Salesforce says companies that sell semi-automatic weapons can't use its software

[midian182]

In brief: Salesforce, the $120 billion tech giant that makes most of its revenue from its customer-relationship management cloud service, is banning companies from using its platform to sell various types of firearms.

As highlighted by The Washington Post, Salesforce updated its “acceptable use” policy on April 11 of this year, banning customers from using its software to sell automatic and semi-automatic firearms, 3D-printed guns, and accessories including magazines capable of storing more than 10 rounds and multi-burst trigger devices, which can turn semi-automatics into fully automatic weapons.

The move follows Shopify’s decision to change its policy last year, which prohibits merchants from selling certain types of firearms. Retailers including Walmart and Dicks Sporting Goods also changed their gun policies in the wake of the Florida high school shooting in which 17 people lost their lives.

It’s unclear exactly how many of Salesforce’s roughly 150,000 clients will be affected by the change, though the company says it will be “a small number of existing customers when their current contracts expire.” One of these will be Camping World; while Salesforce singles the firm out as leading customer on its website, the retailer's Gander Outdoor unit sells a variety of semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines banned under the updated policy. It’s estimated that Camping World spends $1 million a year on Salesforce e-commerce software but switching to another service could cost lot more.

Gun advocates such as the National Shooting Sports Foundation say the updated policy is a violation of the Second Amendment and discriminatory against gun owners.

"It is a very chilling effect when a company as large as Salesforce puts out a policy like this," said the foundation's spokesperson, Mark Oliva. "A policy like this is not surprising from a company based in that part of the country."

Salesforce’s CEO, Marc Benioff, called for the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, to be banned following last year’s Florida shooting.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Ban it. pic.twitter.com/WSueCvR2iJ

— Marc Benioff (@Benioff) February 15, 2018

Image credit: DmyTo via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80313-salesforce-companies-sell-semi-automatic-weapons-cant-use.html

 

[stewi0001]

Congratz, this will not solve anything.

 

[Vrmithrax]

And here I thought Salesforce was a business tool, not a political organization.

 

[EClyde]

Oh They make me feel safer already. I'd write more but it's time to go clean my rifles

 

[m3tavision]

They can say that all they want, but that id a discriminatory practice. Companies don't get to discriminate...!

This will hurt Salesforce bottom line, with such lawsuits.

 

[Lew Zealand]

It's a business, they can change the terms any way they want. Don't like them? Go somewhere else.

And the 2nd Amendment mention by that National Shooting Sports Foundation guy is a LOL moment. Is Salesforce a government entity? OMG AMD doesn't sell guns, they violate the 2nd Amendment!!

 

[p51d007]

But, if a (insert name of a pro firearm, or religious institute) tries to push THEIR agenda, the entire country blows up.
Hey salesforce.com...here's an idea...SHUT UP!
At least for now, in the U.S., firearms, if deemed by the government, are "lawful", then anyone that is not a felon, and is of age, has the RIGHTS guaranteed to not be infringed, to have them. Just because YOUR company doesn't like it, doesn't mean YOU can make that decision.
I don't care for alcohol, tobacco, but it is a LEGAL product to use, if you so desire.

 

[CBTex]

It's a business, they can change the terms any way they want. Don't like them? Go somewhere else.

And the 2nd Amendment mention by that National Shooting Sports Foundation guy is a LOL moment. Is Salesforce a government entity? OMG AMD doesn't sell guns, they violate the 2nd Amendment!!

While I think people should probably just go somewhere else, the law says that business often can't just change the terms. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal for businesses to refuse services based on all sorts of reasons. I don't know of any court cases that deal with whether or not a company can discriminate based on a patron's position on the 2nd Amendment though.

 

[ShagnWagn]

"customer-relationship management cloud service"

Uh, what relationship?

Yeah because we know that putting laws on guns keep the lawbreakers from using them? That is an epic and special kind of stupid.

