This doesn’t surprise me about Salesforce. They have a history of voicing their support of tax hikes in already impossible-to-afford San Francisco just to give you an idea of what kind of company they are. All big tech companies in the SF Bay Area lean extreme left to the point where virtue signaling impacts their productivity, their bottom line, and their reputation. “Where do we find a female Native American software engineer? Because we need one for our diversity quota, we don’t even care if she’s competent.”

They have a lot of sway in SF, there’s a lot they can be doing for their own employees instead of joining the cabal of barricading 2A. Instead maybe they should focus on the issue that very few of their employees can even afford to live within an hour of their office. Left-wing capitalism at its finest. “No guys we totally care about things other than profits”

Really? Links please....I'd love to see it.

Where do you get your "leading" research from?

Recent publications about genetics
https://www.newscientist.com/article...l-orientation/
Genome-Wide Association Study of Male Sexual Orientation | Scientific Reports

Two about hormones in embryonic state
Minireview: Hormones and Human Sexual Orientation
Homosexuality May Start in the Womb | Science | AAAS

We haven't figured out what causes Alzheimers or cured cancer yet - both causes with eons more funding than "what makes sparky gay." But I guess since we've mapped most of the human genome we should just give up on that too, eh. Not that I think it actually matters what makes someone gay aside from fighting assumptions about "choice"

To say they have different rights is a stretch. But, to answer, it's primarily the same reason that I don't believe libertarianism can work on a large scale. There's too many biases in our society that are ingrained, there is too much of an imbalance in power, and human nature is too biased towards greed.
So, yeah, I don't think you should be allowed to discriminate against someone based on a relatively limited and inborn set of criteria.

How does this impact their bottom line positively? I can't see why a company would choose SF over a competitor simply b/c of this restriction.
I can't even imagine productivity remaining high after an initial celebratory bump.
I don't know how many firearm retailers use SF, perhaps its not a large enough number to matter to them.

I’m not suggesting that giving firearm manufacturers and retailers the boot will make a dent in Salesforce’s profits. It won’t. Their aforementioned support of higher local tax will. I’m saying that virtue signaling in general by large tech companies is usually detrimental. If this is just one of Salesforce’s politically-motivated antics, obviously there’s a lot more going on inside the company.

How else do you make the City of San Francisco happy enough to let you develop land despite zero-growth ordinances?

Retailers that sell any semi-auto weapons are banned? That would prob be 90% of all firearms sold in the USA. It's amazing how ignorant of basic facts anti-gun people are.

I urge all citizens to not to do business with Dick's, Salesforce, or any other company that does not share the fundamental American value of responsible firearm ownership.

It's really a non-renew of existing contracts and not signing new contracts. That said, this was from 2 years ago. Not sure how it played out or if they even followed through on the threat.

Get woke, go broke can't happen soon enough for them.