> They weren't attacked, Cf was attacked for employing them
That sentence is illogical. Attacking X's employer for employing X is an attack on X – it is saying that X is unworthy of being employed
> Cf has a habit of financially supporting actual far-right activists such as Westboro Church
You make it sound like they donated money to WBC. From what I understand, at one point they accepted them as a paying customer. WBC is an atrocious organisation, but a business having them as a customer isn't "financial support" – do you apply the same standard to the many other businesses who undoubtedly have WBC and/or its leaders and members among their customers? Who is their cell carrier? What supermarket do they shop at? Which airline do they fly?
That sentence is illogical. Attacking X's employer for employing X is an attack on X – it is saying that X is unworthy of being employed
> Cf has a habit of financially supporting actual far-right activists such as Westboro Church
You make it sound like they donated money to WBC. From what I understand, at one point they accepted them as a paying customer. WBC is an atrocious organisation, but a business having them as a customer isn't "financial support" – do you apply the same standard to the many other businesses who undoubtedly have WBC and/or its leaders and members among their customers? Who is their cell carrier? What supermarket do they shop at? Which airline do they fly?