American Patriot REFUSES to Sign Oath of Loyalty to israel- Gets FIRED!!!

[sumskilz]

I think most israelis are aware of this contradiction and it explains why they actually rate evangelicals even lower than muslims, despite being at war with the islamic world:


It's like a gold-digging whore wife. Obviously they have nothing for contempt for their stupid cuck husbands, despite the husband's wealth and attitude of blind devotion.

That's not a poll of Israelis, it's a poll of American Jews. The reason a lot of them rate Evangelicals low is because they have the same biases as other American progressives. Those American Jews with the lowest opinion of Evangelicals are also the least likely to be supportive of Israel.

In reality, Israelis have the highest opinion of the US in the world:



Considering that 83%of Israelis have a positive opinion of the US, that Jews only make up 75% of the population, and that Arab Israelis are less enthusiastic about the US, Israeli Jews have by far the highest opinion of the US out of any national group worldwide.

Most Israelis don't know the difference between an Evangelical and any other Christian.

[Prodromos]

Who in this scenario hates Jews (besides the op)?

The law was passed to combat the BDS movement, which is intrinsically anti-Semitic. Arabs are generally hostile to Israel solely due to its Jewish nature. You'd be hard pressed to find a BDS campaign aimed at any other country. Out of all the countries in the world, Israel is specifically singled out for delegitimization, demonization and destruction, just like Jews are singled out as the cause of all the world's problems. "Israel" is code for "Jews", usually.

I don't like the Chinese government but I don't hate Chinese people. If someone passed a law that said I couldn't boycott Chinese products I'd be pretty upset.

That's because China engages in severe human rights violations on a daily basis. Israel on the other hand is the only free country in the region, and an important cultural, political and economic ally. There is no right to contract with the government, especially for a movement that seeks the destruction of an important ally. As Governor Abbot said pretty clearly, "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally." There is a total consensus on this.

As an aside I don't know any Israelis that actually support these laws. Many of them also believe that being too pro-Israel is counterproductive. Well I disagree. Treating opposition to Israel's existence as just a harmless difference of opinion is silly. We need toughness.

For those interested in the actual story, instead of the false version the OP got from the Jew-hating blogger Greenwald, here you go:

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18...he-texas-bds-l

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who works as a contractor for the Pflugerville Independent School District in Texas, has filed a lawsuit claiming that an anti-boycott-of-Israel pledge she was asked to sign violates her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This was reported first by Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept, who set the tone for the media coverage by claiming, in his typical exaggerated and dishonest fashion, that the lawsuit arose after Amawi "refused to sign an oath vowing that she 'does not' and 'will not' engage in a boycott of Israel or 'otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm' on that foreign nation." (Greenwald's headline is even more misleading, claiming that Ms. Amawi was required to sign a "pro-Israel oath.")

There are a lot of things I could say about the law and the lawsuit, but I have some time constraints, so I will just explain why Greenwald's take, repeated ingenuously by reporters apparently too lazy to look up the actual text of the underlying law and what Ms. Amawi was asked to sign, is wrong.

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just like local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws, such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws, they also must certify, in compliance with state law, that their business does not boycott Israel.

Here is the specific language Ms. Amawi was asked to sign (see appendix A):

Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code, the Contractor affirms that it: 1. Does not currently boycott Israel; and 2. Will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

1. "Boycott Israel" means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory, but does not include an action made for ordinary business purposes;and
2. "Company" means a for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or any limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exist to make a profit.

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law (see the text here, it's even titled "PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL"), the school district certification applies to the business, "it," not the individual "she." Contrary to what I've been reading all over the internet, Ms. Amawi is not being asked to pledge that she, in her personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that, e.g., she will not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing Israel.

Briefly on the First Amendment issue, it's no different analytically than requiring a contractor to pledge that the business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, veterans, or another state-designated group. The sole proprietor contractor, or the certifying officer for a larger contractor, is still permitted to refuse to invite a Muslim to his house for dinner, or to advocate against Muslims in any way he chooses. The business simply can't engage in action that the state disapproves of. Supreme Court precedent, mostly to my chagrin, seems rather clear that this is constitutional, and that the protected class in question need not be an individual or minority group--in FAIR v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that the law school plaintiffs had no First Amendment right to boycott military recruiters in the face of a federal statute barring recipients of federal funds from discriminating against those recruiters.

