In the wake of the State of Indiana passing into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law crafted to allow businesses to curtail services to customers based upon religious objections—Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and later Governor Jay Inslee issued executive orders prohibiting government funded travel of employees to Indiana in protest.
The proffered reasons of these executives is to voice protest in that Indiana’s statute is incompatible with either state anti-discrimination laws or is in alignment with the political values of these local governments.
Orders of this type are actually counter to the idea of sovereignty of each state and interfere with the judicial, executive, and legislative processes that are inherently reserved to the voters and citizens of, in this case, the state of Indiana.
The text of Mayor Murray’s executive order is as follows:
An Executive Order prohibiting the use of City funds for travel by all City employees on City business to the State of Indiana after passage of S.B. 101 until further notice and reaffirming this Administration’s continued commitment to civil rights and ensuring equity for all people in Seattle and beyond and the establishment of an action plan that supports these efforts.
WHEREAS, the Indiana State Legislature passed and Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed into law SB 101, known as the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”; and
WHEREAS, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides individuals and any type of business, whether for-profit or non-profit, irrespective of its purpose, the right, based on a religious belief, to discriminate against a person because of his or her sexual orientation or any other protected category; and
WHEREAS, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is inconsistent with the work and values of my Administration to promote equity, to end discrimination, to eliminate institutional racism and to advance social justice for the people of Seattle; and
WHEREAS, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act expressly provides that Indiana’s law does not provide a person a right to access the civil justice system if he or she is subjected to a discriminatory act as a result of its enactment;
WHEREAS, in his April 16, 1963, letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote, an “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere;” the City of Seattle will not stand by idly while discriminatory laws like Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act are enacted because such laws stand to threaten the equity victories in Seattle and elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, the City of Seattle will stand with those who are fighting for equity in Indiana and elsewhere across the county; and
WHEREAS, the use of discretionary public taxpayer dollars should, to the extent possible, reflect the values of the people of our City and should not be used to support the economies of businesses and governments that support and enact discriminatory laws and policies; and
WHEREAS, it is within my authority as the Chief Executive of the City of Seattle to manage, direct and restrict the expenditure of funds appropriated annually through the adopted budget by the Seattle City Council;
Now therefore, I, Edward B. Murray, Mayor of Seattle, hereby affirm the City’s commitment to civil rights and ensuring equity for all people in Seattle and beyond and order the following actions to establish a plan and strategies that support this commitment to equity:
1. All Executive department and office employees are hereby prohibited from using City funds for travel on City business to the State of Indiana in light of the passage of S.B. 101 until further notice.
2. All Executive departments and offices are hereby directed to review and identify existing contracts with any businesses with headquarters in the State of Indiana within 15 days of this Executive Order and report such findings to Deputy Mayor Kate Joncas.
3. The Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations (OIR), Nick Harper, is directed to develop and advance a strategy to voice the City’s strong objections to Indiana S.B. 101 in cooperation with other jurisdictions, the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to identify other cities that share our values on equity and ending discrimination for all.
Washington Governor Inslee’s Executive Order:
Governor Jay Inslee
Washington State has a strong history of prohibiting discrimination and promoting diversity and inclusion. Our Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Ch. 49.60 RCW, guarantees for all Washingtonians the right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability.
Recently, Indiana passed legislation that will allow private companies to discriminate against individuals in that state, including but not limited to Washington citizens traveling to Indiana for work related purposes, contrary to the protections of the WLAD.
It is the law of Washington State and the policy of my administration to demand equality for all persons. Consequently, I hereby order that no executive cabinet-level agency or small cabinet agency shall allow publicly funded non-essential travel to the state of Indiana so long as the recently approved Religious Freedom Restoration Act, IC 34-13-9 exists in its current form. I invite all other statewide elected officials, institutions of higher education, agencies, boards and commissions to follow the provisions of this directive.
The text of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while objectionable to many, is not relevant to the topic as to whether such actions by local officials have the ability to interfere in the affairs of another state’s legislative process. There are worrying trends that are coming into play with these types of actions.
Several problems are inherent:
First, Governor Inslee asserts by implication that Washington State has jurisdiction what would be considered a discriminatory practice to refuse an accommodation based upon religious objections. Washington’s Supreme Court and statutes specifically provide that the state has the ability to regulate this type of commerce. However, Washington has almost no jurisdiction (per RCW 9A.04.030) over any such act for which the Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits in Indiana. The only means for which Washington could assert jurisdiction would be if a person within Washington telephoned or otherwise communicated with a person in Indiana in a commercial transaction and was refused contrary to WLAD. If such a communication was in fact prohibited as interpreted by the courts the remedy would not be a general prohibition of commerce between the states by the executive. The state executive’s only statutory authority in that matter would be to, ironically, pardon the Indianan if convicted.
