Camping World is the Latest Victim of SaleForce’s Social Justice Extortion

Opinion

Camping World is the latest SaleForce Social Justice Extortion Victim
Camping World is the Latest Victim of SaleForce's Social Justice Extortion

San Francisco, Calif.-(Ammoland.com)- Another Silicon Valley giant company has taken a shot at the gun industry. Salesforce.com is demanding their clients that sell AR-15s [and more gun gear] must stop selling America's favorite rifle or stop using their software.

Salesforce.com is the leader in cloud-based customer relationship management (CRM) services. The San Francisco tech giant boast of a full suite of software as a service (SaaS) solutions to help customers manage their current customer base and use advanced analytics and marketing automation to acquire new clients. Salesforce has over 100,000 users with some spending over $1,000,000 a year on the services.

Salesforce has put firearms retailers in a tough place. Retailers such as Camping World Holdings is almost totally dependent on the Salesforce software platform to get shipments out and for marketing. Unless Camping World Holdings, which is the parent company of Gander Mountain, stops selling semi-automatic rifles with the ability to take magazines, then they will be kicked off the platform when their contract expires.

The company has also banned the sale of 80% lowers, barrel shrouds, and flash hiders. Any rifle chambered in .50 BMG, and the round itself is also forbidden. Most bizarrely the company has banned the sale of stocks with thumb holes, but it is still OK to sell pistol grips for semi-automatic rifles.

Current CEO, Marc Benioff, founded Salesforce.com in 1999. Benioff is strictly on the anti-gun side of the debate. On February 15th of last year, he tweeted out, “The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Ban it.”

Benioff has also given large sums of money to anti-gun groups. He stroked a check of $1,000,000 to March for Our Lives. That is the same group that David Hogg used in addition to his classmate's deaths to jump-start his career as a professional activist.

The company also include liberal anti-gun politicians as their early investors. These investors include Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi vowed to make gun control a vital issue in the House of Representatives for this term.

Fifty women and girls have sued the software firm Salesforce for designing tools that helped traffickers sell them for sex on the classified ad site Backpage.com. It seems Salesforce has no issue trying to tell its customer companies what they can and can not sell when it comes to legal guns, but they had no issue profiting from sex trafficking by creating customized data tools for online sex provider Backpage.

Salesforce downplayed the impact of the change. A spokesperson from the company said the move is only affecting only a handful of its customers. Their current customers would have until their contracts expire to stop selling the items in question or find another solution to use for their CRM needs.

The company has used its weight in the past for Benioff's crusades. In 2015, he threatened to use the power of Salesforce to put “economic sanctions” against Indiana if then-Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He cited human rights, but according to a lawsuit filed in March of this year, Backpage.com was facilitating sex trafficking using the company's services.

Anti-gun advocates hailed Salesforce's decision as a gamechanger. These groups see companies like Salesforce able to use their market share to force companies to restrict what they can and can't sale.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade group, sees what Salesforce is doing as “corporate-policy virtue signaling” and said that it is going to have a chilling effect on the industry.

Camping World Holdings did not return AmmoLand's request for comment by the time of this writing.


About John Crump

John Crump Headshot blue

John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot-News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement, including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or www.crumpy.com.

  • 121 thoughts on “Camping World is the Latest Victim of SaleForce’s Social Justice Extortion

    1. Reactions;
      1/ all affected companies should, as a group, sue SalesForce
      2/ all affected business should collectively create another platform to serve their needs, nobody yet has a monopoly on computer software

      The actions of SalesForce are reprehensible, they don’t represent social justice.
      Simply wrong

    2. Hopefully more corporations like Salesforce have the courage to “be the change you want to see in the world”. Thats the only say to change what our dysfunctional government doesn’t have the will or courage to fix.

      1. Several large national banks, the Governor of NY State, and now this software company are interfering with lawful commerce of firearms.

        Will Salesforce also dictate to the alcoholic beverage industry? What about the automotive industry, so many people using motor vehicles to harm and kill when DUI DWI.

      2. Hey, thanks for trolling by. Nice to see you advocate the suppression not only of individual freedom and liberty with specific protections in the Constitution, but also a company trying to stop legal transactions (while that same company provides support for illegal transactions). Yep, you’ve got this whole freedom and liberty thing all figured out.

        1. What puzzles me is that you speak about having the whole freedom and liberty thing figured out as you are bitching about this man exercising his freedom and liberties. It is his company and he can decide who he does and does wish to do business with. I’m not gonna conduct business with drug dealer’s I can decide that. His values are different than yours so he’s a bad man and can no longer exercise his rights? I love guns and damn sure intend to keep mine but I love all of My rights and love the fact I can say and do the things I do.

    3. I hope all companies who use SalesForce will switch to another software provider. Oh, but then salesforce will cry foul about how the NRA caused their business to go under.
      Yes, the Bible says don’t shed innocent blood. but if someone kicks in my door at 2 AM, they didn’t come to tell me I won the Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes and in all likelihood, are not innocent.
      As long as we have the second amendment, the first and fourth will continue to be in effect.
      And by the way, if I ever find myself in an active shooter situation, all of you anti- gunners, please raise your hands so I will know not to waste my time and ammo defending you.

