Earlier quoted context omitted.
> using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience I don't see it that way at all. Their personal consciences recoiled at providing support for a patent troll and they recoiled at imposing censorship based on the content of a client's messages. They had to reconcile these two opposing attacks of conscience.
Refusing a service to someone you don't like, for whatever reason, is not censorship, so there is no conflict of ethics. The line is less clear when the company is in a position of great power (e.g. Google in search, Apple in smartphones) but it's clear that e.g. restaurant can have a dress code (which is frivolous) and refuse service if you don't comply with that dress code and an insignificant crm business can refu…
This internal desire not to refuse service based on the content of the message came into conflict with their desire not to assist patent trolls. They chose to value the former over the latter.