3 ms·

I don't see how they're related. Why would free speech guarantee your rights to government contracts? Masterpiece v Colorado was about Colorado's anti-discrimin

by Cpoll 4y ago

I don't see how they're related. Why would free speech guarantee your rights to government contracts? Masterpiece v Colorado was about Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, this is about additional stipulations before you can win a state government contract in Texas.

klyrs 4y ago
If I bid on a contract to make a website for the Texas government, I'd be compelled to make a website for a gun manufacturer despite my (hypothetical) firmly-held religious belief that guns are evil. Here, Texas is allowed to discriminate against (say) Quakers for their religious beliefs. The analogy to the Gay Cakes case is plain.
Spivak 4y ago
And this is a Texas anti-discrimination law. The sibling comment (klyrs) gets half of it, the other half is why it's not different because it's spending. To me, governments (or more generally any entity with the power to levy taxes) are in a situation where spending policies effectively create law, which is different from when an individual uses their right to voluntary association. For example, the government is not allowed to prevent women from voting. But with the tax/spend loophole if you treat governments the same as individuals it would be perfectly legal to levy a tax of 20% of everyone's income and then give it back to women on the condition they not vote and men on the condition that they not do anything to aid a woman who wants to vote. And it's no different when the right hand levies the tax and the left hand spends the money, the money the federal government gives to states (with conditions obviously) for highway maintenance follows this pattern. This was the also the central point of contention in the ACA supreme court case with regards to Medicare, states argued (to me rightfully) that the right to refuse the federal money (that came with conditions) was a farce because the federal government was still going to take the state's money they would have used to implement their own alternative that they effectively couldn't refuse it. And so because of this the general rule ought to be that if the government would not be allowed to pass a law mandating the desired effect of the spending policy (in this case that businesses would not refuse service to the firearms industry) that they shouldn't be allowed to have the spending policy.

by Cpoll 4y ago

klyrs 4y ago

If I bid on a contract to make a website for the Texas government, I'd be compelled to make a website for a gun manufacturer despite my (hypothetical) firmly-held religious belief that guns are evil. Here, Texas is allowed to discriminate against (say) Quakers for their religious beliefs. The analogy to the Gay Cakes case is plain.

Spivak 4y ago

And this is a Texas anti-discrimination law. The sibling comment (klyrs) gets half of it, the other half is why it's not different because it's spending. To me, governments (or more generally any entity with the power to levy taxes) are in a situation where spending policies effectively create law, which is different from when an individual uses their right to voluntary association. For example, the government is not allowed to prevent women from voting. But with the tax/spend loophole if you treat governments the same as individuals it would be perfectly legal to levy a tax of 20% of everyone's income and then give it back to women on the condition they not vote and men on the condition that they not do anything to aid a woman who wants to vote. And it's no different when the right hand levies the tax and the left hand spends the money, the money the federal government gives to states (with conditions obviously) for highway maintenance follows this pattern. This was the also the central point of contention in the ACA supreme court case with regards to Medicare, states argued (to me rightfully) that the right to refuse the federal money (that came with conditions) was a farce because the federal government was still going to take the state's money they would have used to implement their own alternative that they effectively couldn't refuse it. And so because of this the general rule ought to be that if the government would not be allowed to pass a law mandating the desired effect of the spending policy (in this case that businesses would not refuse service to the firearms industry) that they shouldn't be allowed to have the spending policy.