    4. Salesforce will go out of business before it bans the AR-15 or our right to keep and bear arms. Time to make it so: Engage.

    5. I can’t wait to see how these libtard idiots try to protect themselves and their families using their software when American soil is one day besieged by our enemies.

    6. I run a good sized corporation. I do not deal with anti-2nd people or companies that are known to me. There are plenty of alternatives out there. Sure, it’s a pain to switch, but you can do it. Consider your values and take a stand. Vote with your wallet.

      1. I like the way you think , Sir, if more people voted with their wallets it would be amazing what we could accomplish in this country, in other words we could right the boat to the right side an put this country back on track, with all of our inalienable rights that have been framed in our constitution.

    7. Evil it’s a strange thing . Those of you who want to take our freedom away , By ending the 2nd amendment are evil . very Limited thinking. All the systems they put in attest to that fact . The fact that our laws do not work, against all evil. Evil is real. Those of us whom Value life need weapons to level the playing field against evil and when there is a level playing field good always wins against evil . always will !

        1. I figured he is wpeaking about both. I’d prefer the hoimegrown libtards to get stupid enough to make a serious attempt at disarming us. That way once that gets sorted out there will be far fewer of them on hand in case the chinkies decide to get crazy.

    8. Under the law, they are no more free to withhold their products and services to any legally-run business than they are to discriminate because of the skin color or religion of a potential customer. Camping World Holdings is harmed by such a policy and therefore can sue Salesforce.

      1. You are correct. It would be different if said company was asked to create a program or change a product in such a way that it violates the religious values of the company owners, then it would become a first amendment issue just like with the “cake bakers” (who won, by the way). But to restrict or deny the use of your product as it is designed and for legal purposes, especially constitutionally protected rights, is criminal. These companies are using their “clout” to manipulate political climate.

      2. I agree and the Democrats may be sorry they managed to get corporations recognized as a “Person” because that seems to me that it opens the door for proof of harm by discrimination.

      1. Does anyone realize that “how little I don’t care”, is a double negative, which reverses it’s meaning?
        Thus; “How little I don’t care” is the same as saying: “How much I do care”. “You can’t have no idea”, is also a double negative, thus reversed in meaning.
        So, this is a less cryptic version of the above post: “You can have an idea of how much I care.”

    9. RESTRICTION OF TRADE. I would think that this is prima ficae evidence of restriction of trade–a state AND federal offense.

    10. Something that several obvious lackwits posting here have failed to consider, and you know who you are, is that without the Second Amendment’s final check on abuse of government power, there would be no First, or Fourth, or Fifth. Bakers would only be able to put approved messages on their cakes, and the safety of LGBT persons, or any other group, would be at the mercy of current government policy. No one would be allowed to own books other than those on an approved list, or have this very discussion without great risk to life and limb, nor would there even be a platform like this one on which to have such a discussion.

      That said, Salesforce, as a privately owned business, does have the right of free association, as do we all. They can choose who they will and will not do business with, for any reason. So, as a consumer, I will simply choose not to feed the beast. From this moment, as long as Saleforce follows this policy, I will not knowingly purchase any good or service through their platform, and I will inform any seller using their software of my decision and the reasons for it whenever I discover them. I suggest that everyone else who loves freedom do the same. And before anyone cries foul, I remind you, I am only exercising my rights.

      1. John,
        Very well put!
        I agree that each person has a Right to associate with others of like mind but, when you’re in the open marketplace, you should support that marketplace and not use your power to disrupt other people’s businesses or hobbies.
        As a consumer, I will also not support Salesforce with my money and will encourage my friends to do likewise.

      2. You’re WRONG! This is not an instance where someone or some business is asking this company (salesforce) to change, or design a program that violates the companies beliefs. The companies that use this software are using it as it is designed to be used and is openly sold to be used for – marketing and sales. In the case of the cake bakers, they were asked to alter or create something, and to participate in a function that violated their constitutional rights. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Ex: A car company, like FORD, cannot refuse to sell me a vehicle, or service my vehicle because I use it to transport ammunition/weapons, but they can refuse to reconfigure that vehicle for that specific purpose if they chose – because 1) there are plenty of other businesses that will do it, 2) it might violate the company’s constitutional religious rights or moral values (if they have any). An auto painting or graphics company can refuse to paint specific logos or other graphics on a vehicle if they so chose, but they can’t refuse to put a basic, non-descript paint job on that vehicle.

        1. Rattlerjake
          You are right, but they do not have the right to sale you their product and then change the rules of use in mid stream. It will cost a lot of money to switch from their product. I would sue them for that cost, plus any lost business during the switch.

      3. If you kept close watch the sporting goods company that complied treated shooters like second class citizens. When the first obumbler shortage began they gouged their customers mercilessly. Companies that play along with this crap are not necessarily the victim. They probably get more than is able to be seen from playing along with this second cousin to soros

      4. @JD, But does Salesforce (and others to follow) have the right to use its position in the market place to diminish Civil Rights? Should a corporation have the same standing as live people? Corporations do not have the same physical, real world needs as live people. Corporations are only creatures of statute.