The orders exercise an undue influence upon voters.
If executives of one state declare that if a law of another state is passed there will be economic consequences exacted for the decision of the voters, it can unduly influence the voters to vote according to another state politician’s wishes. No matter how noble the goal is proffered by the out of state executive, it is for that state’s electorate and courts to decide.
The orders violate the spirit of interstate commerce
The governor and mayor are in effect regulating interstate commerce by declaring that the State / City will not participate in transactions or other business with Indiana if it involves a state employee to travel to that state. There are several agencies that encourage trade and investment with the state as well as general government operations that necessitate travel to accomplish. These activities are curtailed by the prohibition on travel.
The review of government contracts as mentioned in the Seattle proclamation is tantamount to collective punishment.
The implication of the possibility of refusing to do business between the government and businesses headquartered in Indiana is an irresponsible and likely unconstitutional act. Businesses that were headquartered in Indiana long prior to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now face the possibility of discrimination strictly on account of their location.
States do not have a constitutional authority to engage in embargoes against other states or foreign nations. That authority is reserved to Congress. It also gives illegal preference to businesses that are either in-state or from the several other states not having law that the executives find objectionable.
Consequently, such prohibitions can interfere with the commerce of other 3rd party in-state businesses that transact with the proscribed businesses the executives could target.
It is not the role of outside political executives to collectively punish the residents of an entire state for the actions of its legislature. Those who voice concern of the influence of big money in state or federal politics should be concerned when a state government is acting with coercive means against the citizens of another.
While individual citizens are certainly within their rights to impose their own economic boycotts against U.S. states or cities, it should not be a right available to governors, mayors, or other politicians.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
307 thoughts on “Bad Precedent Set By Seattle Mayor And Washington Governor Issuing Orders Prohibiting Government Employees Travelling On Business To Indiana”
Discrimination is the first step of freedom.
If people cannot discriminate, they cannot be free.
There are consequences and there are unforeseen consequences.
There are always consequences.
People must adapt.
The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.
Adapt to the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Loading...
Refusal to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to a particular practice or ceremony does not equal discrimination against an entire class of people. If such refusal be deemed discrimination at all then the discrimination is directed at the particular practice or ceremony and not the people as a whole.
There are no cases of businesses going to court for the right to refuse to sell LBGT’s anything in a normal course of business or deny them access to their establishments. What some people will sue for is their right to follow the dictates of their own conscience as opposed to being indoctrinated by the State by being forced to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to a particular practice or ceremony.
To clarify the distinction between “a discriminating taste as a matter of discretion and conscience” and “the wholesale discrimination against a class of people” consider this:
A fashion photographer, who also does wedding photography, is asked by two of his gay models to photograph their wedding. The photographer politely declines — saying that it would offend his new and very religious wife as well as conflict with his own obligations acquired since converting to his wife’s religion. Immediately thereafter he tells his two models that he’ll see them bright and early Monday morning for the next shoot.
May it be properly said that the photographer is guilty of discriminating against homosexuals? Or did the photographer merely discriminate against a particular practice or ceremony by legally exercising his discretion to politely decline to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to it?
Loading...
Where did the Founders simple concept of government limited to security and infrastructure, leaving the “blessings of liberty” as freedom and free enterprise without governmental interference go?
It all hinges on the vote. Ben Franklin said “…a republic, if you can keep it.” America was established as a republic, not one-man one-vote “democracy.” Criteria had to be met to vote. Since the American inception, the vote has been manipulated. The vote has been so dispersed and diluted that it can’t be trusted and is not even close to the intent of the Founders. One example is that democrats round up every illegal alien they can find and bus them to the corrupted polling place. Nixon beat Kennedy and Camelot should have never emerged from the witches cauldrons. Americans stopped overpopulation by reducing the birth rate in 1960; the shadow government globalists increased the population with inordinate and incongruous “immigration” to manipulate the vote. Since Marx, liberal leftist collectivists have believed that “the end justifies the means.” Vote manipulation is but one of those means.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
― Joseph Stalin
Loading...