In short, this story is being widely misreported, the hysterical claims that Amawi is being forced to sign a pro-Israel pledge or personally do or not do anything in particular regarding Israel outside the context of her business are false, and the First Amendment lawsuit will almost certainly lose. Moreover, it's nearly impossible to think of a way in which Ms. Amawi's speech pathology business would ever have an opportunity to in any way boycott or otherwise economically harm Israel, rendering this pure political theater.

*Other localities make this even clearer. The City of Waco's standard contract, for example, states: "CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2270.001 By signing below, Company hereby certifies the following: 1. Company does not boycott Israel; and 2. Company will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract."

UPDATE: Just as I was posting this, a friend of mine posted on Facebook that "individual school teachers are being required to attest that they will not personally boycott Israel as private citizens, even when they are not at work." I can easily see how he thought that given the media's coverage of the lawsuit, and it's yet another example of why one should never, ever trust the media take on a controversy without confirming the original sources. I do it myself sometimes, and generally regret it.

[Vanoi]

The law was passed to combat the BDS movement, which is intrinsically anti-Semitic. Arabs are generally hostile to Israel solely due to its Jewish nature. You'd be hard pressed to find a BDS campaign aimed at any other country. Out of all the countries in the world, Israel is specifically singled out for delegitimization, demonization and destruction, just like Jews are singled out as the cause of all the world's problems. "Israel" is code for "Jews", usually.

. The movement started in 2005 by Palestinians specifically because of israel policies like the building of settlements in land that is not Israels. You only call it anti-semitic to delegitimize the movement and funny enough don't mention Israel's policies towards the Palestinians themselves. I guess you can't make Israel look good if you actually tell the truth right?

arabs are hostile to Israel partly because of the Jew-hatred, but much of it comes from the Palestinian issue. Something you again fail to mention.

I'm sure you won't find another BDS movement in another country, but tell me, how many countries in the world are actively kicking people off land that isn't theirs and then settling their own people on that land? Oh yea, just Israel.

Texas has no right to tell its citizens that they have to support Israel. Texas doesn't have any power under the US Constitution to compel its citizens to support a foreign country. Its a violation between the separation of powers between the Federal and state governments. It also violates the right of free expression since it forces a person to accept a certain viewpoint.

Your article is poor. Citing Texas law won't help you since Texas law doesn't trump the Constitution. Your articles cites FAIR v. Rumsfeld but the only thing that Supreme Court case determined was that the US government could deny federla funds to schools and universities that didn't let recruiters on campus. Schools and universities can still stop military recruiters. They just risk losing out on federal money.

Your article also basically cites the Civil Rights Act regarding the First Amendment and compares not being able to boycott israel as the same as the Civil Right Acts preventing discrimination. Yet the BDS movement only calls for a boycott against Israel. Unless its a boycott of all Jewish businesses, then its in no way comparable to the First Amendment.

[Prodromos]

. The movement started in 2005 by Palestinians specifically because of israel policies like the building of settlements in land that is not Israels. You only call it anti-semitic to delegitimize the movement and funny enough don't mention Israel's policies towards the Palestinians themselves. I guess you can't make Israel look good if you actually tell the truth right?

arabs are hostile to Israel partly because of the Jew-hatred, but much of it comes from the Palestinian issue. Something you again fail to mention.

I'm sure you won't find another BDS movement in another country, but tell me, how many countries in the world are actively kicking people off land that isn't theirs and then settling their own people on that land? Oh yea, just Israel.

Thanks for the Hamas view, I guess.

Texas has no right to tell its citizens that they have to support Israel. Texas doesn't have any power under the US Constitution to compel its citizens to support a foreign country. Its a violation between the separation of powers between the Federal and state governments. It also violates the right of free expression since it forces a person to accept a certain viewpoint.

Your article is poor. Citing Texas law won't help you since Texas law doesn't trump the Constitution. Your articles cites FAIR v. Rumsfeld but the only thing that Supreme Court case determined was that the US government could deny federla funds to schools and universities that didn't let recruiters on campus. Schools and universities can still stop military recruiters. They just risk losing out on federal money.

Your article also basically cites the Civil Rights Act regarding the First Amendment and compares not being able to boycott israel as the same as the Civil Right Acts preventing discrimination. Yet the BDS movement only calls for a boycott against Israel. Unless its a boycott of all Jewish businesses, then its in no way comparable to the First Amendment.

The author is a respected law professor, posting on a highly respected libertarian blog. They're neither ignoramuses nor fans of government intrusion.

