Georgia Lawmakers Threaten to Violate Delta's First Amendment Right

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/26/nra-boycott-company-delta-threatened-georgia-over-jet-fuel-tax-cut

tl;dr- georgia lawmakers are threatening to jack up jet fuel costs on delta as retribution for their severance with the nra. i'm not naive, and know well that historically lawmaking and bribes/blackmailing often go hand in hand. but isn't it technically illegal and supposed to be kept secret?

maybe it's just that corporations are people, but some corporations are more people than others?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Good. Corporations should be held to account when they use their power to FORCE their political views on to the consumers. Oh and just for the Benefit of the Type that "Agree" with Bashy The Fasciy" This is what the First Amendment actually says....

First Amendment
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/26/nra-boycott-company-delta-threatened-georgia-over-jet-fuel-tax-cut

tl;dr- georgia lawmakers are threatening to jack up jet fuel costs on delta as retribution for their severance with the nra. i'm not naive, and know well that historically lawmaking and bribes/blackmailing often go hand in hand. but isn't it technically illegal and supposed to be kept secret?

maybe it's just that corporations are people, but some corporations are more people than others?

Awful. It is wrong when the government tries to use its power to coerce people, isn't it? Just wrong.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Good. Corporations should be held to account when they use their power to FORCE their political views on to the consumers. Oh and just for the Benefit of the Type that "Agree" with Bashy The Fasciy" This is what the First Amendment actually says....

First Amendment
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. [/B]

I love how leftists whine about certain laws, but have no problems with illegal immigrants or sanctuary cities. It makes me not able to take them even a little bit seriously.

nice deflection, phaggot. anything concerning the topic?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nice deflection, phaggot. anything concerning the topic?

Aww little snowflake, it's wrong when the government tries to coerce people to do certain things. I had a problem with it when Obama did it and I don't like it now.

nice edit, phaggot. still doesn't address the topic.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nice edit, phaggot.

You butthurt, chump?

Did you whine when previous administrations pulled stuff like this? Just curious.

so you think you somehow won the argument.by derailing the topic? you're a phaggot?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so you think you somehow won the argument.by derailing the topic? you're a phaggot?

I love how butthurt you are. Answer the question, snowflake.

It also might be a good idea not to whine about topic derailments, unless you're 100% confident you've never pulled something like that or posted off topic comments before.

Are you 100% confident in that?

you're a welfare fraud too? rub your brother's feet for a living?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you're a welfare fraud too? rub your brother's feet for a living?

Awww, baby angry? It's okay.

completely emmasculated? well technically you do still have a penis, right?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/26/nra-boycott-company-delta-threatened-georgia-over-jet-fuel-tax-cut

tl;dr- georgia lawmakers are threatening to jack up jet fuel costs on delta as retribution for their severance with the nra. i'm not naive, and know well that historically lawmaking and bribes/blackmailing often go hand in hand. but isn't it technically illegal and supposed to be kept secret?

maybe it's just that corporations are people, but some corporations are more people than others?

Blackmail is basically doing something to someone you have every legal right to do normally, to force something out of them (You just know crooked politicians thought long and hard about that one.)

So yeah, I'd assume this is blackmail.

Unless it slides by because they didn't outright say they'd reduce prices back down if they changed their stance.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
completely emmasculated? well technically you do still have a penis, right?

Keep trying, you'll hit on something eventually.

Originally posted by cdtm
Blackmail is basically doing something to someone you have every legal right to do normally, to force something out of them (You just know crooked politicians thought long and hard about that one.)

So yeah, I'd assume this is blackmail.

Unless it slides by because they didn't outright say they'd reduce prices back down if they changed their stance.

So they have the legal right to do it, nothing else needs to be said.

the part of naked illegality would be the open suggestion of retaliating against free speech by changing legislation, to punish a company for not falling 100% within party lines. again, this general practice is just the sad state of politics, and both parties own it. but this particular case is a milestone in corruption imo, just in its openness.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the part of naked illegality would be the open suggestion of retaliating against free speech by changing legislation, to punish a company for not falling 100% within party lines. again, this general practice is just the sad state of politics, and both parties own it. but this particular case is a milestone in corruption imo, just in its openness.

Uh, nobody is preventing them from saying anything. Free speech does not protect you from the consequences of the shit you say.

the first amendment literally protects you from having laws passed in order to shut you up. you've already proven you don't understand the bill of rights when it involved situations about corporate sponsorship and boycotting. (in which cases you whined about freedom of speech. weird.)

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the part of naked illegality would be the open suggestion of retaliating against free speech by changing legislation, to punish a company for not falling 100% within party lines. again, this general practice is just the sad state of politics, and both parties own it. but this particular case is a milestone in corruption imo, just in its openness.

Usually, a law is only as effective as the lawyers surrounding it.

A good defense lawyer has literally helped people get away with murder. And judges are simply lawyers by another name, which is why we had a law on the books for years allowing for the forceable sterilization of "stupid people" (No, I am not making this up. It inspired Nazi Germany and stayed on the books until the 1970's)

My point being, they state has a lot of good lawyers. Either, they know they aren't breaking any laws. Or, they DO know they're breaking laws, and figure they can argue against it.

Or, worst of all, they know they're breaking laws, and have a reasonable belief that no one will call them on it. DA's and judges turn blind eyes all the time.