Congratulations for being suckered into the "cloud". Cloud only means someone else's computer, and you are at their mercy to do whatever they allow you to. Case in point? We are migrating to Office 365... Microsoft made a change which broke our login process. Thank goodness we are still only pilot testing otherwise our entire company would have been down. If we managed our own, we wouldn't have had any impact. I keep telling companies over and over again not to give the keys to anyone else. Not only for these types of situations, but now all of your company is on someone else's computers, and exposed to the internet. I have no sympathy.

If MS wanted to, they could break these company's email accounts just like Salesforce did. Time for a lawsuit.

 

[Lew Zealand]

While I think people should probably just go somewhere else, the law says that business often can't just change the terms. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal for businesses to refuse services based on all sorts of reasons. I don't know of any court cases that deal with whether or not a company can discriminate based on a patron's position on the 2nd Amendment though.

The difference is that the CRA says that you can't treat people differently, which makes sense. The 2nd A pertains to the right to own a thing. You can still own that thing without Salesforce's assistance.

Now, if there was no way at all to buy a gun because the entire service infrastructure all banned the use of their services, maybe there'd be a court case. Of course there would still be cash and while in the minority, gun owners probably overlap with tech-savvy people enough where an enterprising individual or 3 could just write their own software. Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Yet I am sure there software can still be used by companies involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco?

 

[Lew Zealand]

Yet I am sure there software can still be used by companies involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco?

I'm guessing that the Salesforce people haven't read any stories recently about people killing school kids with a spray of booze bottles and cancer sticks?

 

[Gixser]

Please explain to me how the Constitution prohibits a private organization from *not* selling its product to someone?

But, if a (insert name of a pro firearm, or religious institute) tries to push THEIR agenda, the entire country blows up.
Hey salesforce.com...here's an idea...SHUT UP!
At least for now, in the U.S., firearms, if deemed by the government, are "lawful", then anyone that is not a felon, and is of age, has the RIGHTS guaranteed to not be infringed, to have them. Just because YOUR company doesn't like it, doesn't mean YOU can make that decision.
I don't care for alcohol, tobacco, but it is a LEGAL product to use, if you so desire.

 

[Dimitrios]

Well...................................... At least it will make the stupid sheep feel safer ha ha.

 

[jaryn211]

Yet I am sure there software can still be used by companies involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco?

I'm guessing that the Salesforce people haven't read any stories recently about people killing school kids with a spray of booze bottles and cancer sticks?

In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,233 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2016, 214 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Every year about 88,000 people die from alcohol.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
I would say the point is that more people and kids die from alcohol than guns and yet they do nothing about it. But guns are involved and suddenly its a problem despite the fact that guns dont kill people, people kill people.

 

[OcelotRex]

While I think people should probably just go somewhere else, the law says that business often can't just change the terms. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal for businesses to refuse services based on all sorts of reasons. I don't know of any court cases that deal with whether or not a company can discriminate based on a patron's position on the 2nd Amendment though.

The difference is that the CRA says that you can't treat people differently, which makes sense. The 2nd A pertains to the right to own a thing. You can still own that thing without Salesforce's assistance.

I'll add that Chick-Fil-A closes on Sundays and Masterpiece Cake Shop defended their first amendment right to not bake cakes.

I think Salesforce is focusing on the wrong thing but it will play well in the echo chamber they exist in.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

And here I thought Salesforce was a business tool, not a political organization.

Salesforce is a private corporation and is free to revise its terms of service as it sees fit. Part of the whole "freedom and free markets" thing means companies have the right to deny service as well.

 

[MaXtor]

I don't see the problem, another company will seize the opportunity and provide their cloud service to the affected businesses. Just as a bakery shouldn't be forced to bake a custom gay wedding cake, another bakery will happily take the sale and bake that cake.

 

[ShagnWagn]

I'm guessing that the Salesforce people haven't read any stories recently about people killing school kids with a spray of booze bottles and cancer sticks?

You mean like drunk drivers killing people and pedestrians? Or like the escalating healthcare costs from cancer that we all have to bear the burden on? Not counting the stench I have to walk through going into buildings?

