Sorry for the repost, f'ed up formatting and I cant figure out how to edit my post:
Obviously not going to change your mind, but from my perspective:
> Oh? They couldn't boycott NC themselves?
Who are "themselves"? Obviously, as an entity you mean Amazon... but what exactly do you expect them to do? Amazon would have to go to North Carolina and find constituents to "boycott" NC. These boycotters are not going to do this for Amazon out of the kindness of their hearts, so they would have to pay. Why should Amazon have to pay for that? Why would they even want to get involved? Thats what these partners are supposed to do. And without this fire under their a$$, it would have never happened.
> 'I'm not going to let you sell my stuff because your state did something bad sorry it hurts you, by the way, I don't really want to get hurt myself, so I'm going to keep selling all day long and continue making money while you don't.'
Yes. This is business. If theres a thorn in your side, you remove it. You're not going to miss the thorn. Also, if you leave the thorn there, its going to get much, much worse. On top of that, undoubtedly its going to increase costs and there will be loss of business for Amazon. They are not going to be able to come out of this unscathed.
> If they wanted to do the right thing, they'd stop selling in NC completely, but that would cost them money, far easier to use the little pawns in a bad economy to do your bidding.
Unfortunately, this is how things work. Personally, I wouldn't want it any other way. If Amazon doesn't do this, then we are looking at the beginning of paying local taxes for online purchases. This is the only major draw for the consumer, because its a bit riskier, especially for larger purchases (tougher to return).
> Theres a word for this sort of treatment ...
Right. Its called "good business".