All right, we’ve all established that PETA are assholes for willing to pay water bills of destitute Detroit families but conditional on their going vegan, and Salvation Army are assholes for (allegedly) refusing to help gay people. And it’s pretty clear why we would think so: by doing this they would put their political platform above the lives of people. It’s a valid notion, except that whoever notes that does exactly the same. Egalitarianism is a very very good position to hold, but it’s a position; lives are more valuable than it. A wold in which PETA just pays everyone’s water bills is definitely nicer than ours, but ours is still nicer than the one where PETA doesn’t pay anyone’s water bills. Non-discriminatory charity > discriminatory charity > no charity at all. Whatever they do with these bills is not only a strong net positive over doing nothing, but also a strong net positive over what most people and organizations are doing (that notion, of course, doesn’t apply to their “liberation” actions). One may argue that no one is proposing to shut down the whole project, but rather to extend is to everyone – but let’s get real: they may have neither funds not incentives to do so. If the choice is between not paying anyone and paying vegans only, I choose the latter.