        1. Corporations are OWNED by people, Wild Bill. Take an Economics 101 class. And whether or not they ‘diminish Civil Rights’ depends upon whose ox is being gored.

          1. Now Clark, think about it. Corporations do not die, do not need to breath air, drink water, have food or housing. Those are too great an advantage over live humans. The fact that people own shares is almost irrelevant. Oh, and the Class is Corporations 101, not Economics 101.

            1. Leave the LEO alone. As a LEO he had to take an IQ test, and prove that he was below average, just to be hired. So, by govt testing, proven to be not the sharpest tool in the shed.

      5. True enough, as far as it goes. But I’ll bet within the language of the cotract there are specifications for HOW this software as service is to be used, and I’ll bet further that those rules simply mandate it to be used for all lawful purposes. In other words, can’t be used to build market share for a whorehouse in Kentucky or Illinois, cause that activity would be illegal. Perhaps in Nevada, where it WOULD be legal, they’d have to let it be used for that type of business.

        If Jack Phillips, of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado, had been using their services and then declined to make that famous cake for the sodomites, SalesForce would have been in violation of their own contract if they had terminated services to Mr. Phillips. And Jack would have been right to sue SalesForce for unlawful termination. And would lkely have won, based on his victory in his legal action.

        And I am quite certain that SalesForce would be in full support of Mr. Phillips’ refusal to provide the requested creative services in support of an activity he cannot support morally……. NOTTT. SalesForce, I’m certain, would be terminating services to a Mr. Phillips type business precisely FOR refusing the requested abominable service.

    11. Poetic justice…remember when Camping World CEO Lamonis requested all Trump supporters stay out of his retail stores??

      1. You’re right, it’s hard to have much sympathy for Camping World. However, the trend of near monopoly technocrats deciding what others can and can’t do and say using “their” tools is not a good trend for civil rights.

      2. Apparently you don’t realize that never happened. And obviously there are a few equally clueless people here who get all their information from social media memes and alt-right websites.

        But the truth remains that it never happened.

        1. Hey Tom, and leftist idiots like you ignore facts.

          Lemonis said (on CNBC) that anyone that agreed with Trump on his views and comments regarding Charlottesville should stay out of his stores.

          I watched the interview and maybe you should too before you spew your BS online.

    12. Sooo….GET RID of Salesforce. If you have a business that uses Salesforce and you are offended (or soon to be victimized) by Salesforce’s opinions, switch software. I agree it’s a major pain in the tucus and costly but can you really afford to comply with the loss of revenue from diminished sales?
      Get a package that is less dependent on llibtard software developers and build your own. Check out http://www.MindXtract.com. Owned by a couple of gun-guys, their software is able to eliminate the need for Salesforce, reduce the number of needed licenses for your ERP and is fully customizable to control YOUR processes, and connect all your IT architecture. There are options out there that will allow you to by-pass the tyrants and their lackies…stand and fight on all fronts.

    13. Unfortunately, this is one of those times that I must support an entities right to make a choice that I do not agree with. You can’t be small government one day, and then expect the government to punish a private business for something you don’t like the next. As far as I am aware, a corporation is free to sell or not sell their product to whom ever they chose. I am a staunch conservative and pro 2nd in every way, and I support the right of this business to choose with whom they do business. I hope that this decision bankrupts a company willing to deprive me of my rights, but they must be free to make that decision.

      1. WRONG! A company or corporation cannot simply refuse to sell their product to anyone. What they can refuse to do is to change that product to fit something that violates their beliefs/rights, as in religious beliefs. Ex: If a car is on a car lot for sale to the public, that dealer cannot refuse to sell it to a guy wearing a Trump MAGA hat; but if that Trump supporter wants to have the car company design a MAGA edition car, they are certainly within their right to do so.

      2. Not quite that simple.

        If Coca Cola were to suddenly decide that no one who owns guns can buy and drink their products, they’d be in the wrong. A nightclub that refuses to allow any sodomites to enter and patronise their establishment, or, for that matter, a starbux, would be in the wrong. Now, if two sodomites asked to charter the facility to have their faux ceremony celebrating their relationship, the nightclub COULD decline. In the same way a nightclub specifically catering TO the sodomite crowd could not deny access to a married hetero couple for an evening’s passing the time but for hosting that hetero couple’s wedding, they COULD decline. . We DO have the freedom of association with whomever we choose. And a business can exercise this as well.
        In no way can this software as service company decline service to an entity which is engaged in the lawful commerce of a class of items which our Constitutoin GUARANTEES we may have, own, buy, sell, use. ANy more than they could deny service to an entity that Commerce in a class of goods the ownership and use of which is protected by our COnstitution cannot be a valid basis for denial of service. Particularly in light of the fact that class of goods is available to all law abiding people of age to purchase theproduct. I’ll wager their service contracts stipulate that all classes of lawful commerce can make use of their products. To now deny service because they don’t like some of the goods in commerce is to breach their own contract. I’ll bet their contract terms provie for automatic renewal, just like our car insurance, cell ohone contracts, etc.

