Should a company have to offer lower rates to the 2SLGBTQQIA+ before it is allowed to call itself an “Ally”?
From Salt Lake City, just outside the public library:


Morgan Stanley says that it is not merely an “ally” but a “proud ally” of the 2SLGBTQQIA+. However, as far as I am aware, the bank does not offer discounts or preferential rates to customers who identify as 2SLGBTQQIA+. Should the Federal Trade Commission shut them down for false advertising unless they can show concretely what they’re doing for 2SLGBTQQIA+ customers worldwide? A company shouldn’t be able to obtain the “queer advantage” (see book below from the Salt Lake City Library) without paying for it, should it?
Separately, the New York Times says that humanity faces a “climate emergency” and an “existential crisis”. At the same time, I think that the newspaper takes money for ads for single-family homes (inherently energy-inefficient) and pavement-melting SUVs. Maybe the FTC can’t shut them down for hypocrisy, but perhaps the NYT could be forced to add a “context” box under every claim that the Earth is going Full Venus: “This newspaper profits from ads for SUVs and single-family homes.”
A few more examples…
Experian‘s all-month Twitter presence:
Will they give higher credit ratings if they see charges from Grindr? If not, what is Experian doing for the 2SLGBTQQIA+?
Pfizer:
The Pfizer web site:
Not to be left out… Novartis:
From Microsoft, in the search box at the bottom left of the Windows 10 home screen:
Full post, including comments