That said, RPG Drive Thru, in my opinion has the right to determine which products, the private company wishes to sell. This is not a Totalitarian Government forcibly removing and burning a viewpoint.....this is the right of a commercial enterprise to decide what products to sell, and how the enterprises wishes to respond to the viewpoints of it’s customer base.
To all...Should RPG Drive Thru be forced to carry a product against their will? How is that freedom?
Since you seem interested in a conversation about the issue, here is my perspective on the theoretical framework.
There is always a divide between the freedom from censorship we have vis-a-vis the state and the actuality that we have in practice. In America, this divide can most often be seen in internet conversations when someone says, "I have a First Amendment Right to do X" and then someone else says, "Well, unless it's the government, it's not the First Amendment," and then it carries on.
I'd like to concentrate on the second part- the practice. One way of looking at this is you can walk up and down the street saying the "F" word, and the government isn't going to punish you. But the reason that most people don't is because of cultural reasons, because they don't want to offend passerbys, they don't want children to overhear them, they don't want their family and employer to think of them as "that guy" and so on.
It's the same with the information we consume. We have the ability to consume media from all sorts of viewpoints, and the government can't restrict that speech. This is the "marketplace of ideas" concept- the best ideas win out, eventually, as we get exposed to them.
...but, what if we don't live in a facsimile of Luis Borges's Library of Babel? What if the majority of media we have access to is mediated by for-profit corporate entities? Oh. So while in theory we can get what we want, in practice the limits will be imposed on us by unaccountable corporations.
Now, if you are of a certain age, you remember that there was a long history of this type of public pressure being brought on corporations. Except ... not in the way we are using it now. The 80s-00s were some of the prime times of the moral majority boycotts in the United States. All sorts of things were done; from changing the P&G Logo (satanic!) and Starbucks (sexy!) to forcing Disney to repudiate certain things w/r/t sexuality. But just as important as the actual boycotts were the constant levels of harassment and abuse leveled at corporations, and the constant community pressure to enforce the status quo.
All of which is to say that there was an enormous amount of pressure on corporations and institutions to conform to a certain status quo; that this has changed over the past decade, but many people of an older generation remember when depictions of non-standard sexual orientation were considered forbidden. And this wasn't 30 years ago, either. The use of
private means to enforce an orthodoxy is never a good history, and retreating to the point of saying that this is just private action ignore the realities of life; the government isn't printing the books or disseminating the information, private actors are, and if you force them to hew to a certain standard, you have private enforcement of your standards.
Looping back to your excellent question, no, I don't think any private company should be required to sell a product. On the other hand, I don't want people restricting the flow of information and using private IP-holders to effectively censor it. I am hard-pressed to imagine a case that I would support.
Now, I fully support (as I originally said) including a disclaimer or a full PDF that explains why this is problematic, and I fully support efforts to convince WoTC to donate proceeds to charity. But I am against any efforts to censor information. In the end, it might not be de jure censorship, but it is de facto, and it is wrong whether I disagree with the motives (such as people trying to suppress information about same-sex relationships in the 80s and 90s) or I agree (people trying to suppress racially insensitive material from the past today).
EDIT: If this isn't fully clear, I would analogize it to
Gone With the Wind. That's a terrible movie (IMO). But while I support the inclusion of a disclaimer on the movie and continued conversations about why that movie is so problematic, I would be against any and all efforts to force private companies to remove it so that it could not be seen by anyone.