Another toxic thread. Didn’t read all the comments (weak stomach), but the argument put forth by Ponacrates, in line with raff’s initial post, is right on. Basically, the executives of a city or state should be able to decide how city or state funds are be used.
Loading...
bettykath – I will remember your statement when Republicans and Independents start doing the same thing.
Loading...
Listen to Max because he is telling you where this is going. They will be forcing Churches to offer the Sacraments to same sex couples or face crippling fines or perhaps even imprisonment of clergy or refuse to comply.
If you think people like Max won’t do that then you are fooling yourself. It is only a matter of time.
Loading...
Maybe Darren will run into Vito Spatafore @ the bar. Or, Ryan Braun if the Brewers are in town. NTTAWWT
Loading...
Because if I was a wedding planner or a photographer or a baker that is what you are doing. You want to coerce compliance with your morality. You want to force me to follow you religious beliefs. You want to punish dissenting views.
The freedom to have dissenting religious views was one of the basic principles of this county. You don’t get to decide. The government does not get to decide.
Is that so hard to understand?
Loading...
Darren you are very enlightened and oh so politically correct. I hop e you have a great time. But I don’t think you have the right to force me to join you. Do you?
Loading...
Darren you are naive if you do not believe that the ultimate goal is not the destruction of any Church that does not surrender their principles and doctrine to their control. It is not tolerance but control. That is why they will use everything in their power to destroy the Church, the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews. The only ones who seem to be immune are the Muslims.
I wonder why that is?
Loading...
P.S. My recollection is that my parents and family taught us not to be rude to anyone. It may have been the case that people as separate from nature as homosexuals would not have been so rude as to appear to force people to accept their behavior. I don’t think anyone ever considered that public acceptance of bizarre and deviant behavior could be forced upon the population by law.
It seems like what was the perfect form of governance, the restricted-vote republic, was surreptitiously taken over by radical minorities through vote fraud and manipulation. The path America is on, pleasing every whim of every deviant minority, will be a trip into irrationality and complete incoherence. There will be historic legislation up to and including legislation on the volume and duration of all discharges of flatulence, public and private.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Loading...
Trooper, We did actually get a moment of truth from the liar. Good catch.
Loading...
Darren, You are very naïve if you think the only people involved in this anti religion campaign are gay. The impetus is the secular progressive movement, some of whom happen to be gay.
Loading...
Bob,
I’ll propose that Barronelle Stutzman wouldn’t be in hot water had she kept her mouth shut, and made the bouquet accepting the money for it. Her bottom line (aka PROFIT) wouldn’t be negatively affected and we wouldn’t be bothered with her. But no. She decided her religion was more important than the business she inherited from her mother and now, may lose it all because of her failure to comply.
She’s a poor business owner with little to no public relations ability and, according to her, is in need of an accountant than can show her how to balance a bottom line while staying in business.
Loading...
Bob,
Did the State order her to provide flowers as restitution?
Loading...
You can keep repeating yourself Bob.
Doesn’t mean it applies to Barronelle Stutzman.
Loading...
Max,
I’ve come to the conclusion that you couldn’t find a syllogism with two hands and a flashlight.
Goodnight.
Loading...
Bob,
Barronelle Stutzman refused the original settlement of $7.91 by the couple she wronged. As a result, the State fined her $1,000. And now she refuses to pay and instead has a GO FUND ME site. Pity the fool…
Loading...
Yes Bob,
She broke the law and was fined.
Often equated as punishment for breaking the law.
Loading...
“The state may impose involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, but it may not compel one man to labor for another in payment of a debt, by punishing him as a criminal if he does not perform the service or pay the debt.”
Loading...
Bob
Rest assured… the only time you’ll be my slave is when I place the harness on ya with a ball gag and a collar. I’ll be holding the leash and riding crop.
Loading...
Bob
When the Florist refused service to a gay couple that she’s regularly sold flowers too all because of marriage… and Washington State law forbids such exclusionary acts against LGBT then…
= = =
servitude as a punishment for crime
= = =
She was fined $1,000.
Why is that a difficult issue for you.
Loading...
There is no reason to believe that the LGBT community has evil intent on destroying Christianity or subjugating anyone. That is absurd. We all just want to live an ordinary life free of being deprived of the rights that everyone should enjoy and partake in within a society.
Now if you will excuse me for the moment, it is time for me to head down to my regular Sunday haunt. And yes it is with LGBT people in an LGBT bar downtown. I’ve went there for years and frankly I believe it is one of the most civil places to have a drink, and that is why I go there. They also have good Tequila and Bourbon if you are so inclined.
