I have friends who are vegan (very strict vegetarian) and who spend inordinate amounts of time researching the ingredients and processes of the food they eat, and also the politics of the companies who make the products they eat. They won't patronize companies they haven't researched. So it's not unreasonable to think that Battle may have done the research on sexuality.
It seems to me that avoidance of the products of a company because a top manager is homosexual, applied generally, carries a risk of not being able to buy much of anything, unless research is done rigorously -- and regularly, since management positions shift and new people are being promoted into positions of higher responsibility. Or else, one would have to lead a mighty spartan lifestyle, with no appliances, furniture, food, clothing, etc. Computers and handheld devices are only the tip of the iceberg. And certainly, some of my vegan friends lead what I consider a pretty spartan lifestyle, as a result of their concern.
Perhaps, Battle, you could share your long list of corporate managers and their private sexual practices, for the general benefit of FReepers who are concerned about such things.
Like Rimorel, I don't wish to offend; I am impressed, and wish only to learn.
I don’t have a problem if someone wishes to patronize or not patronize an establishment, company or service on whatever criteria they choose.
That is their business, not mine.
I take umbrage to someone who takes a derogatory tone towards those who don’t follow the same course of action, and the person takes a “cafeteria catholic” approach to the issue. If someone wants to make an issue out of something, fine. People can accept you at your opinion.
But if one is derogatory towards others, there is an expectation of rigid consistency. It is the price of being a rigid ideologue on an issue.