I personally disagree with this as a social policy, but a company is well within their right to protest in that manner if they so choose. If a business refuses to do business in a state because their policies intrude onto their company's culture then that is their right not to operate their. If an organization has a culture that they simply cannot operate in an region that is "hostile" then they simply won't operate there.
I personally think it is foolish for them to do that because it is only harming themselves in most cases. Now, if an organization is religiously conservative that may be an exception. In most cases, however, companies that protest that policy seem to have no legitimate reason to be rejecting homosexual rights and doing so, in my opinion, is foolish.
It is within their rights to protest in that manner and that right shouldn't be changed.
Yes, it is acceptable for a private company to decline to do business in a state if that state has policies with which the business disagrees. To insist otherwise would interfere with the business' right to make its own business decision. A business has the right not to do business where it is unprofitable for them. A state public policy could fall anywhere on a continuum from not affecting the business financially to having a direct effect or an indirect effect. A boycott by customers might make it financially costly for a business to do business in a state that had a specific public policy. The business should have the right not to be forced to absorb that cost.
Yes, I agree that if a company does not agree with a states laws then they can chose not to do business in that state. It is ultimately the company's decision on where and when they do business. Granted, they may lose money with these types of tactics, but it a business choice that they have to live with in the long run.
It is acceptable for international and national retaliers and manufactuerers to protest a states's politics, if it is a policy that they believe will be bad for their company. The recent anti- gay bill in Arizona can negativly effect retailers who support it, so they have every right to stop doing business with the state.
I think it's absolutely acceptable for any retailer or manufacturer to refuse to do business in a state that has political views that are unacceptable to them. Any company doing business in a state with an anti-gay bill is going to be labeled as supportive of the bill and suffer for it. I think manufacturers and retailers understand that the anti-gay stand is a losing proposition for them.
Businesses have the right to pursue their business anyway they want, so there's nothing stopping them from refusing to do business in a state where they don't agree with the politics. However, I think it is important for these businesses to realize they are not in control and the government is in place for the people, not them. Not to mention the proposed example was deemed completely unconstitutional anyway.
Regardless of intention, a business should not be able to threaten a state's government. I understand that the inability to do so would limit the freedoms of a business, but there are too many negative possibilities. I don't want to give the extremely rich any more influence on the government than they already have. Fortunately, the businesses in Arizona didn't have malicious intent.