To be clear, this only limits who the government can do business with ("prohibited contracts with companies that discriminate against the firearm or ammunition industries")
> (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) and Section 2274.003, a governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for the purchase of goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it:
> (1) does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association; and
> (2) will not discriminate during the term of the contract against a firearm entity or firearm trade association.
This is some peak /r/persecutionfetish material right here.
This seems like a violation of Masterpiece v Colorado. In cases where the government cannot compel you to provide service end running around the law by implementing punitive actions with your purse strings ought to be a distinction without a difference. This should be a case where the conservative court is united in striking down overreaching government.
It’s bad when the federal government overreaches their power by using interstate commerce and tax/spend and it ought to be overreach when states do it too.
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.
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.
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.
So corporate campaign contributions are protected by the first amendment, but deciding who you wish to do business with is not unless it's baking cakes for gay people? I'm so very confused.
As per a sibling comment[1], the law only applies to companies that do business with the government. It's not so different from laws that give women/minority owned businesses priority in government contracts.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to get out of this article. The only entities that identifies as being harmed by the new law are... mega-corp banks. I'm supposed to feel sorry for banks now? Excuse me?
Sec. 2274.002. PROVISION REQUIRED IN CONTRACT.
(a) This section applies only to a contract that:
(1) is between a governmental entity and a company
with at least 10 full-time employees; and
(2) has a value of at least $100,000 that is paid
wholly or partly from public funds of the governmental entity.
Not just megacorp banks. In fact, it appears that megacorp banks might be exempt from this:
Sec. 2274.003. CERTAIN CONTRACTS EXEMPTED. (a) A contract
entered into in connection with or relating to the issuance, sale,
or delivery of notes under Subchapter H, Chapter 404, or the
administration of matters related to the notes, including the
investment of note proceeds, is exempt from this chapter if, in the
comptroller's sole discretion, the comptroller determines that
compliance with Section 2274.002 is likely to prevent...
22 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 48.6 ms ] threadKind of hope small states like CA and NY start similar anti-discrimination laws.
> (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) and Section 2274.003, a governmental entity may not enter into a contract with a company for the purchase of goods or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that it:
> (1) does not have a practice, policy, guidance, or directive that discriminates against a firearm entity or firearm trade association; and
> (2) will not discriminate during the term of the contract against a firearm entity or firearm trade association.
The bill is 87(R) SB 19: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/SB00019F...
Sibling is correct that the language is essentially identical to a bill prohibiting contracts with companies that boycott Israel, 85(R) HB 89: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00089F...
This seems like a violation of Masterpiece v Colorado. In cases where the government cannot compel you to provide service end running around the law by implementing punitive actions with your purse strings ought to be a distinction without a difference. This should be a case where the conservative court is united in striking down overreaching government.
It’s bad when the federal government overreaches their power by using interstate commerce and tax/spend and it ought to be overreach when states do it too.
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.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31517762