fatcIemenza t1_it7l47s wrote on October 21, 2022 at 2:46 PM

Reply to comment by Comprehensive-Ad3963 in ACLU asks supreme court to overturn Arkansas’ anti-boycott law against Israel | Arkansas by Im__Bruce_Wayne__AMA

You don't see any issue with the government saying "support our politics or face the penalty"? What if a blue state had a law that said every employer had to donate to Black Lives Matter or they'd have to pay a fine?

Bit-Random t1_itb8p3j wrote on October 22, 2022 at 9:05 AM

That’s a false equivalency, though. They’re saying “don’t boycott Israel or don’t work with us”, and not “all businesses in Arkansas must donate to Israel”.

Doomsday31415 t1_it87986 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 5:14 PM

This isn't actually uncommon.

The government decides its own guidelines on which businesses it will give subsidies and other funding to.

For example, California's vehicle MPG standards.

GunpowderLad t1_it8p45o wrote on October 21, 2022 at 7:13 PM

You're just being a troll. You've replied to a bunch of people being obtuse as hell and missing the point entirely.

Doomsday31415 t1_it9e7zl wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:07 PM

A point that apparently hasn't been made, since I've addressed each reply in turn.

[deleted] t1_it9hkl9 wrote on October 21, 2022 at 10:32 PM

[removed]

xSciFix t1_ithy45f wrote on October 23, 2022 at 7:52 PM

MPG standards aren't a political stance in the same way. That's a false equivalency.

No blue state has loyalty to BLM laws.

Doomsday31415 t1_itilj3x wrote on October 23, 2022 at 10:23 PM

As far as the constitution is concerned, both fall squarely under the state's authority to regulate how businesses do business. There may be concerns about the state regulating international commerce, but that has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.

Also, the BLM example mentioned is a red herring. Keeping your doors open to a certain group is not "donating" to them.