David E. Bernstein (born 1967) is a law professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia, where he has taught since 1995.[1] His primary areas of scholarly research are constitutional history and the admissibility of expert testimony. Bernstein is a contributor to the legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. Bernstein is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law, Economics and Public Policy, a Claude Lambe Fellow of the Institute for Humane Studies, and a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. He received his B.A. degree summa cum laude with honors in History from Brandeis University.

In 2007, Andy Guess of the Inside Higher Ed wrote that it was "one of the most widely read legal blogs in the United States" and that it "probably has more influence in the field – and more direct impact – than most law reviews."[3]

According to Adam Teicholz of The Atlantic, The Volokh Conspiracy, among other blogs, played an important role in influencing the view of Americans against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[9] In 2013, The Volokh Conspiracy appeared in ABA Journal's "Blawg 100 Hall of Fame".[10]

Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see how the courts rule, won't we?

[cfmonkey45]

And I'm glad you brought up John Adams in particular. Turns out the real reason Adams supported "zionism" was because he wanted the extinguish the jewish faith and culture and he thought that sticking them in the Holy Land would somehow encourage them to shed their avaricious and parasitic ways. Here's one of the Chosen kvetching about how your "zionist" Founding Father was actually a filthy anti-semite.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-...rs-and-Judaism

A majority of Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. Its useful to note that the rise in support for israel has coincided with the rise in support for all the degenerate vices (such as gay marriage) israeli agents spread across this country. I doubt its a coincidence.

They won't, for a lot of the most ardent supporters of israel its a matter of their insane genocidal religious beliefs. Evangelical """"Christians"""", thanks to the heretical exegesis of Cyrus Scofield (whose career, in a no doubt totally unrelated coincidence, was funded by Wall Street israeli Samuel Untermeyer), believe the modern state of israel is the lynchpin for starting the imminent Rapture. The crowning irony of this is that although evangelicals are the most slavishly devoted to modern israelis and their degenerate practices, evangelicals actually want to genocide the jewish people since that is one of the criterion for getting their version of the apocalypse going. I think most israelis are aware of this contradiction and it explains why they actually rate evangelicals even lower than muslims, despite being at war with the islamic world:

Cool it with the Haterade, bro. We get that you just discovered Nietzsche and realized that Israeli lobby is a thing. But not everything is a (((Zionist))) plot.





Yes, we can agree that we probably shouldn't have loyalty oaths. But I doubt this incident is a massive (((Zionist))) plot to take over our country.

It's like a gold-digging whore wife. Obviously they have nothing for contempt for their stupid cuck husbands, despite the husband's wealth and attitude of blind devotion.

Be careful with how you use the word 'cuck,' it conveys a massive amount of Freudian projection.

Btw, I made a handy graphic to help you out with this.

[Vanoi]

Thanks for the Hamas view, I guess.

Try the strawman with someone else. You going to address anything I said?

The author is a respected law professor, posting on a highly respected libertarian blog. They're neither ignoramuses nor fans of government intrusion.

That explains his viewpoints. Especially on Texas law. Law professors can be very wrong and he in no way explained how Texas law trump's the Constitution which expressly says matters with foreign countries or foreign policy are delt by the Federal government, not state government.

Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see how the courts rule, won't we?

Of course but it does not look good for Texas at all.

[Prodromos]

Try the strawman with someone else. You going to address anything I said?

It's mostly off-topic.

That explains his viewpoints. Especially on Texas law. Law professors can be very wrong and he in no way explained how Texas law trump's the Constitution which expressly says matters with foreign countries or foreign policy are delt by the Federal government, not state government.

Of course but it does not look good for Texas at all.

It's a perfectly valid viewpoint. What else is there to say? "I'm right and you're wrong", "No, I'm right and you're wrong"? The arguments for each side have already been made.

[Vanoi]

It's mostly off-topic.

The policies of Israel that led to the creation of BDS and the BDS itself perfectly on topic in a thread regarding a law about BDS. I think you just don't have an argument.

It's a perfectly valid viewpoint. What else is there to say? "I'm right and you're wrong", "No, I'm right and you're wrong"? The arguments for each side have already been made.

At least making an argument about why he is wrong while you have done nothing of the sort. Valid viewpoint or not it doesn't mean he's right.

