Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NCLaw441
We may disagree with private policies that restrict, say, gun ownership by hiring policies or free speech by editorial positions, but these don't rise to the level of constitutional violations since no government action is taken.

What about in a situation where the gov't gives preferential treatment to one company, and detrimental treatment to others? And this is the case for ALL large industries, to some degree or another.

Isn't this essentially the same thing as the gov't taking action to deprive civil Rights, especially when the company that benefits is opposed to the Right of Free men?

Consider the airline industry, for instance. If United Airlines announced a policy that would allow all passengers with CCW "permits" to carry on board, do you really think the feds would allow that to happen? No. They would not let United fly. But some folks here are still under the illusion that our airlines are "privately owned".

85 posted on 07/23/2004 8:03:19 PM PDT by Mulder (All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.-- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Mulder

Government cannot give special treatment to one company over another, at least not legally. Business dealings with companies are generally controlled by a bidding process, unless there ARE no competing companies.

Special treatment of industries does occur, and I am generally opposed to it, but it is not unconstitutional. Now, if an industry was given special treatment BECAUSE of treatment that would be unconstitutional if the government did it, that would be illegal, as I see it. Just my opinion.


200 posted on 07/24/2004 10:32:28 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson