding what kinds of customers can
buy his wedding cakes?

(I think these kinds of corporate decisions are foolish! I will sell to anyone
who operates within the laws of my country.)

~~~
drewrv
Wall street isn't a protected class.

~~~
nightski
Supreme court sided with the baker so I'm not sure "protected" matters in this
case.

~~~
dragonwriter
The Supreme Court sided with the baker not on the broad legal principle
everyone makes the case about (which they were able to duck), but on the
narrow question of the specific behavior of Colorado officials in the case.

Which kind of makes evoking the case to make a point about the broad legal
principle odd, though.

~~~
MagicPropmaker
I'm just saying that it's odd, while legal, for companies not to sell their
product to a customer because they don't like his "morals."

~~~
nightski
I don't think it's about morals and it doesn't apply to a product based
business. This is about services. What would be odd is if I had to accept any
client that walks in my door for custom development services because otherwise
it would be considered discrimination.

