Posted on 04/13/2016 11:52:13 AM PDT by Cyberman
More than 60 businesses including some of Missouri's biggest corporate names joined a coalition opposed to state legislation that would protect businesses objecting on religious grounds to same-sex marriages, the latest sign of a backlash against such proposals across the country.
Agricultural giant Monsanto, prescription drug benefits manager Express Scripts, and pet food maker Nestle Purina are among employers to join the recently formed Missouri Competes, according to gay rights advocacy group PROMO, which released the list just hours before a House committee heard testimony from business, sports and religious groups. Dozens crammed in the Capitol basement for the late-night hearing.
The formation of the coalition comes amid business pushback to legislation in other states protecting those opposed to gay marriage.
Several states and cities have banned travel to Mississippi in response to a law signed by the Republican governor last week to let workers cite religious beliefs to deny services to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
The Missouri Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the Missouri measure, has pointed to Indiana as another example of the business backlash. A public-private tourism group has estimated that Indiana lost $60 million in hotel profits, tax revenues and other economic benefits after Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Pence last year signed religious-objections legislation....
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
These companies should not be allowed to subvert our laws and system of govt. It’s time for it to stop. The hypocrisy of the left is sickening.
These businesses are not subverting our laws. There are merely making stupid corporate decisions. By taking political positions they are pissing off some customers.
Jawohl, Comrade!
Down with the capitalist parasites! Power to the People! Feel the Bern!!
I've been urging everyone to promote confrontation between liberals and Muslims over homosexuality.
Muslims will not back down, and Liberals are afraid to confront them.
Slinky's rules for radicals! Make Liberals live up to their own rules!
We should constantly point out what sort of Hypocrites they are for failing to confront the Muslims. If we can get the two groups fighting each other, we will either get rid of some liberals, or we will get rid of some Muslims, perhaps both.
What would be perfect is if we could get them to annihilate each other.
This entire issue of a left party and a right party revolves around the issue of who will control the government. Remove government power from the equation and it's just a big social club with no real purpose for existing.
Yes, the fight between left and right is over who will wield the power of government.
I’m looking forward to it. A no-lose proposition.
“The states need to pass a law punishing any company doing business in countries where homosexuality is illegal.”
thanks Amendment 10. I have been thinking the flipped life we have in the US these days, but could not cite law saying such. We the people can discriminate against anyone or refuse to associate with anyone , its GOVERNMENT that can’t .
“Every leftist I know says it would be a GOOD thing if Monsanto and Nestle were kept out of state.”
That’s a very good and very overlooked point.
On a related issue, please consider the following BIG problem with federal civil rights laws imo.
First, noting that the Bill of Rights (BoR) was drafted and ratified by the Founding States, not the feds, the states had originally decided the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. The states required only the feds to respect constitutionally enumerated rights.
But when the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances, the states also obligated themselves to respect all the personal rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect. (Note that the federal government has no constitutional authority to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution.)
Regarding 14A, note that the states gave the power to legislatively strengthen all constitutionally enumerated rights to Congress (Section 5). Also note that the voting rights amendments for example, 15, 19, 24 and 26, explicitly give the feds the power to protect these rights.
So whereas the states had originally drafted the 1st Amendment to expressly prohibit Congress from making laws which addressed religious expression and speech, 14A arguably gave Congress the power to make laws related to these issues which reasonably strengthen these rights.
But there is now a problem
Note that the congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment applies only those rights to the states which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added]. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
That being indicated, the problem is that there are many federal civil rights laws which are not based on constitutionally enumerated protections. Race and sex anti-discrimination federal laws that dont deal with the 14th and 19th voting rights amendments, for example, are unconstitutional imo.
To be blunt, the corrupt feds for many decades have been making unconstitutional civil rights laws, probably to win votes from low-information citizens imo, such citizens not understanding that the feds have no constitutional authority to make such laws.
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.