[the_mango55]

That's because China engages in severe human rights violations on a daily basis. Israel on the other hand is the only free country in the region, and an important cultural, political and economic ally. There is no right to contract with the government, especially for a movement that seeks the destruction of an important ally. As Governor Abbot said pretty clearly, "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally." There is a total consensus on this.

Israel is an apartheid stated.

For those interested in the actual story, instead of the false version the OP got from the Jew-hating blogger Greenwald, here you go:

Yes the notorious anti-Semite... Glenn Greenwald

[Prodromos]

Amawi's contention is that the law deprives her of her First Amendment rights. You said, "the Constitution expressly says matters with foreign countries or foreign policy are dealt by the Federal government." Last I checked the federal government was bound by the First Amendment as well, not only the state governments, so if the federal government is allowed to pass these kinds of laws, then it doesn't violate anyone's First Amendment rights.

As for whether a state is allowed to require contractors not to boycott Israel, I see no reason why not. This is still a domestic affair, not an act of foreign policy prohibited to the states.

[the_mango55]

Amawi's contention is that the law deprives her of her First Amendment rights. You said, "the Constitution expressly says matters with foreign countries or foreign policy are dealt by the Federal government." Last I checked the federal government was bound by the First Amendment as well, not only the state governments, so if the federal government is allowed to pass these kinds of laws, then it doesn't violate anyone's First Amendment rights.

The federal government has not passed this kind of law up to this point. Only states have.

And even if the federal government DOES pass a law like this, it will be up to the courts to decide whether they are "allowed" to pass them. Congress has passed all kinds of laws that have been later determined to be unconstitutional and violate people's rights.

[Vanoi]

Amawi's contention is that the law deprives her of her First Amendment rights. You said, "the Constitution expressly says matters with foreign countries or foreign policy are dealt by the Federal government." Last I checked the federal government was bound by the First Amendment as well, not only the state governments, so if the federal government is allowed to pass these kinds of laws, then it doesn't violate anyone's First Amendment rights.

Name the federal laws then. As mango stated, there is no federal law saying i can't boycott other countries or that i have to sign oaths of loyalty to. As mentioned in the OP, in the US you are freely allowed to denounce the country itself, call for a boycott of Americans products or boycott products from US states themselves like in 2017 when people boycotted North Carolina over its bathroom bill.

If you can boycott US states themselves as is my right, then i should also have the full right to boycott Israel as well.

As for whether a state is allowed to require contractors not to boycott Israel, I see no reason why not. This is still a domestic affair, not an act of foreign policy prohibited to the states.

How is it domestic if it deals with foreign trade of a foreign nation? You should read up on the commerce clause.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian territories"

Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States.

By passing a law to protect the economic interests of Israel, a foreign nation, Texas has expressly violated the commerce clause. US Congress, not States, have the right to regulate commerce with a foreign nation.

The reason you don't see anything wrong is because you really don't have an understanding of US Constitutional law.

[Prodromos]

Name the federal laws then.

The federal government has not passed this kind of law up to this point. Only states have.

It was a hypothetical. Why did you mention foreign policy at all if the argument was about free speech?

How is it domestic if it deals with foreign trade of a foreign nation? You should read up on the commerce clause.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause

By passing a law to protect the economic interests of Israel, a foreign nation, Texas has expressly violated the commerce clause. US Congress, not States, have the right to regulate commerce with a foreign nation.

The reason you don't see anything wrong is because you really don't have an understanding of US Constitutional law.

Okay, but that's not what the law is about. The law doesn't regulate trade with foreign countries, nor does it tell private citizens what to do. You can still boycott Israel to your heart's content.

The law simply directs the government not to do business with companies that discriminate against Israel. Israel and Texas are economic partners. Texas has no obligation to contract with companies whose policies impair trade with its allies.



Anti-discrimination laws are nothing special.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18...he-texas-bds-l

Juding from my social media feed, lots of non-lawyers seem to be under the mistaken impression that certain groups that are protected by civil rights law are so protected because they are "protected classes" under the Constitution. Nope. The Constitution does not ban or private any remedy for private discrimination (or boycott if you prefer) against any group. If blacks, or Jews, or women, or gays, or Republicans, or whomever receive protection from private discrimination in the United States, it's for one reason, and one reason only: because a legislature at whichever level of government chose to pass legislation protecting a category from discrimination. Thus, for example, there is nothing legally anomalous about Texas protecting Israel from (what's seen as) a discriminatory boycott, but not protecting gay people from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, because supporting Israel is more popular in Texas than supporting employment rights for gays.

