> The article clearly mentions that they had to punish someone. ...well, no. They had a choice. They didn't have to fire the guy. > Also, China imposed hars

> The article clearly mentions that they had to punish someone. ...well, no. They had a choice. They didn't have to fire the guy. > Also, China imposed harsh consequences in the form of lost revenue for Marriott True. But no one is imposing any consequences on Marriott for firing the guy, harsh or not. For Marriott, that makes the decision easy I suppose. It does not, however, change what's right.