      3. You are right, but they do not have the right to sale you their product and then change the rules of use in mid stream. It will cost a lot of money to switch from their product. I would sue them for that cost, plus any lost business during the switch.

        1. They are not changing the rules mid stream. They have notified the contract holder that upon expiration of the contract, they will be changing terms. A contract is a two way street. Either party may choose to sign or not sign based on those terms. Honestly this could have happened with no change to the terms whatsoever. Salesforce could have simply refused to renew the contract for no reason at all. Once again, I hope the decision bankrupts this corporation, but those who think that it actually will are apparently not familiar with the corporation in question. Salesforce holds a majority market share on the CRM and business software market. I wholeheartedly disagree with this policy, but I also wholeheartedly support and will defend the companies right to make it. Asking or expecting the government to intervene in the policy making of a private corporation is against the ideals that we constitutionalists hold dear.

    14. Time for these businesses to get another Software Company to handle their CRM needs and let the management and employee’s from Salesforce go broke and eat out of trash cans or get in line at a soup kitchen.

    15. Screw Marc Benioff and his company, Just another wannabee Michael Bloomburg . Another example of how the not so great states of California and New York want to tell the rest of this country how to take care of business, but cannot take care of their own shit holes and people.

    16. Lol at all the Boomercon cucks bleating muh fwee mawket. Today it is Salesforce, tomorrow it will be Microsoft and after that Amazon and then Goolag. At the end of the day when guns are de-facto totally banned by corporate fiat. Gun owner? No auto loan, home loan, fired from your job, etc. Boomer cucks will still be bleating muh private corporashun.

      Fascism is fine, as long as it is done by muh private corporashuns. Goolag and Fakebook should be regulated as utilities. That will not happen as long as ‘muh constitution’ Boomercucks are pushing daisies.

      1. The technocrats aspire, in every way, to have the same level control over the western world that the Chinese government now has over it’s subjects.

    17. How about banning Democrats since they started a racist civil war. Oh wait, they WANT democrats so this company endorses racism and slavery. Disarm the citizens so they can bring slavery back? Sounds like that is what the plan is.

    18. It will be a business decision for Camping World, is it more costly to quit selling AR-15s (and whetever other products a third party source deems unworthy), or replace the corporate software? I hope that Salesforce.com software will soon be powering Dick’s Sporting Goods and not much else.

    19. I think companies got along just fine before these communist companies came along to tell them what they need or what ever they are supposed to do. Why would you want to do business with a communist company

    20. I know of quite a few companies who quit using Salesforce software. I even helped some change to a better system too. It isn’t all that they claim it is. There are better software packages out there that work better than SF does. Way too expensive for what it does.

    21. Hmm, there are people here who feel Salesforce should be able to tell a retailer to stop selling a certain product or they can’t use their software if they don’t comply? Makes one wonder what else or who else they could apply that select discrimination too? How about companies that sell Civil War books, books that have religious content or just books they deem offensive etc.? Sound familiar when the Nazis burned books in 1933, targeted books for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism.
      Maybe they could decide to discriminate against a political party, clothing manufacturer, car maker etc. that they don’t agree with and then extend that discrimination to companies that support the political party they don’t agree with either, the possibilities for discrimination are endless?
      Remember if you allow this company to discriminate, others will too and you’ll have no room to complain.

      1. Replying to “Get Out”, good point, I remember about all those people whom were killed by books, totally fair comparison.

        1. Ahhh…sarcasm…you are an idiot…soak in the of ignorance…you are merely sheep being led to slaughter…keep your head down, be popular by letting your stupid friend think for you…drink the Kool Aid….

        2. Perhaps you can remember that we live in a country where supposedly any kind of discrimination is frowned upon? Unfortunately you’ve shown yourself to support discrimination though, who or what else would you like to discriminate against tomorrow? Maybe you can bring yourself to also remember that discrimination of these books later led to the discrimination and murder of people the Nazis deemed inferior too.

        3. Learn hasn’t learned anything, he’s just a muppet with someone’s hand up his ass controlling his actions and words, I can’t say thoughts because he obviously does have any. He can regurgitate words provided by his handler. Learn apparently never heard/read the line “the pen is mightier than the sword”. And never learned about past and current governments controlling media sources, content, the Internet, and, yes, books, destroying books, blacklisting books, etc., and what these people do to repress it’s subjects. Yes, imprisonment and death can be part of that.

          Apparently not only are the Muppets on TV and in the movies, but now appear on this site, too, but not for the same reason, and not nearly as amusing. This muppet should be aware, and probably is – no, I take that back, he lacks awareness as a muppet – this site does not advocate for his totalitarian beliefs, but still allows him to post what his handler makes him post, unlike many of the companies muppet subscribes to.

