Louisiana Bans 2 Banks over Second Amendment stance

[emilynghiem]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

 

[Ringel05]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

Here's what I found, pretty sure this will end up in federal court.

The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce. Second, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress and the states concurrent power to regulate commerce. Under this view, state regulation of commerce is invalid only when it is preempted by federal law. Third, it has been suggested that the Clause assumes that Congress and the states each have their own mutually exclusive zones of regulatory power. Under this interpretation, it becomes the job of the courts to determine whether one sovereign has invaded the exclusive regulatory zone of the other. Finally, it has been suggested that the Clause by its own force divests states of the power to regulate commerce in certain ways, but the states and Congress retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in many other ways. This fourth interpretation, a complicated hybrid of two others, turns out to be the approach taken by the Court in its decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause.

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

 

[danielpalos]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

Banks can actually afford to hire attorneys.

There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment, or it would say so in the first clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,” Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. “As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously." ibid

Obviously Schroder doesn’t take the Second Amendment ‘seriously’ at all, given his ignorance of the law and how the Amendment protects the rights it enshrines.

Only government has the capacity to potentially violate citizens’ rights, not private entities such as banks.

The Second Amendment places restrictions only on government regulatory policies, the authority to do so does not extend to private entities; one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

And third world ignorance.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

And third world ignorance.

Not only that, they even hold it as a bad of honor that they'd as ignorant as people who live in mud huts, no electricity and no schooling.

 

[evenflow1969]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

What exactly is their stance on guns?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm more pissed off about the debt bond auction.

You know who the banks are going to sell the bond to after they buy it, right?

 

[Hiryuu]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

Louisiana voted and changed it's own Constitution in 2012, and further strengthened a citizen of the state's "fundamental right" to have access to and bear arms. The state didn't toss the banks for violating the US Constitution, as much as they did for violating Louisiana's Constitution.

 

[evenflow1969]

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

Neither is ok! Bank of America with holding funding for gun makers is bull shit too! No one is in the right on this subject at the moment. Every one is trying to tell every body what to do, completely unamerican! If I am a banker I write loans it is what I do, stay out of the other stuff. Same for chicki fillet and all the others, do what your company does and leave others the hell alone!

 

[Natural Citizen]

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

The NRA is a bigger threat to the Constitution and Individual liberty than any lefty. Know that. lol.

 

[danielpalos]

"I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,” Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. “As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously." ibid

Obviously Schroder doesn’t take the Second Amendment ‘seriously’ at all, given his ignorance of the law and how the Amendment protects the rights it enshrines.

Only government has the capacity to potentially violate citizens’ rights, not private entities such as banks.

The Second Amendment places restrictions only on government regulatory policies, the authority to do so does not extend to private entities; one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Banks, can actually afford to hire attorneys.

 

[danielpalos]

But it's ok for Cuomo in NY to pressure insurers to stop covering the NRA

in what way? determining inputs to costs, is an insurance due diligence factor.

 

[emilynghiem]

"I personally believe the policies of these banks are an infringement on the rights of Louisiana citizens,” Treasurer John Schroder said in a statement. “As a veteran and former member of law enforcement, I take the Second Amendment very seriously." ibid

Obviously Schroder doesn’t take the Second Amendment ‘seriously’ at all, given his ignorance of the law and how the Amendment protects the rights it enshrines.

Only government has the capacity to potentially violate citizens’ rights, not private entities such as banks.

The Second Amendment places restrictions only on government regulatory policies, the authority to do so does not extend to private entities; one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.

RE: one private person or entity cannot ‘violate’ the ‘rights’ of other private persons.
Yeah C_Clayton_Jones
Sure it's only the govt that has the ability to violate rights.

How quickly you and others backtrack on this principle
when it come to private business people deciding whether or not
to provide certain types of birth control, or bake certain messages
on cakes to serve at weddings.

Discrimination is discrimination.
Oh, except when it's someone YOU agree to discriminate against???
???

(See also "Discrimination by Creed,"
by any other name....)

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

 

[Slyhunter]

Wow. Did not know the folks in Louisiana had the guts to do this:
Louisiana Bans Bank of America, Citi from Bond Sale Over Gun Policies

the state's bond commission voted to exclude Citigroup and Bank of America from an upcoming debt sale, due to their policies deemed restrictive of citizens' rights.
I wonder if this counts as mutual discrimination, that their PRIVATE corporate entities have the right to decide what polices or practices to enforce, and so do other entities and institutions have the right to respond likewise. However, state/public/govt institutions usually get in trouble for this because the govt standards require them NOT to discriminate on the basis of creed. The PEOPLE of the state can vote to exclude or include, but the STATE and its institutions, reps, agencies etc. aren't supposed to decide this by the beliefs and biases of the agents vested in charge. The PEOPLE can decide to do that, but maybe not the STATE or its institutions/agencies acting on govt behalf.

It's one thing if the State agencies refuse to comply with some "federal" policy deemed inconsistent with Constitutional principle, protections and enforcement. They can put the Constitution before any law they find to be violating it.

But when it comes to a PRIVATE institution or policy?
The State/Govt is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of CREED which private individuals DO have the right to choose for themselves.

This demonstrates why Greens have been pointing out how CORPORATE entities fall in between, counting as both "individuals with personal rights" and as collective influences or authority that "act similarly to govt" but aren't held to the same standards. So these private groups cannot be punished on the basis of their beliefs, unless it's first established they are committing unlawful discrimination by their "restrictive" policies.

There has to be due process to PROVE what Wrongs are committed BEFORE a person is penalized. The problem is these Corporations are not the same as an individual person, yet claim those rights and protections, while acting as a collective authority or institution with unequal ability to oppress and violate rights of individuals without the same check and balance as govt. Somewhere the corporate abuses have to stop, but making the same mistakes and committing similar abuses back on them, by discriminating against their policies that discriminate against others, seems to make the problem worse not better!

This really is third world corruption.

Really so I guess you feel the same about San Francisco's attempt to blacklist companies that bid on the border wall.

Yep.

There's corruption on both sides, that's why I support Proportional Representation to get rid of the monopoly on power that the two main parties have, get in real politics, real representation, real democracy, real oversight so the people can be in charge of their government.

Then what would be the incentive for the Mid Western States to stay in the union and not vote themselves their own country?

 

[Correll]

An interesting case. Not sure if it is the right thing to do, but nice to see republicans fighting back for a change.