You could have just said "No Disco I don't see the difference."Ironically, in the Laissez-Faire style economy businesses might prefer, corporations probably don't see the difference in terms of economic value. It is bad for business to criticize a branch of consumers, and thus it might stand to reason that any alienation of any branch of consumers would be considered unnecessarily detrimental to the profit of the corporation. We third-person bystanders view this in terms of individual liberty with the right to freedom of speech being punished by the corporation while the first-person viewers inside the corporation view that the C.E.O. has ultimately hurt the corporation by acting fairly "selfishly" (advocating a belief and donating to a cause that ultimately allows the C.E.O to vocalize his own opinions freely while throwing the corporation under the bus, potentially turning away an entire group of consumers in favor of the individual's right to say whatever he damn pleases). We look at what is right according to the individual, but the corporations are looking at what is profitable to the collective entity, ultimately cutting losses to save face in circumstances such as these, an ethically brutal tactic that limits the freedom of speech of the individual that preserves the collective's consumer base and therefore profit.
Essentially, why let one man stain the work of thousands with his controversial utilization of freedom of speech and advocation when you could simply remove the man? Ethically it is wrong to remove a man for his opinions, but corporations don't build their empires on ethics.
It would have been much faster.