Once you give government the authority to ban private discrimination (and remember, discrimination in housing, employment, etc., is a subset of "boycott"), and you weaken constitutional barriers to such legislation, the legislation will inevitably apply to whomever can get support of the legislature. Lest readers think I'm just reasoning backwards to somehow justify laws related to Israel, I will note that I wrote about this in my 2003 book, You Can't Say That!:

[PointOfViewGun]

The law was passed to combat the BDS movement, which is intrinsically anti-Semitic. Arabs are generally hostile to Israel solely due to its Jewish nature. You'd be hard pressed to find a BDS campaign aimed at any other country. Out of all the countries in the world, Israel is specifically singled out for delegitimization, demonization and destruction, just like Jews are singled out as the cause of all the world's problems. "Israel" is code for "Jews", usually.

That's because China engages in severe human rights violations on a daily basis. Israel on the other hand is the only free country in the region, and an important cultural, political and economic ally. There is no right to contract with the government, especially for a movement that seeks the destruction of an important ally. As Governor Abbot said pretty clearly, "Anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies, and we will not tolerate such actions against an important ally." There is a total consensus on this.

As an aside I don't know any Israelis that actually support these laws. Many of them also believe that being too pro-Israel is counterproductive. Well I disagree. Treating opposition to Israel's existence as just a harmless difference of opinion is silly. We need toughness.

For those interested in the actual story, instead of the false version the OP got from the Jew-hating blogger Greenwald, here you go:

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18...he-texas-bds-l

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who works as a contractor for the Pflugerville Independent School District in Texas, has filed a lawsuit claiming that an anti-boycott-of-Israel pledge she was asked to sign violates her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This was reported first by Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept, who set the tone for the media coverage by claiming, in his typical exaggerated and dishonest fashion, that the lawsuit arose after Amawi "refused to sign an oath vowing that she 'does not' and 'will not' engage in a boycott of Israel or 'otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm' on that foreign nation." (Greenwald's headline is even more misleading, claiming that Ms. Amawi was required to sign a "pro-Israel oath.")

There are a lot of things I could say about the law and the lawsuit, but I have some time constraints, so I will just explain why Greenwald's take, repeated ingenuously by reporters apparently too lazy to look up the actual text of the underlying law and what Ms. Amawi was asked to sign, is wrong.

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just like local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws, such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws, they also must certify, in compliance with state law, that their business does not boycott Israel.

Here is the specific language Ms. Amawi was asked to sign (see appendix A):

Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code, the Contractor affirms that it: 1. Does not currently boycott Israel; and 2. Will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

1. "Boycott Israel" means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory, but does not include an action made for ordinary business purposes;and
2. "Company" means a for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or any limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exist to make a profit.

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law (see the text here, it's even titled "PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL"), the school district certification applies to the business, "it," not the individual "she." Contrary to what I've been reading all over the internet, Ms. Amawi is not being asked to pledge that she, in her personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that, e.g., she will not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing Israel.

Briefly on the First Amendment issue, it's no different analytically than requiring a contractor to pledge that the business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, veterans, or another state-designated group. The sole proprietor contractor, or the certifying officer for a larger contractor, is still permitted to refuse to invite a Muslim to his house for dinner, or to advocate against Muslims in any way he chooses. The business simply can't engage in action that the state disapproves of. Supreme Court precedent, mostly to my chagrin, seems rather clear that this is constitutional, and that the protected class in question need not be an individual or minority group--in FAIR v. Rumsfeld, the Court held that the law school plaintiffs had no First Amendment right to boycott military recruiters in the face of a federal statute barring recipients of federal funds from discriminating against those recruiters.

In short, this story is being widely misreported, the hysterical claims that Amawi is being forced to sign a pro-Israel pledge or personally do or not do anything in particular regarding Israel outside the context of her business are false, and the First Amendment lawsuit will almost certainly lose. Moreover, it's nearly impossible to think of a way in which Ms. Amawi's speech pathology business would ever have an opportunity to in any way boycott or otherwise economically harm Israel, rendering this pure political theater.

*Other localities make this even clearer. The City of Waco's standard contract, for example, states: "CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2270.001 By signing below, Company hereby certifies the following: 1. Company does not boycott Israel; and 2. Company will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract."

