Can immorality judgments be predicted by the three core components of the Theory of Dyadic Morality (Schein and Gray, 2015, 2018) negative affect, harm perception and norm violation? And furthermore, are these immorality judgments and their predictive elements sensitive to framing effects and political orientation? We implemented a novel experimental design to empirically test the theoretical predictions of the Theory of Dyadic Morality and further investigated sensitivity towards framing effects as well as the impact of political orientation. Using an online experiment, we investigated how voluntary payments for an online news website are judged regarding their perceived immorality, harm, anger and social norms. To test for framing effects we varied four wordings of a voluntary payment mechanism in a between-subjects four-factorial design: Pay-What-You-Want, Pay-What-You-Can, Pay-What-You-Believe-Is-Fair and Pay-What-It-Is-Worth-To-You. We contribute to the previous literature by providing empirical evidence for Schein and Gray's Theory of Dyadic Morality in the applied setting of voluntary payments and thus link the disciplines of moral psychology and behavioral economics. 614 U.S. Americans were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk and participated in the online experiment. Our results indicate that harm predicts immorality judgments, providing empirical evidence for the theoretical assumptions of the Theory of Dyadic Morality. We further find that the impact of framing effects on own payment behavior, harm, anger, social norm perceptions as well as on immorality judgments in a voluntary payment context is rather low.