<What changes would you propose?>>> You beat me to this as I was composing the below.
Please consider a policy along the lines of "IO supports organizations whose missions are the betterment of..... bla bla bla and contact us if you want us to consider a no-cost upgrade bla bla bla........ " That is way different than igniting a potential firestorm by advertising support for only ONE agenda. In that approach, no one knows and likely could care less who or which side you choose to provide freebies (even Labradors over Papillons.) Doing it that way avoids the inherent problem of causing an issue for (some of) your current and/or potential customers -- Shal's example is right on. It's the in your face advertising that can cause an issue to groups/among members, etc. Why not do it quietly and support whoever you care to, without "making a statement" as it were. There's to reason to alienate one group or another from using IO (although indeed, we all agree it is your right.) I hadn't even thought of the international angle. Nevertheless, I could personally care less which side you support -- but if you choose no revision -- it's not a reason for me to personally not use IO.
<<<And it's an equivalency that no one is making but you. >>>
J, I don't believe so. See replies (justifications) implying why the policy as-is is OK, based on "what other companies do" and implying that they (who do not advertising such in their online stores) is justification for IO advertising in favor of one or the other agenda -- which is the root issue that Mark knows has resulted in a real (not a future imagined) hardship to a group.) My factious example was to spotlight the difference between those two divergent approaches.
So long as Mark can cull the distinction (hope so) - there's no reason to convince anyone else of the distinction between the Political and the Apolitical.
<<<No, it is not "true." >>>
J, Any side who's M.O. is to defeat, stop, enjoin the other -- rather than putting the energy toward a common agenda is divisive, simply by its mission. That, again, is A-political, not political -- it holds true of either side, not inherently left or right. Either side can have a partial agenda that makes sense for (and to) the populous. There are movements who do that (fight for, ID, and develop common ground) but we're not talking about those in this context (on EITHER leaning.).
Hopefully, Mark can cull out the distinction and the statements that are true (about either side,) and are by definition, Apolitical not Political. I don't feel a need to further explain the distinction.