UPDATE: Just as I was posting this, a friend of mine posted on Facebook that "individual school teachers are being required to attest that they will not personally boycott Israel as private citizens, even when they are not at work." I can easily see how he thought that given the media's coverage of the lawsuit, and it's yet another example of why one should never, ever trust the media take on a controversy without confirming the original sources. I do it myself sometimes, and generally regret it.

The article you posted there is a mockery of reason and logic, as well as the facts. We all know that the individual was asked to sign a pledge deeming that she will not boycott Israel. Everyone knows that. Everyone argued accordingly. Your article's attack on The Intercept article is also equally deceptive as The Intercept article does not deceive in any way as your article suggests. There is nothing in this article that corrects what is reported in The Intercept article. The Intercept article, just like your article, has a direct copy of the relevant law piece.

This is really boring. You can not dismiss any criticism of Israel by calling everything anti-Semitism. It's not. I love how the people who always speak against being labeled Islamaphobes (by themselves though) are also the ones who use the label anti-Semitism.

[Vanoi]

It was a hypothetical. Why did you mention foreign policy at all if the argument was about free speech?

Have you been reading my posts at all? I mentioned the foreign policy because the law doesn't just also violate the First Amendment.

Regardless of foreign policy, the federal government cannot simply deny doing business with you because you may support the BDS movement or hold other views they don't support. You are basically saying unless you agree with us you don't get to do business with us. That's a violation of the First Amendment regarding free speech and freedom of expression. And as you mentioned, the First Amendment applies to state governments as well so they can't do the same to you either.

Okay, but that's not what the law is about. The law doesn't regulate trade with foreign countries, nor does it tell private citizens what to do. You can still boycott Israel to your heart's content.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/370...outlawing-bds/

The law, known as HB 89, charges the Texas Comptroller’s Office with making a list of “all companies that boycott Israel” and provide the list to state agencies. Those agencies will then be barred from contracting with those companies. State pension funds are also prohibited from being invested in firms involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
It also applies to individuals who do business with state agencies as they are often legally contractors.
Read more: https://forward.com/fast-forward/370...outlawing-bds/

This is not an anti-discrimination law. It very much forces private citizens to hold a certain viewpoint or they cannot do business with the state of Texas. If anything, Texas is actively discriminating against people who boycott Israel. Texas, like the Federal government, cannot deny doing business with you for holding certain viewpoints. Thats a violation of First Amendment rights.

The law simply directs the government not to do business with companies that discriminate against Israel. Israel and Texas are economic partners. Texas has no obligation to contract with companies whose policies impair trade with its allies.

America and Israel are economic partners. Texas by law, does not and cannot conduct foreign trade nor does it have foreign trade partners. The law itself is a violation of the commerce clause.

But keeping with the OP Texas is bound by the First Amendment and cannot deny business to companies or individuals for holding viewpoints they don't agree with or boycotting Israel. Just like Texas would have had to conduct business with companies or individuals who were boycotting the state of North Carolina in 2017. North Carolina and Texas definitely are "economic partners" as much as you try to claim with Texas and Israel.

[Prodromos]

Nobody is being forced not to boycott Israel. Texas is just not giving money or contracts to companies that discriminate against Israel. There's anti-discrimination laws for everything; gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, you name it. Not giving =/= taking. No one has a right to do business with the government. That's absurd.

Okay, I guess we should just wait and see what the courts have to say.

[Vanoi]

There is not one single law preventing discrimination against countries. If I can discriminate and boycott business with North Carolina then I could do the same to Israel. That's what you don't understand. You try to apply discrimination to it, but there's no legal precedent to prevent it. People have the right under the First Amendment to boycott Israel and not be turned from doing business with the government.

Go ahead leave it to the courts. Considering boycotts have been legal before this doesn't look good for Texas.

[Sar1n]

In my opinion, Ms.Amawi is in the right here.

Whlie legally, signing such clause would not bind her to any (in)action in her private life as natural person, it is binding to her as legal entiity-the one registered in whatever is US equivalent of business register in my country, and which she assumes, in the eyes of the law, when fulfilling the contract. However, such distinction is buried deep within legal terminology-in fact, as the Volokh Conspiracy blog proved, one must reach into the underlying law, rather than into the contract itself, to discover this distinction. While this might be obvious to a lawyer, a layman cannot be expected to navigate this legal maze unaided, and it is not helped by the fact that the wording of the clause is unclear and the term contractor, rather than contracting company, implies, at least for a layman, person at least as much as legal entity. This dishonesty is compounded by repeated statements by the bill's author that made it clear that it targets private persons too, leading to the confusion in case of hurricane relief.

