
Originally Posted by
Ironside
He took it seriously enough to stick with it even when it started to become obvious that it would have a significant negative influence on his CEO career, until he eventually resigned over it.
Threats towards human rights (some here are probably disagreing with that human rights are at stake here, but that's another matter), are usually not met with tolerance. Stomp them out before they regain the strength they had when they were legal. That's the normal treatment.
Worth noticing is that he did take flak about it in 2012 when it became publically known. But since he wasn't a CEO, the response was much weaker. So it isn't something new, it's something that got reignited when the stakes got higher.
Bookmarks