 

[OptimumSlinky]

But, if a (insert name of a pro firearm, or religious institute) tries to push THEIR agenda, the entire country blows up.
Hey salesforce.com...here's an idea...SHUT UP!
At least for now, in the U.S., firearms, if deemed by the government, are "lawful", then anyone that is not a felon, and is of age, has the RIGHTS guaranteed to not be infringed, to have them. Just because YOUR company doesn't like it, doesn't mean YOU can make that decision.

Yeah, because when Evangelical Christians try to make everyone live by the rules outlined in their favorite fairy tale book, it infringes on my freedom to not have a religion or have decisions imposed upon me on the basis of religion.

Salesforces, as a private company, absolutely has the right to refuse service as long as it's not based on racial or gender discrimination. The Second Amendment applies to government, not corporations.

Take your own advice.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Yet I am sure there software can still be used by companies involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco?

I'm guessing that the Salesforce people haven't read any stories recently about people killing school kids with a spray of booze bottles and cancer sticks?

In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,233 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2016, 214 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Every year about 88,000 people die from alcohol.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
I would say the point is that more people and kids die from alcohol than guns and yet they do nothing about it. But guns are involved and suddenly its a problem despite the fact that guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Alcohol wasn't created with the sole purpose of killing other people. The fact it does so by accident is interesting and tragic, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Please explain to me how the Constitution prohibits a private organization from *not* selling its product to someone?

He can't, because 99% of so-called Constitutionalists don't even understand the document.

 

[Stiqy]

While I think people should probably just go somewhere else, the law says that business often can't just change the terms. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal for businesses to refuse services based on all sorts of reasons. I don't know of any court cases that deal with whether or not a company can discriminate based on a patron's position on the 2nd Amendment though.

The difference is that the CRA says that you can't treat people differently, which makes sense. The 2nd A pertains to the right to own a thing. You can still own that thing without Salesforce's assistance.

Now, if there was no way at all to buy a gun because the entire service infrastructure all banned the use of their services, maybe there'd be a court case. Of course there would still be cash and while in the minority, gun owners probably overlap with tech-savvy people enough where an enterprising individual or 3 could just write their own software. Where there's a will, there's a way.

That isn't how it works. A bakery can't decide they won't sell cakes to gay people. Even though it doesn't stop them from buy cakes elsewhere, or having access to cakes, no business can refuse service based on religious creeds, race, lifestyles, ideologies, etc... whether the service is available elsewhere or not.

 

[Stiqy]

But, if a (insert name of a pro firearm, or religious institute) tries to push THEIR agenda, the entire country blows up.
Hey salesforce.com...here's an idea...SHUT UP!
At least for now, in the U.S., firearms, if deemed by the government, are "lawful", then anyone that is not a felon, and is of age, has the RIGHTS guaranteed to not be infringed, to have them. Just because YOUR company doesn't like it, doesn't mean YOU can make that decision.

Yeah, because when Evangelical Christians try to make everyone live by the rules outlined in their favorite fairy tale book, it infringes on my freedom to not have a religion or have decisions imposed upon me on the basis of religion.

Salesforces, as a private company, absolutely has the right to refuse service as long as it's not based on racial or gender discrimination. The Second Amendment applies to government, not corporations.

Take your own advice.

I think you are overstating the case a tad. An *actual* evangelical case, for example, would be the bakery that didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple. They were not telling the couple how to live, just wanting, as a business, to serve who they wanted. This is pretty much the same thing. businesses can't discriminate, nor cherry-pick what they want to discriminate over... be it race, religion, ideology, lifestyle, whatever.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You want Christian bakeries to serve the LGBT community? Then sales force has to serve people who legally sell guns.

 

[Jblank]

It's a business, they can change the terms any way they want. Don't like them? Go somewhere else.

And the 2nd Amendment mention by that National Shooting Sports Foundation guy is a LOL moment. Is Salesforce a government entity? OMG AMD doesn't sell guns, they violate the 2nd Amendment!!

That's not what he said at all. We effectively have companies trying to discriminate against people for their selling of legal products, who are licensed by the government to sell these products. It's nothing more than leftist nations that don't agree with liberty, attempting to punish people for legal behavior.