    22. Salesforce is free to not sell it’s products to these companies. These companies are free to take their business elsewhere. That’s the great thing about our market. There is no legal issue lurking in the dark here. This isn’t’ (even remotely) extortion. And it would be hard to argue that anyone on this board has the standing to file a suit unless you can demonstrate how this has hurt your ability to purchase an AR. (There are plenty of other places to buy them online.)

      Camping World gets to decide what’s most important to them – the best software products to sell the other 99.9% of their inventory or the sales of a controversial class of products through a (presumably) lesser product

      And to the gentlemen who quoted the gospel of Luke… The 2nd half of that quote is worth including. That part about “Two swords being enough…” I don’t know about you, but I have enough ‘swords’ that many never make it as far as the range…

      He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

      — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV

      It’s up to them. Not us.

      1. Actually there is an issue. If someone can be punished for refusing to make a cake for a same sex wedding then Salesforce can be sued for refusing service to someone simply because they don’t like a legal product being sold by that customer. And Salesforce can be punished for causing harm to a business since it imposed a prohibition after the customer invested large amounts of money to implement their software.

        1. The material difference is that the customer doesn’t own the software. They are ‘subscribers’ to it for a period of time they chose. It appears from the article that Salesforce isn’t changing their policies during the subscription period, but rather changing the terms for a future renewal of the customer. If the client held ownership of the software and ran it on their networks, I agree – it would be difficult to make this change. But I expect that Salesforce controls the servers and the supporting network infrastructure. That makes it “Salesforce’s’ system, that Camping World is entitled to use for the term that they subscribed to. Likely without survival rights.

          And with respect to the ever-popular “wedding cake” defense – remember that most Americans have the right to protection from discrimination on the basis of race, age, military service, disability, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. It’s on that statute that the wedding cake bakers were held to a different standard. They were discriminating against the consumer of the cake on the basis of sexual orientation. I don’t see how the good being sold here (Be it a gun or a stick of butter) has protection on the same dimension.

          1. It’s highly unlikely that Salesforce hosts the servers for a company the size of Camping World. If there is a basis for lawsuit it will probably focus around the class of organizations given less than a year notice that they will be unable to renew their ongoing contract.

            1. Camping world Market Cap – $952 Million NYSE: CWH
              Salesforce Market Cap – $115 Billion. NYSE: CRM

              I promise you with 100% certainty: Salesforce is absolutely running the servers for Campaign world (and all other commerce site companies. That IS their business model)

          2. Actually you are completely WRONG! It doesn’t matter if the company or individual subscribes to the software or purchases it to own, salesforce has no right to discriminate based on what the other company “sells” – IF IT IS LEGAL. They can however refuse to maniplulate or change their software to accommodate specific areas that violate salesforce’s company policies or the owner’s beliefs. In other words, salesforce can refuse to tweak the program to help with weapon sales if they choose. By the same token salesforce has the right to refuse a company that indulges in child porn or selling illegal drugs, etc.

            And you claim that “most Americans have the right to protection from discrimination on the basis of race, age, military service, disability, gender, religion, and sexual orientation”, is wrong. The Constitution is a specific limit on GOVERNMENT, not on the people. Businesses and corporations are NOT the people and can be regulated by government and prevented from discriminating as long as that discrimination does NOT violate the rights of the business owners. The cake bakers were well within their right to refuse service – WHY? Because they did NOT refuse to sell the “phaggs” a cake, they refused to add immoral images or wording to their product and refused to “participate” in a “phagg” marriage by delivering their product. The bakers are not obligated to change their product for anyone, especially when it violates their first amendment rights. Maybe you should read the 1st amendment again – it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, that means a law cannot be made “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion by FORCING (the baker) to accept an individual’s sexual preference which is a “bogus” right, much like abortion is.

            1. Let’s be careful about misinterpretation of the 1st amendment. It does ABSOLUTELY limit Congress’ ability to make laws….” But it doesn’t mention Camping World, Salesforce, or the AR-15. At least my copy. I know we’re all fans of the Bill of Rights, but most people don’t fully appreciate the scope and applicability from a legal interpretation. (Think of the classic ‘yelling fire in a crowded theatre example.’) .

              If you have some legal precedence you can share here, I’d love the opportunity to look at it. But I wouldn’t want to find myself arguing this case myself. This is a lot of smoke with no fire. This is going to go down only one of two ways.

              1. Camping world no longer sells those particular products on the Salesforce platform but leaves the other 99.9% of their inventory up.

              2. Camping world decides their values are more important than the ease of stay on Salesforce and moves onto Oracle or SAP.

              Either is fine. Either is a business decision. This is NOT a constitutional crisis.

              At this point, we’re all just making ammoland rich by letting them serve ads to you around this all smoke, no fire situation that we’re all getting our panties in a bunch over.

            2. Charles, no, you are “allowed” to yell “fire” in a theater. Your meme isn’t reality. Now, if harm to others occurs by your actions or words, then you will be held accountable and if criminally wrong, possible criminal charges will be made.

