The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

The new bill comes after Andrew Bailey vowed to investigate companies pulling business from X, formerly Twitter over hate speech.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        23·
        1 year ago

        Read the bill.

        It’s several assorted industries, businesses that do not meet, are expected not to meet or do not commit to meet any particular environmental standard, employee compensation standard, board composition standard, or facilitating access to abortion, sex change, or transgender medical treatment. What exactly this entails is about a third of the bill: https://www.senate.mo.gov/24info/pdf-bill/intro/SB1061.pdf

        So, if you refuse to deal with a company because that company doesn’t have the right mix of demographics on their board, or works with the timber industry, or their health insurance doesn’t cover trans HRT, then the State of Missouri won’t use you as a vendor.

        • just_another_person@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          Is your position that people should be able to discriminate based on any identifying trait? Then you’re against The Constitution, and you will lose in court.

    • TWeaK@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Well that’s the thing, sexual discrimination isn’t really protected in the US outside of employment.

      The US has:

      • 14th Amendment, which states the law must apply to everyone equally (so gay people can get married)
      • The Civil Rights Act, which contains various Titles:
        • Title II, which prevents businesses in hospitality or operating across state lines from discriminating over race, color, religion, or national origin
        • Title VI, which prohibits businesses working for the federal government from discriminating over race, color, or national origin
        • Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

      I’m actually in 2 minds about whether the 1st Amendment would prevent this. One the one hand, there is a clear gap in the Federal law that State law should be able to fill. On the other, that gap was exactly the same thing as the gay cake baker successfully challenged against.