> The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees.

> The same people trying to push this law tried to steal the presidency and give it to someone who didn't win. Something like 40-50% of the country disagrees. This is kinda my point, you’re coming across like you believe half of the citizens beneath you or just dead wrong. In fact, the entire election incident was requesting a forensic audit and canvass because the numbers didn’t make sense to them — citizens have a right to that, no? Regardless it’s alright there’s disagreement, just like you they’re questioning things we all can. I think it’s entirely fine to try to convince people. So, again to be clear — good to question, discuss, reason, I agree with that. Where the disagreement occurs is trying to get a tech company to utilize leverage to hurt the people of Texas. I don’t think we should hurt Texans who have a belief that those with a heart beat should be civilly protected. I think generally we should separate businesses from donating to or actively supporting politicians. More importantly, we shouldn’t be trying to harm those of a different ideology (harm is different than supporting opposition). That has been a move recently and is leading towards authoritarianism and is dangerous. Imagine if the oil companies decided to not operate in California or sell to Californians because they didn’t agree with “murdering babies”. It’s a contrived example, but I’m hoping you can see the two way street. I’m merely pointing out the can of worms that’s being opened here.