              Your right, it isn’t a “constitutional crisis”, since there is no crisis. However, that does not make what they are doing ethical or moral or right. They may be legally be able to get away with it, but that still does not make it right. Since you believe all companies have the right not to sell products and services to everyone, what if all companies decided, for whatever reason, they would not sell you electricity, oil, gas, and food? Would you still still believe it to be acceptable and legally justified? At what point would it be “wrong” and not legally justifiable in your opinion?

            3. @Heed the Call-up I think your point about ensuring that Charles can buy electricity and water is exactly the case he is making. And why the boogeyman of “Socialization” remains the silent hand in our society.

      2. So… what you’re saying is that a baker can refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake because it goes against his beliefs, and take his argument to the Supreme Court. But if a founder of a company decides that another business’s actions go against his beliefs, like selling guns involved in mass murders that no one ever hunts with except killing people, then THAT’S just awful and wrong. Yes, I can see the hypocrisy and contradiction in that. But you do you. Idiot that you are.

        1. @Ian, not to nit pick your comment to harshly but you may not be aware that literally millions of these guns are used in hunting as well as numerous organized shooting sports. To imply that they are only used in criminal acts is incorrect. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were unaware of that rather than intentionally attempting to mislead.

          1. @AMIII, I would like to nit pick the paid agitprop’s comment, but there is such a mix of issues that the entirety is a non sequitur. And I could not get beyond, ” … I can see the hypocrisy and contradiction in that.” to even wonder what he meant by ” But you do you.”

        2. First of all adding completely fabricated lies to your question proves you have no concept of constitutionality! 1) It has NOTHING to do with another business’ actions when those actions are 100% legal! 2) “selling guns involved in mass murders that no one ever hunts with except killing people” has absolutely no basis in fact! You’re claiming that “ALL” guns (because of your lack of specificity) are involved in mass murders, and that no one ever hunts with (any guns – lack of specificity), and that “all” guns are only for killing people. You’re nothing but a typical lying leftist moron who cannot use facts to prove your point because there are no facts that fit your narrative! 3) Name one gun law, just one, that would have prevented ANY “mass” shooting! If you actually had any ability to understand facts and the truth, then you would know that nearly ALL murders are done by people who are already in violation of numerous federal/state laws. And what you NEVER take into consideration is that only “law-abiding” citizens obey laws, and “law-abiding” citizens are RARELY involved in criminal use of firearms! Funny how Shitcago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and yet has the HIGHEST gun crime, but you asshat leftists don’t get simple statistical facts!

          I’m still waiting to hear of that gun law that would have prevented any mass shooting!

        3. Religion and personal preference are not comparable, one is protected by law, the other is not. The issue wasn’t selling a cake, they could have bought a cake at any time. The plaintiffs wanted the baker to decorate the cake in a particular way, that’s what he refused to do. He’s a baker, not an indentured servant.

        4. Jack Phillips had NO PROBLEM “selling a cake” to the two males in question. In fact, he HAD sold them numerous cakes in the past, KNOWING their sexual proclivitied, and despite his personal opinion of those activities. Where he REFUSED to provide his services was in the creative design and production of a specific design and content set of parameters which the putative pair of sodomite customers requested, and which design parameters ran directly counter to Mr. Phillips’ own strongly held beliefs. In other words, he was fine selling them anything he’d already produced, or would produce that lacked offensive (to him) content. He DID, and rightly so the court said, decline to design and create content that ran counter to his own moral values, based upon long-standing principles.

          Gander Mountain could not refuse to sell a new AR and mags/ammo to a sodomite couple….. but they COULD refuse to custom design/produce one with graphics specifically supporting that pair’s peculiar sexual proclivities. Just as they could decline to produce an airbrushed design on the gunstock of an AR 10 depicting naked dancing underage girls, or boys, or both together.
          I’ll bet big money that SalesForce has in their contracts language that clarifies their services can ONLY be used to promote any lawful commerce or trade. Since sale of AR’s etc is lawful to gander Mountain, that conduct cannot be used as a basis for termination of services. The language in the contract may well also provide soe guarantee of continuing as long as the terms of use are observed. SalesForce may well be in breach of contract for refusing to renew when all TOU are observed. They demand a significant investment to initiate and design their platrofm for the business. To suddenly decide “we gonna take are bawl and go HOME” puts a financial burden on their customer, who now must invest MORE to locate a new platform and get it tailored to their specific needs.

    23. WHO CARES!! I have several ar-15’s and ar-10’s, havent killed anyone and never will unless in self defense.

      1. @whocares I salute you. I wish all Americans were as responsible as you (but sadly have to accept that not all are).

        I will not oppose of you purchasing even more guns. But truth be told, if you asked me for a ride to the gun store, I would personally refuse. I respect your freedom to own as many guns as you want, but in the same way, please respect my freedom to not be participant of it.

        1. So I guess you’ll also respect my decision not to help you and your family when you are confronted by a criminal with a gun (and I happen to be a witness) – you can wait for the police to come and clean up the mess (that is if you’re still alive). I’ll be sure to notify the obituary writer that you bravely pissed your pants while cowering to an armed scumbag who wanted the $5.25 in your pocket.

