Texas teacher fired for not signing pledge to refuse to boycott Israel

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
52,376
38,186
Ohio
#81
Right. All foreign policy is catered around what is in the best interests of another nation. It's insane. Literally the fate of the globe is wrapped up in what is best for Israel.

Anyone who wants to be President has to pledge allegiance to another nation. Just crazy.

There is also a growing divide among Jews with so many being more concerned with policy on Israel than Jews here.

Trump is a big wedge. Obviously NOT regarded as a friend to Jews in the US, but he is to Israel.
I just read an oped in Haaretz whining about Trump's decision (if he doesn't change his mind) to withdraw from Syria, framing it as a betrayal of Israel:

The U.S. President is weak. He is running away, with America’s tail between its legs. He is abandoning Israel, betraying the Kurds and sticking a knife in the back of Bashar Assad’s opponents.
Despite the blow to its national security, Israel will bow to Trump’s Syria withdrawal

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, especially with the Turks threatening the Kurds and who knows what Iran will do.
 
Likes: The Man

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
52,376
38,186
Ohio
#82
Fair enough. The person involved is an independent contractor whose contract has not been renewed because she refuses to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. I'm not sure that's a material difference, though. How do you see it? Is the means of employment material here? Is her status as a contractor (as opposed to a direct employee) relevant? I don't see how it is. She's still an individual citizens of the US and the employer is still a state that must comply with the particulars of the US Constitution. The fact that she gets her employment through a contract rather than...well...through a contract...doesn't change the legality of Texas's policy, does it?

If it did, couldn't a state or even the federal government infringe on the free speech rights of pretty much everyone by assigning them contracts for whatever is their employment (or public benefit) and then make that contract contingent on alignment with someone's political perspective?
I think if there was one other boycott disallowed by law in any of these states I'd be more inclined to shrug it off.
 
Likes: The Man
Feb 2010
33,312
23,008
between Moon and NYC
#83
Fair enough. The person involved is an independent contractor whose contract has not been renewed because she refuses to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. I'm not sure that's a material difference, though. How do you see it? Is the means of employment material here? Is her status as a contractor (as opposed to a direct employee) relevant? I don't see how it is. She's still an individual citizens of the US and the employer is still a state that must comply with the particulars of the US Constitution. The fact that she gets her employment through a contract rather than...well...through a contract...doesn't change the legality of Texas's policy, does it?

If it did, couldn't a state or even the federal government infringe on the free speech rights of pretty much everyone by assigning them contracts for whatever is their employment (or public benefit) and then make that contract contingent on alignment with someone's political perspective?
Nobody is being forced to do anything.

The state of Texas has established a criteria for companies signing business contracts with the state government. They have determined Israel to be a valued import/export partner and they (Texas) are declining to benefit/enrich bidding companies who are explicitly/publicly trying to financially harm that trading partner (Israel).

You and others are free to have positive or negative opinions about the country of Israel. As are any/all private contractors bidding in Texas. But if they take certain actions (publicly join a boycott of Israel) you will disqualify themselves for consideration of doing business with the state.

Not seeing where anybody's "rights" are being denied here. The state of Texas is entitled to set guidelines for who it does contract business with.







..
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,973
43,527
valid location
#84
Nobody is being forced to do anything.

The state of Texas has established a criteria for companies signing business contracts with the state government. They have determined Israel to be a valued import/export partner and they (Texas) are declining to benefit/enrich bidding companies who are explicitly/publicly trying to financially harm that trading partner (Israel).

You and others are free to have positive or negative opinions about the country of Israel. As are any/all private contractors bidding in Texas. But if they take certain actions (publicly join a boycott of Israel) you will disqualify themselves for consideration of doing business with the state.

Not seeing where anybody's "rights" are being denied here. The state of Texas is entitled to set guidelines for who it does contract business with.
I don't think Texas is entitled to determine the politics of the people it does business with. This issue is totally unrelated to any practical concerns about costs and benefits from a contractor. Again, in order to control the political speech of anyone it employed, Texas would simply have to make everyone a contractor. This law is politically coercive, particularly since the SCOTUS has determined that even non-human entities have political rights: "Corporations are people, my friends."
 
Feb 2010
33,312
23,008
between Moon and NYC
#85
I don't think Texas is entitled to determine the politics of the people it does business with. This issue is totally unrelated to any practical concerns about costs and benefits from a contractor. Again, in order to control the political speech of anyone it employed, Texas would simply have to make everyone a contractor. This law is politically coercive, particularly since the SCOTUS has determined that even non-human entities have political rights: "Corporations are people, my friends."

(Was actually just waiting for someone to drop that little jewel into the conversation.)

Anyhoo. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. Am not seeing where any person's political speech is being controlled. No one is being threatened by the government.




..
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
52,376
38,186
Ohio
#87
(Was actually just waiting for someone to drop that little jewel into the conversation.)

Anyhoo. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. Am not seeing where any person's political speech is being controlled. No one is being threatened by the government.




..
They're telling people they can't not buy a Soda Stream if the choice is made because of politics.
 
Jul 2011
3,334
4,813
UK/Australia
#88
(Was actually just waiting for someone to drop that little jewel into the conversation.)

Anyhoo. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. Am not seeing where any person's political speech is being controlled. No one is being threatened by the government.




..
I can think of few more coercive methods in a capitalist democracy, than a government making someone's employment and income dependent upon political speech or alignment.
 
Feb 2010
33,312
23,008
between Moon and NYC
#89
The threat is loss of employment--employment she's enjoyed for a period of years.
Not unless her company insists on publicly joining the boycott of Israel. Pretty simple.

Believe some people are trying way too hard to be outraged here.




..
 

Rasselas

Former Staff
Feb 2010
67,973
43,527
valid location
#90
Not unless her company insists on publicly joining the boycott of Israel. Pretty simple.
Yes, by exercising her political rights as a citizen of the US. She IS her company. She's an independent, individual contractor. That's what we've been talking about. Surely you aren't this dense that you use this "playing dumb" tactic to avoid discussing the key issue here, which is a state government limiting the First Amendment rights of someone it employs. I sometimes have to chase one of our less capable members around this barn, but here I am with you, back where we began.

Believe some people are trying way too hard to be outraged here.
Why? You don't think that the First Amendment is worth getting upset about? Or do you think the First Amendment only protects SOME opinions and not others?

Really, please, make an actual argument here or stop acting like you intend to.