Yes, her STORY. Her WHOLE story is integral to the success of the club. Knowing her whole story is the only way they can evaluate whether risking their money is worth it. This is why any product that relies on individual branding requires more transparency and care. It’s why pitchmen are fired for saying anything too political, or getting arrested. It needn’t have anything to do with how one feels out the underlying opinion, act, or status. It’s about how it affects the business.
I know what you said. I am saying that your opinion is contradictory and idiotic. If you think the writer can out her in a story that would essentially be national news, why would telling her investors matter at all? More importantly, it does matter as it would likely had an affect on how they conducted their business relationship.
Of course it does. First off, how did Anthony Weiner, or JFK, or FDR, “abuse the electorate’s trust”? Why does JFK need disclose his illness? Second, it matters because, at the very least, that fact will affect sales in one way or another. Do you honestly think that is not the case?
If it affects the business, it’s relevant- period. It doesn’t mean her investors should take it as free reign to tell anyone they want, but it is relevant to their decision making with regard to the business.
She chose to go public when they named a club after her, and sold the club based on her credentials, life story, and persona. Yes, she didn’t want her transitioning to be part of that public image, but it’s not up to her at that point. It’s a material omission because the investors likely would have acted differently if they knew that before they acted.
Someone who believes in “civil rights”, but not freedom of association? And choosing not to invest, or to change your marketing strategy, or whatever business decision you want to make, based on your pitch-person’s appeal has nothing to do with civil rights. Additionally, civil rights are guaranteed by government, not individuals.
Depends on the context. If being gay will affect the business positively or negatively, then it’s not irrelevant. For example, don’t you think people who invested time and money in Ted Haggard would have wanted to know he is (allegedly) homosexual?
Why? Why is it wrong for an individual to discriminate against minorities in an absolute sense? Let’s just put aside the point that the right to know in this context is distinct from the desire and ability to act on that information. The point you are making sounds nice and egalitarian, but it’s naive and completely unfair to stakeholders. Can a person not base their decision on whom to date on race or religion? Can I decline to see Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise movies because their religious views and behavior bother me? Can I decline to hire an ugly guy to sell my beauty products? It’s one thing to not hire a cashier because she wears a burqa, but it’s perfectly understandable to not hire her to be on the cover of your Kosher cookbook you are selling in Tel Aviv.
That’s the issue in a nutshell. You are conflating multiple issues, namely: government needing to protect minorities, employment discrimination, and general freedom to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. The latter applies here mostly because these guys are investing in this person because they believe story is marketable. If she has something in her past that might affect marketability, regardless of what it is, they have a right to know. Even if that means that allows them to act on their bigotry.