          But just to be clear, after he shot you and your family, I took the bastard out so that he wouldn’t harm any one else!

          1. I love you too Rattlerjake though if you have guns to protect people and decide not to protect some of them, ain’t that also discrimination?

    24. Hmmm, well, guess what? Salesforce is a Business to Business company (as opposed to Business to Consumer), so they can decide to do or not do business which whomever they please. And if they choose to not be participant on the potential murder of people, they are free to do so (and to evaluate other harmful potential uses of their software later).

      If you are concerned about discrimination on gun sales to consumers, why don’t you go complain with Amazon first? (IMO they do have some bad practices, but this one they got it right).

        1. You address your sins one by one. It’s not like gun manufacturers are not participant in human trafficking operations either.

          1. @ A person, It would appear you are just looking for an argument or someone to respond to you so you can get paid by Bloomy or Soros. Your comments have no rational meaning and is just a way to provoke. Can you spell Troll?

      1. Actually you are completely WRONG and clueless were business law is involved. Salesforce already sold the service to the customer and then after taking their money decided they don’t like a product that customer sells. The customer invested large amounts of money to implement the software. Salesforce’s actions will cause harm to the operation of their customers business therefore Salesforce can and will be held liable for the harm the cause by retroactively imposing new requirements on the customer

        1. Crack Monkey hit the nail on the head. It’s unreasonable to demand that a multi million dollar organization stop using a CRM package on a dime because you just changed your mind about their business model long after you sold them a Software contract. These things don’t happen in a day, so their unreasonable request effectively amounts to a form of extortion.

        2. Almost. Had you read other news feeds, you’d know that Salesforce WILL honor existing contracts until their expiration. They will just not renew them when the time comes. Existing customers have been notified with enough time so they can move their operations to other platforms.

          As a 20k+ employee company, I’m pretty sure Salesforce knows their rights and obligations, and wouldn’t blindly put themselves in a legal position.

    25. This probably violates one or more provisions of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Wonder if AG Barr would be interested?

      1. Salesforce is not a monopoly. By saying they are not going to sell their service to certain business, they are actually making the market MORE competitive as they are now creating a market for software companies to come in and sell CRM software to businesses that do sell guns.

    26. So Benioff can decide whether he wants to sell a cake to a Gay couple? Oops, I mean he can decide to restrict use of his products but a baker with moral issues around gay weddings cannot?

      Hmm. Seems like neither the baker nor Benioff should be allowed to restrict sales. Certainly, if Benioff can restrict against a Constitutional 2nd Amendment right then the baker can as well.

      1. One is denying a service to a consumer based upon their sexual orientation. The other is deciding to not sell their service to a business because of the products that business sells. There a subtle but big difference there.

        1. @Pudx, Yes, the difference is that homosexuality is wrong, and the the civil rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is right.

        2. No, the baker had sold, and was happy to sell again, to those sodomite males in question. He did NOT discriminate on the basis of the sexual orientation of the two males in question. READ the transcripts in the SCOTUS hearing and decision.

          What Mr. Phillips refused to do is to allow the pair of sodomite males (or anyone else, for that matter, he produced a shortlist of types of events for which he would refuse to design and produce custom cakes. Go and read THAT list. It was never about WHO was purchasing, it was ALL about the CONTENT of the artwork requested. And THAT is Mr. Phillip’s sole discretion. He refused to become a slave to anyone else’s desires. He then would become an active participant in the activity of the two male sodomites, an activity which HE holds to be an abomination, and to which he cannot become a party.
          In the case of Gander Mountain, they ONLY sell firearms to those lawfullly entitiled to procure them. They cannot discriminate as to who may purchase from them on any basis other than those prescribed by existing laws.

          Jack Phillips did NOT discriminate “based upon their sexual orientation”. SalesForce IS discriminating on the basis of a class of lawful commerce of which they do not approve. Could SalesForce terminate services to a restaurant selling hallal foods, or refusing to sell them, or kosher foods, or refusing to sell them? Of COURSE not. THAT, in each of the four cases, WOULD be discrimination on an unlawful basis.

      2. You’re lack of knowledge of the baker’s case is showing! The Baker did NOT refuse to sell the phaggots a cake, he refused to decorate it with immoral graphics. HUGE DIFFERENCE!

        Secondly, Benioff had no problem entering into a contract with camping world, especially knowing that they are a multi-million (or billion) dollar company, but now they want to push their anti-gun political agenda on camping world by not renewing the contract is they continue to sell guns, which happens to be a constitutional right. That’s a form of extortion.

    27. “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.” Jeremiah 22:3

      God bless Benioff! He truly now walks in the way of the Lord, whether he knows it or not. Happy to see a CEO who cares about the SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE, GODS GREATEST CREATION.