And this de jure distincion does not translate well into real life. As a single person working for herself, her actions as private person and legal entity are intertwined and, in her and other laymen's eyes, inseparable. Whatever she does in her capacity as legal entity reflects on her as private person. How was the article named? "Everyone is misinterpreting..."
and so on.

While I can imagine situations in which such controversial clause might be necessary-if the contractor is hired for a job that involves Israel and acts as government's representative, for example-but that's not her case. In her job, she has nothing to do with Israel.

So...I don't know if this violates the letter of Constitution, but it violates its spirit. The law and government of the US are there to serve people, not the other way around. Constitution makes it clear. A bill that overwhelmingly gives people the impression that it binds them to certain behaviour that violates their conscience and constitutional freedoms is unconstitutional regardless of its letter.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nobody is being forced not to boycott Israel. Texas is just not giving money or contracts to companies that discriminate against Israel. There's anti-discrimination laws for everything; gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, you name it. Not giving =/= taking. No one has a right to do business with the government. That's absurd.

Okay, I guess we should just wait and see what the courts have to say.

She is being forced not to boycott Israel. If on Facebook she posted that she would never work in Israel not to help them further establish their occupation of the West Bank her contract with the school could be terminated because of that clause she's asked to sign.

You're advocating anti-discrimination laws against free speech. That's what's absurd.

[Prodromos]

Here are the facts:

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just like local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws, such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws, they also must certify, in compliance with state law, that their business does not boycott Israel...

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law (see the text here, it's even titled "PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH COMPANIES BOYCOTTING ISRAEL"), the school district certification applies to the business, "it," not the individual "she." Contrary to what I've been reading all over the internet, Ms. Amawi is not being asked to pledge that she, in her personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that, e.g., she will not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing Israel.

Briefly on the First Amendment issue, it's no different analytically than requiring a contractor to pledge that the business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, veterans, or another state-designated group. [Clarification: "it" means the First Amendment analysis. There are obvious moral, practical, historical, and other differences between boycotting Israel and boycotting members of American minority groups; those differences just aren't constitutionally salient.] The sole proprietor contractor, or the certifying officer for a larger contractor, is still permitted to refuse to invite a Muslim to his house for dinner, or to advocate against Muslims in any way he chooses. The business simply can't engage in action that the state disapproves of. Supreme Court precedent, mostly to my chagrin, seems rather clear that this is constitutional, and that the protected class in question need not be an individual or minority group--in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, the Court held that the law school plaintiffs had no First Amendment right to boycott military recruiters in the face of a federal statute barring recipients of federal funds from discriminating against those recruiters.

In short, this story is being widely misreported, the hysterical claims that Amawi is being forced to sign a pro-Israel pledge or personally do or not do anything in particular regarding Israel outside the context of her business are false, and the First Amendment lawsuit will almost certainly lose. Moreover, it's nearly impossible to think of a way in which Ms. Amawi's speech pathology business would ever have an opportunity to in any way boycott or otherwise economically harm Israel, rendering this pure political theater.

Some anti-Israel activists, like Greenwald (who apparently was one of the first to report this story), might have intentionally misconstrued the law in order to further their agenda, but that type of dishonest reporting can't be blamed on the legislation itself. The onus is on the media to accurately report the facts, not on the legislature to craft a bill that's magically immune to misinterpretation.

Remember that the law explicitly applies only to companies doing business with the government. Companies are prevented from discriminating against (i.e., boycotting) all kinds of people. It's perfectly legal under the Constitution, as currently understood. This law is pretty tame by comparison, since it doesn't actually prohibit private companies from boycotting Israel, but simply boycotts the boycotters.

There is definitely an argument to be made that all anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, or at least unwise, but this is an odd place to start making that argument. What about discrimination against black people, gay couples, women, immigrants? Is that constitutionally protected?

Why is discrimination against one class acceptable but not another? How do we determine what classes should be protected? Different states recognize different protected classes. The democratically elected legislature of Texas unanimously declared that an allied nation, which is under special threat, deserves protection. That's sufficient for me, personally.

P.S.: I wonder if the blatantly false and click-baity thread title will be edited, as forum rules require?

Posts that disrupt the message boards for other users, intentional or not, are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited, to:

• Using misleading topic titles