19 ms·

> What if the government only awarded contracts to companies who stayed silent on gay marriage, and didn't normalize it in their advertising? But they already

> What if the government only awarded contracts to companies who stayed silent on gay marriage, and didn't normalize it in their advertising? But they already do that, don't they? I mean, not anti gay marriage, but pro diversity. For some reason the UCF bought email lists from some entity, and they believe me to be a small business owner in some US state who shares my first name. I occasionally get emails from them asking me to join their diversity-training in order to become eligible as a supplier. That's pretty old news. The only new thing (and the reason the ACLU cares, I assume) is that it's affecting a view that is currently associated with the left (BDS/anti-semitism/anti-israeli campaigns).

crazygringo 4y ago
You're correct in that the only area in the US where governments choose to award contracts in ways that are unrelated to performance is for diversity purposes. But diversity isn't speech. E.g. if a business is black-owned or female-owned has nothing to do with their political speech/views. And diversity is a unique case, related to protected classes, having to do with past explicit discrimination against these groups, and trying to remedy that to some small extent. In any case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with political expression, and therefore nothing to do with the first amendment. And so no, it has nothing to do with left/right either.
- luckylion 4y ago
  I believe that "diversity is our strength and therefore must be expanded" is speech. If you require companies to fulfill some diversity quota, you're doing so because of that belief. The idea itself is part of the current left's canon, so it certainly is political. It's just something that most here do agree with, so they're fine with it.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    No, you're mixing things up. Yes that quote is political speech/belief. But it's the expression of the legislature on policy, that is democratically determined, whether you agree with it or not. It's not the speech of minority-owned businesses. Awarding contracts to take diversity into account is based on who the businesses are owned by, *not* what those businesses say/believe. You can disagree with awarding contracts based on diversity all you want, just don't claim that doing so has anything to do with free speech or the first amendment, because that's incorrect.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      And as far as I understand the policies, you don't need to be minority-owned. You need to have some diversity quota filled and/or promise to get it filled. Like a pledge to do something. > Yes that quote is political speech/belief. But it's the expression of the legislature on policy, that is democratically determined, whether you agree with it or not. The same applies to this case, where the democratically elected legislature says you don't get contracts if you say "don't buy from Jews" and passes laws to that effect.
      - crazygringo 4y ago
        I'm sorry but you're continuing to spread pure misinformation, in case anybody else sees this. Whether it's minority ownership or affirmative action in its workforce is irrelevant. Employment policy is policy around protected classes, it's not speech. While your case of 'you don't get contracts if you say "don't buy from Jews"' makes contracts dependent upon speech. Which contradicts the first amendment. The distinction is not complicated here. You might not like it, but the distinction exists.

crazygringo 4y ago

You're correct in that the only area in the US where governments choose to award contracts in ways that are unrelated to performance is for diversity purposes. But diversity isn't speech. E.g. if a business is black-owned or female-owned has nothing to do with their political speech/views. And diversity is a unique case, related to protected classes, having to do with past explicit discrimination against these groups, and trying to remedy that to some small extent. In any case, it has nothing whatsoever to do with political expression, and therefore nothing to do with the first amendment. And so no, it has nothing to do with left/right either.

luckylion 4y ago
I believe that "diversity is our strength and therefore must be expanded" is speech. If you require companies to fulfill some diversity quota, you're doing so because of that belief. The idea itself is part of the current left's canon, so it certainly is political. It's just something that most here do agree with, so they're fine with it.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  No, you're mixing things up. Yes that quote is political speech/belief. But it's the expression of the legislature on policy, that is democratically determined, whether you agree with it or not. It's not the speech of minority-owned businesses. Awarding contracts to take diversity into account is based on who the businesses are owned by, *not* what those businesses say/believe. You can disagree with awarding contracts based on diversity all you want, just don't claim that doing so has anything to do with free speech or the first amendment, because that's incorrect.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    And as far as I understand the policies, you don't need to be minority-owned. You need to have some diversity quota filled and/or promise to get it filled. Like a pledge to do something. > Yes that quote is political speech/belief. But it's the expression of the legislature on policy, that is democratically determined, whether you agree with it or not. The same applies to this case, where the democratically elected legislature says you don't get contracts if you say "don't buy from Jews" and passes laws to that effect.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      I'm sorry but you're continuing to spread pure misinformation, in case anybody else sees this. Whether it's minority ownership or affirmative action in its workforce is irrelevant. Employment policy is policy around protected classes, it's not speech. While your case of 'you don't get contracts if you say "don't buy from Jews"' makes contracts dependent upon speech. Which contradicts the first amendment. The distinction is not complicated here. You might not like it, but the distinction exists.