California bans state-funded travel to several states because of discriminating laws

[alhoon]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/23/us...ban/index.html

The gist: January, California banned state-funded travel to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Now it added Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota and Texas to the list. The law bans state-funded or state-sponsored travel by employees of state agencies and departments as well as members of boards, authorities, and commissions. If you're a professor from UCLA that is invited to give a lecture to Mississippi, or a doctor heading to a conference in Alabama... you have to pay from your own pocket.
California took that measure against states that it considers to have discrimination laws against LGBT people or religion discrimination laws.

The new states added: Alabama, South Dakota, and Texas all recently passed legislation that could prevent LGBT parents from adopting or fostering children and Kentucky passed a religious freedom bill that would allow students to exclude LGBTQ classmates from campus groups.


My opinion: I am completely against the move. First, California is part of USA. Second it's California meddling to places they shouldn't. California has no business telling Kentucky campus groups who they would accept in their midst or trying to force Texas to allow gay adoption. Third, such a strong-arm tactic creates divides not dialogue. While many of those states are small-fish compared to California, Texas is not and they may not appreciate such tactics and decide to escalate which would hurt both Texas and California. Fourth whatever California thinks, they're not the morality judges to decide what is right and what is wrong and try to impose their morals on other people.
And last but not least: It's wildly Hypocritical! California made a huge fuss over Trump banning people based on their views. Then they do the same. It's crystal clear that California didn't mind Trump's travel ban in general; it was annoyed by the group targeted by the travel ban. Had Trump decided to put a ban on Russia, SA and heavily conservative countries based on LGBT \ women's rights, California would be happy.
So... Trump only has to rephrase the Travel ban to Iran as "Travel ban because they're executing gays" and Californians would vote for him.


In short:
Who the #### California think they are, trying to impose what they believe is right to other states?

[RandomPerson2000]

This is quite worrying, I fear this act will only serve to increase political polarisation within the U.S, worsening the already tense political climate there.

[the_mango55]

This isn't a travel ban so to compare this with Trump's is irrelevant. It is unconstitutional to ban free movement between the states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...ted_States_law

That aside, as a US citizen I'm against this because it hurts more than it helps. It's just some feel good measure that doesn't accomplish anything and hurts California as much or more than it hurts the other states. If state funds are used to send a state employee somewhere it's usually for the benefit of the locals, not where they are sending them. From the OP's examples for instance, if the University of Mississippi is inviting a UCLA professor to give a lecture then the University of Mississippi is probably going to be paying for the travel, and thus this ban won't affect anything. But if a local Social Services department wants to send someone to Texas to get some training to help their own community they won't be able to do it.

[Prodromos]

California's government focusing on the important matters I see.

[Condottiere 40K]

Twenty Twenty nomination is up for grabs.

[hellheaven1987]

It is Commifornia, what you expect?

[mongrel]

What , no cry of "state rights"?

[Big War Bird]

It is an enumerated power of the federal government to regulate commerce between the states, and that would seen to include this embargo. The federal government certainly does have the right to slap down such a action if it so wished. Whether California, even in the absence of federal law prohibiting such an embargo, has sufficient authority to restrict the travel of its employees in this manner for the purposes of coercing other states will probably be heading to federal court sooner or later.

[Condottiere 40K]

I don't know if it interrupts commerce if a state refuses to pay travel expenses for lecture tours.

[Big War Bird]

I don't know if it interrupts commerce if a state refuses to pay travel expenses for lecture tours.

The intent of the law is to harm other states' commerce.

[Love Mountain]

California's government focusing on the important matters I see.

They also had a vote on single payer this week. There are many bills that come to the floor in any state legislature at any point in time.

The intent of the law is to harm other states' commerce.

The intent is to shape public discourse.

[EmperorBatman999]

They're preparing for secession.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

We should build a wall around California and stop their policy of water theft. Let them spend trillion to build desalination plants.

[Condottiere 40K]

Suggest to Trump how much California real estate is worth, and sell the state off to the highest bidder.

[Sir Adrian]

So let me get this straight. California institutes discrimination against it's own employees in order to fight against discrimination. This is stupid on so many levels.

Those states should jump at the opportunity and pay for the trips themselves and poach some of California's doctors and professors while they're at it.

This isn't a travel ban

Removing one's means of travel does constitute a travel ban and people have won cases against their own governments at the ECJ for much much less than this. In the EU and Russia this wouldn't fly at all as the national/regional government would be sanctioned for violating the principles of free movement before the idea even became law.

[Admiral Piett]

California is the most schizophrenic state government in the nation. Their adoption rates aren't all that positive either. Much of their state sponsored children end up in cruel conditioned foster care. Such a shame for how beautiful the geography and climate is that it's an absolute joke ever since the 90s.

[Big War Bird]

The intent is to shape public discourse.

And it is intended to harm other states' commerce. Hit em in the pocketbook.

[Gaidin]

Why are you guys focused on California? What about Connecticut, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington? And what about San Francisco, Sante Fe, and Seattle? And why in god's name is this being compared to the travel ban? This isn't a Travel Ban. This is them saying their officials will not be conducting business in regions passing regulations and laws interpreted by their representatives and executives as discriminative.

Any civilian is still free to travel there. Any state or city employee is still free to travel there when not on official business on his own dime. Stop reading into this.

[alhoon]

I wonder, do their officials conduct business with Arabs, Chinese, Russians and literally most of the world that has similar laws? I.e. if a middle Eastern country, say Dubai, calls some officials from California over to discuss a possible collaboration of the University of Dubai with some national university or college in California, to trade students, work together on oil etc... will California say "We're not talking to homophobes"?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I wonder, do their officials conduct business with Arabs, Chinese, Russians and literally most of the world that has similar laws? I.e. if a middle Eastern country, say Dubai, calls some officials from California over to discuss a possible collaboration of the University of Dubai with some national university or college in California, to trade students, work together on oil etc... will California say "We're not talking to homophobes"?

No, of course not! It would be intolerant to hold them to the same standard! Don't be silly.