If the publisher chose not to publish the book because they don't think its good, and will sell, that is one thing. If the publisher chose not publish the book,

If the publisher chose not to publish the book because they don't think its good, and will sell, that is one thing. If the publisher chose not publish the book, because they agree with the politics of it, that I would dislike. As far as I can tell no one gains in a society where the right refuses to work with the left and vis-versa. That just makes society harder for everyone. What is far worse is when one side wields disproportionate power. Fiction has long played a role in advancing social morals. Imagine a case where in a society that was very, very homophobic. If books that featured lgbqt in a good light were not published... and it was considered okay because that is the publishers right, that would be a bad thing. Finally, I think our rules on situations like this should be abstracted away from poltiical or social beliefs. It is easy to say that we can judge the publishers in my hypothetical wrong, because homophobia is bad, but the publishers in this actual instance okay, because there is nothing wrong with being pro-choice. However there is a danger in that, and this is largely inspired by http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html, but we have been pretty bad as society and individuals at judging what is good. Which is why I am hesitant to be okay with censoring something I disagree with, it may very well turn out that I am wrong.