Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
California's attorney general blocked state-funded travel to Texas and three other states on Thursday in response to what he considers anti-LGBT rights laws enacted this year.
Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra added Texas, Alabama, South Dakota and Kentucky to the list of places where state employee travel is restricted. Lawmakers passed legislation last year banning non-essential travel to states with laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee are already on the list.
California taxpayers' money "will not be used to let people travel to states who chose to discriminate,"
Now think really, really hard about what might constitute the difference between denying state taxpayer dollars to employees for travel and denying access to the USA to entire groups based on religion.
Now think really, really hard about what might constitute the difference between denying state taxpayer dollars to employees for travel and denying access to the USA to entire groups based on religion.
It is not even a subtle nuance.
The former, which limits travel of U.S. citizens conducting government business within the United States, is far more problematic than the latter which would simply regulate which non-citizens, none of whom have any right to enter America, may or may not be permitted entry.
The former, which limits travel of U.S. citizens conducting government business within the United States, is far more problematic than the latter which would simply regulate which non-citizens, none of whom have any right to enter America, may or may not be permitted entry.
Nope. An employer (public or private) can decide whether to fund business trips or not and the courts have zero say in that. Private "U.S. citizens" are not being restricted from "conducting business", the state is refusing to fund state business travel for it's employees.
Denying people travel access based on religion is prohibited by our constitution. Why the SCOTUS is looking at it right now. And why the Trump administration lawyers are trying to avoid the term "Muslim Travel Ban", despite Trumps best efforts to undermine his own case. LOL
Nice attempt at spin. Trump's ban is being challenged in court, this will never be challenged in court, as it is perfectly legal. I hope you were just hoping to win "debate points" and that was not your best thinking.
Note that first we are talking about "non essential" travel. Meaning no conferences or symposiums, which are basically wastes of taxpayer dollars anyhow and amount to "tourist" travel on the taxpayers dime.
Last edited by shaker281; 06-22-2017 at 11:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