        1. I pray every day for NRA members, content to not only embrace the unholy works of man, tools designed for murder and nothing else, but who also evangelize for the proliferation of these unholy objects in their already downtrodden communities. Look at Central Africa–it was a shithole, but things got MUCH MUCH WORSE after the Berlin Wall fell and decades of built-up Soviet automatic weapons found their way into the hands of the poor there. If I were George Soros I would actually be GREATFUL for the NRA and its efforts to arm my enemy against itself. Oldest trick in the book and then some: divide, DUMP WEAPONS INTO COMMUNITIES, and watch your enemy CONQUER ITSELF. Land is cheap in communities where school shootings have happened, let alone civil war. WAKE UP

            1. Gibson can’t be an idiot because even an idiot has a brain. Brainless asshat sums him up better!
              It never ceases to amaze me how these leftist morons can actually take scripture so far out of context. Or in his case, use scripture that has nothing to do with his ideology.

          1. To Jed 3…land is cheap where you dumbass Dems rule…show me slums, projects, reckless shootings taking lives daily…with the toughest gun laws in our land….and…there you will find the future America you all wish for…go ahead. Give it a shot..I tell you…Not On My Shift!… talk is cheap, Bub…sit behind you key board and rant…but be ready to put your ass where your mouth is…

          2. embrace the unholy works of man, tools designed for murder and nothing else

            guns are neutral inanimate objects. It is the MAN who takes one into his hands and uses it for good or evil. The murderer for evil, the shepherd type for good. The watchman has his place… in olden times he had his sling and some smooth stones, or perhaps a sword, or the shepherd’s rod. His work was to protect his sheep. The man of evil intent, armed with the same tools, came in to steal,kill, destroy.

            Is the pile of smooth stones and sling evil or good here? How about the sword? Or the shepherd’s rod?

            Evil or good do NOT reside in the inanimate object, but in the heart of the MAN who takes it into his hand. Otherwise we who own guns or swords or rocks would have to learn how to determine whether the particular rock/sword/rod/gun we happen to have acquired was of evil or good nature.

            If you know of anyone “dumping weapons into communities”, as you describe, why are you wasting your time pecking on plastic squares on THIS site You should be reporting what you know to the FBI and/or local LE to end the ilegal traffic in arms.

            news flash? The NRA are NOT ‘:arming yuor enemy against itself”.

            What have you been smoking, or ingesting, to make you rail on witj such remarkable nonsense? Put down your pipe and pick your bible. You will be dispelled of your insane ramblings.

        2. I think you meant to say: Esu Jimmanuel the Christed One. Christ, or Kristos in the ancient Greek, is not a name, but a state of existence. I know, that is not what you were taught in whatever religion you are a part of. That error is their failure, not mine.

      1. Fifty women and girls have sued the software firm Salesforce for designing tools that helped traffickers sell them for sex on the classified ad site Backpage.com. It seems Salesforce has no issue trying to tell its customer companies what they can and can not sell when it comes to legal guns, but they had no issue profiting from sex trafficking by creating customized data tools for online sex provider Backpage.
        Did you not see this? What a hypocrite!

        1. Revolting! A software company that designed software to sell children for sex over the Internet. Backpage is an Organized Crime Syndicate that spread into 97 countries, 943 locations and 17 different languages thanks to Salesforce. They have been parked in bed with known criminals in the slavery business which is as seedy, sneaky and sadistic as it gets. Google “Backpage murders”. Read the 93 count indictment on Backpage (You can Google it) under “victims” to find out about the deaths Sales Force facilitated while partnered with the most notorious human trafficking organized crime syndicate in the history of the world. Now they view themselves as some kind of government over second amendment rights? Revolting!

      2. Well……… Actuallyif these companies have used this software for years and were scaling AR, or for that matter anything else, and the company expended funding for implementing the software, treanning the sales people, then I could see a case for the client to sue the software company for damages to them. Plus could sue them for time expense to re implement a new software, along with legal fees.

        This really is not just a business decision but extortion I would think.

      3. Luke 26:32
        “Sell the cloak…”. Incase you wanted to confirm.

        The gun nor the sword kill innocent people. Don’t be a fool and fall into the Democratic rhetoric. Just try to think for your self, and use just a little reasoning.

      1. Just as it always does. When this flood water all recedes in a few years, I think all the multinational companies will be gone, include all of silicon valley. Not that they will be attacked and destroyed, it’s just that the world is now in the process of growing past all of these childish trappings that humanity seems to insist upon.
        What we are in the middle of now is the birthing of an entirely new system, with no relation to the old system, which is becoming extinct.
        And, as with all birthing, there is pain and much gnashing of teeth. Plus, the old system that is passing away is fighting with all of the evil it can muster to stay relevant. But they will fail, and pass away, just as they have every other time in recorded history.

    28. Wow, all this time I thought extortion was illegal. I guess it must only be illegal for people who stand up against wrong, believe in one’s right to be free, armed, honest, faithful etc.. This sure looks like a premeditated attack on us. I hope some wise and brave old lawyer gets wind of this and SUES THE HECK OUT OF THEM. No shoes, no shirt no service is one thing but someone telling someone else they will actively pursue, threaten and discriminate against someone because of a business is something else.

      Every day there is more and more proof of what’s coming. Arm up, carry on.

    Leave a Comment 121 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *