4 ms·

The article seems pretty clear that it's travel to and contracts with businesses headquartered in those states. It links to an authoritative source [1] which se

• bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  to quote: an ordinance making San Francisco the first city to ban travel to states with repressive anti-LGBT laws OR contract with businesses headquartered there. I don't know, I always see people on HN complaining about poorly written articles and stuff so I figured I could do it as well. At any rate it would require unfamiliarity with the U.S to think that a city could ban travel for citizens to other parts, but it is not clear exactly how travel is banned thus one has to read between the lines and assume - must be travel for government agencies - going off of this particular line "the travel element makes some intuitive sense; you do not want to send city employees, who may be LGBT, to places where their rights or their significant others’ rights can be impinged upon. " Not hard to do for someone that knows anything about the country or has a high degree of proficiency in English, but on the other hand this being the internet there might be people who don't know or have that proficiency and would thereby draw the wrong conclusion. To round off, in the vernacular, sheesh.