James' "defense" of the church bothered me. It amounted to, "Don't get too ruffled, guys. LDS, Inc. isn't necessarily being malicious, they're just covering their corporate arse, making sure that their various ventures and entities aren't unnecessarily exposed to litigation as a result of their ecclesiastical policies and practices." This is an extension of the old line people have used for millennia when screwing somebody else over, "Hey, it's not personal, it's just business. You understand." The assumption being that whatever is done in honor of the Almighty Dollar is OK and excusable as long as it was done for purely fiscal reasons without particular malice toward anyone. James seemed to be telling us not to worry, if Mormon LGBT families get run over by a bus, the driver may simply have been wearing a different hat that day. When he explained that the policy changes were simply legal maneuvering probably written by lawyers right out of tort law textbooks and thus completely understandable, the air seemed to just go out of the discussion. There was sort of a collective, "Oh."
I would suggest that a corporation run by robots in white shirts and power ties might act in ways that are perfectly legal and totally sound financially and yet still morally unconscionable. In fact, that might be worse than we originally thought.