Ethical Dilemma: Banks and Investment Firms Questioning Ties with NRA/Gun Makers

A little over a week since the Parkland Shooting, several companies have suddenly decided to cut ties with the NRA:

Since Thursday, a wave of companies -- including United and Delta airlines, Metlife and six car rental brands -- have abandoned the National Rifle Association. They've pulled discount deals they used to offer to NRA members, and one local bank in Omaha pledged to stop issuing an NRA-branded Visa card.

Now, several major players in the finance industry have also started to question their ties with related clients:

"an immediate step we're taking is to engage the limited number of clients we have that manufacture assault weapons for non-military use to understand what they can contribute to this shared responsibility," the statement reads.
Bank of America (BAC) did not detail any concrete actions it plans to take, but the announcement is the latest sign that businesses are increasingly willing to put pressure on the gun industry.

And BlackRock, a giant investment firm that holds significant stakes in several major gun companies, said on Thursday that it plans to speak with major players in the gun industry to "understand their response to recent events."

Source

What do you think will come from "speaking" with these clients?

Do you think disowning responsibility by cutting ties is the right move for these firms? Is it worth the risk of losing clients?

Let me know what you think.

UPDATE:

"The influence of politics and business goes both ways."

Among other politicians of his party (R), Casey Cagle, the lieutenant governor of Georgia, has threatened to prevent lawmakers from passing tax cuts for Delta Airlines:

Twitter:

I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA. Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.

An article by the Washington Post also elaborates on this issue:

Legally, Georgia lawmakers are under no obligation to give a tax break to Delta. The break in question, on a jet fuel sales tax, was implemented only in 2005 after Delta was on the verge of bankruptcy.

“Obviously, you should be deciding on a tax break for Delta on whether or not it is a good decision for Georgia,” Sloan said.

Punishing Delta may also not be the best way for the state to draw in businesses, warn some critics: Atlanta made the list of 20 metropolitan regions where Amazon could put its second headquarters. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

It all comes down to this question:

"Can the government use its power to punish a private company over that company's politics?"

I think this whole matter goes against Trump's pro-business stance and is counter-productive, especially if you consider that it has the potential of discouraging Amazon from building its second headquarters in Georgia.

Do you agree?

Do these statements by Georgia Republicans add to the ethical dilemma?

Or do you think what they're doing is justified?