Posted on 12/09/2017 5:57:31 AM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX — Calling it a violation of free speech rights, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a 2016 Arizona law that bars state and local governments from doing business with any firm that won't do business with Israel.
The lawsuit filed in federal court contends the law illegally forces business owners to choose between their political beliefs and being able to sell goods and services to government agencies. Attorney Kathleen Brody wants an order to prohibit the state from forcing firms from making that choice.
There was no immediate response from the Attorney General's Office, which will have to defend the law in court.
The law spells out that public agencies cannot enter into contracts with any company unless the deal includes "written certification that the company is not currently engaged in, and agrees for the duration of the contract to not engage in, a boycott of Israel.''
David Gowan, who was House speaker at the time, said he wanted to use the economic strength of the state to undermine the international Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement.
The idea behind the BDS movement is to get people to boycott companies that do business with Israel to pressure that country to change its policies ranging from settlements on the West Bank to claims of apartheid. Among the companies targeted, Gowan said are Boeing and Caterpillar, firms that both have a presence in Arizona.
Gowan called the movement "anti Semitic.'' saying his legislation shows Arizona is supportive of Israel, "its strongest ally in the Middle East.''
What it also is, Brody contends, is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of Mik Jordahl, a Flagstaff attorney who has been doing legal work for the Coconino County Jail District worth more than $18,000 a year.
Jordahl, according to Brody, also is a non-Jewish member of Jewish Voice for Peace which endorses the BDS movement to protest the actions of the Israeli government "including the occupation of Palestinian territories.'' She said he personally boycotts consumer goods and services provided by businesses supporting the occupation.
He signed the certification the first time last year on behalf of his law firm, Brody said, but made it clear that reflected only the activities of his business and not his personal beliefs. But when asked to sign again earlier this year, Jordahl balked.
Brody said Jordahl wants to extend his personal boycott to his firm's consumer choices. For example, she said, he would refuse to purchase office equipment from Hewlett Packard because that company provides information technology services used by Israeli security at checkpoints throughout the West Bank.
And Jordahl said he's like his firm to be able to provide support, including help, to Jewish Voice for Peace and other boycott participants.
"The certification requirement chills individual express and association,'' Brody told the court.
"The politically motivated boycott of consumer goods and services offered by companies operating in Israel, and/or Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, is speech and expressive activity related to a matter of public concern,'' she continued. "It is therefore protected by the First Amendment.''
Brody also said it is legally flawed because it is one-sided.
She said the law financially penalizes firms that boycott companies that do business with Israel. But it allows contractors to participate in other boycotts, including those that take the reverse position.
Not everyone was in favor of the legislation. It was approved by the House on a 46-14 vote and by the Senate on a 23-6 margin.
Among those expressing opposition was Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, who said the measure was built on the flawed assumption that all Israelis and all Jews support that country's current policies. But being an "active, free-market democracy,'' he said people thinking different ways.
Farley specifically cited Jewish Voice for Peace which has a mission of seeking an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
"It's ironic that we are putting together the power of the state to coerce a business to not do business with someone they may want to do business with because we've decided politically that it's not something we think is politically correct,'' he said. "And we do this in the guise of a democracy defending another democracy.''
The 2016 vote wasn't the first time the Arizona Legislature has waded into Middle East politics.
In 2014 the House passed a resolution on a voice vote going on record as saying the entire West Bank belongs to Israel and that the Jews who have settled there since the 1967 war "reside there legitimately.''
It specifically referred to the area by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria, saying possession was granted to Israel "through the oldest recorded deed, as recorded in the Old Testament.'' And it said the "claim and presence'' of Jewish people in Israel, including the West Bank, has "remained constant throughout the past 4,000 years of history.''
The ACLU, a wretched hive of scum and villainy headquartered in Mos Eisley.
Like not selling a wedding cake ?
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
bttt
...stopped clock...
We need an organization called ACLU Watch. The ACLU for far too long has perverted law by insanely generalizing and perversely misinterpreting the first amendment.
Wait!?!?
Now the ACLU is saying its OK for a company to refuse to do business on religious/political grounds?
Wedding Cake?
Flowers?
Photography?
Bed n’ Breakfast?
Wedding Chapel?
And what was the ACLU’s position on the Fairness Doctrine which directly limited free political speech? I can take a guess.
Lawyers..... Bottom feeding nimrods....
You could construe the law as anti-racist legislation given the fact that Israel is the land of the Jews. I don’t remember the ACLU bring against laws that forced Lester Maddox to sell fried chicken to everyone.
It’s a win win either way.
If the ACLU loses the status quo is maintained and the government can state who it will do business with under what conditions - including brring those who boycott Israel.
If the ACLU wins and the government cannot set restrictions on the moral nature of the businesses bidding for contracts.
Also - if the ACLU wins - this is a direct blow to the civil rights law that compels Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes.
Moar winning.
Taxpayer funded abortions for everybody, universal health care, decriminalized marijuana - you would think the lefties would love Israel.
You gine them to much respect.
I can’t believe they are arguing this. This is like the arguments that were made in support of racism but the ALCU had specifically fought against in the past.
Why are they going racist now?
Didn't those business owners already make that choice?
That was my first thought too. If they win this, people can refuse to do anything by just saying “it’s against my politics”.
Sure, open that Pandora’s box. Sell birth control pills? Against my politics.
It’s ok, because they are rich jews, don’t you know?
The lawsuit filed in federal court contends the law illegally forces business owners to choose between their political beliefs and being able to sell goods and services to government agencies.
Where are they attending to the belief’s of Christian businesses? Oh, forgot. Then also, they defended the Neo-Nazi’s and their petition to march through Skoki, IL, a heavily populated Jewish neighborhood. The ACLU are pure scum.
The Sothern Poverty Law Center Union is lower than the ACLU
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.