And no, they do not refuse service to me on account of my Christianity or sexual orientation.
Discrimination is the first step of freedom.
If people cannot discriminate, they cannot be free.
There are consequences and there are unforeseen consequences.
There are always consequences.
People must adapt.
The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance.
Adapt to the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Refusal to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to a particular practice or ceremony does not equal discrimination against an entire class of people. If such refusal be deemed discrimination at all then the discrimination is directed at the particular practice or ceremony and not the people as a whole.
There are no cases of businesses going to court for the right to refuse to sell LBGT’s anything in a normal course of business or deny them access to their establishments. What some people will sue for is their right to follow the dictates of their own conscience as opposed to being indoctrinated by the State by being forced to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to a particular practice or ceremony.
To clarify the distinction between “a discriminating taste as a matter of discretion and conscience” and “the wholesale discrimination against a class of people” consider this:
A fashion photographer, who also does wedding photography, is asked by two of his gay models to photograph their wedding. The photographer politely declines — saying that it would offend his new and very religious wife as well as conflict with his own obligations acquired since converting to his wife’s religion. Immediately thereafter he tells his two models that he’ll see them bright and early Monday morning for the next shoot.
May it be properly said that the photographer is guilty of discriminating against homosexuals? Or did the photographer merely discriminate against a particular practice or ceremony by legally exercising his discretion to politely decline to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to it?
Where did the Founders simple concept of government limited to security and infrastructure, leaving the “blessings of liberty” as freedom and free enterprise without governmental interference go?
It all hinges on the vote. Ben Franklin said “…a republic, if you can keep it.” America was established as a republic, not one-man one-vote “democracy.” Criteria had to be met to vote. Since the American inception, the vote has been manipulated. The vote has been so dispersed and diluted that it can’t be trusted and is not even close to the intent of the Founders. One example is that democrats round up every illegal alien they can find and bus them to the corrupted polling place. Nixon beat Kennedy and Camelot should have never emerged from the witches cauldrons. Americans stopped overpopulation by reducing the birth rate in 1960; the shadow government globalists increased the population with inordinate and incongruous “immigration” to manipulate the vote. Since Marx, liberal leftist collectivists have believed that “the end justifies the means.” Vote manipulation is but one of those means.
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
― Joseph Stalin
Another toxic thread. Didn’t read all the comments (weak stomach), but the argument put forth by Ponacrates, in line with raff’s initial post, is right on. Basically, the executives of a city or state should be able to decide how city or state funds are be used.
bettykath – I will remember your statement when Republicans and Independents start doing the same thing.
Listen to Max because he is telling you where this is going. They will be forcing Churches to offer the Sacraments to same sex couples or face crippling fines or perhaps even imprisonment of clergy or refuse to comply.
If you think people like Max won’t do that then you are fooling yourself. It is only a matter of time.
Maybe Darren will run into Vito Spatafore @ the bar. Or, Ryan Braun if the Brewers are in town. NTTAWWT
Because if I was a wedding planner or a photographer or a baker that is what you are doing. You want to coerce compliance with your morality. You want to force me to follow you religious beliefs. You want to punish dissenting views.
The freedom to have dissenting religious views was one of the basic principles of this county. You don’t get to decide. The government does not get to decide.
Is that so hard to understand?
Darren you are very enlightened and oh so politically correct. I hop e you have a great time. But I don’t think you have the right to force me to join you. Do you?
Darren you are naive if you do not believe that the ultimate goal is not the destruction of any Church that does not surrender their principles and doctrine to their control. It is not tolerance but control. That is why they will use everything in their power to destroy the Church, the Mormons and the Orthodox Jews. The only ones who seem to be immune are the Muslims.
I wonder why that is?
P.S. My recollection is that my parents and family taught us not to be rude to anyone. It may have been the case that people as separate from nature as homosexuals would not have been so rude as to appear to force people to accept their behavior. I don’t think anyone ever considered that public acceptance of bizarre and deviant behavior could be forced upon the population by law.
It seems like what was the perfect form of governance, the restricted-vote republic, was surreptitiously taken over by radical minorities through vote fraud and manipulation. The path America is on, pleasing every whim of every deviant minority, will be a trip into irrationality and complete incoherence. There will be historic legislation up to and including legislation on the volume and duration of all discharges of flatulence, public and private.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Trooper, We did actually get a moment of truth from the liar. Good catch.
Darren, You are very naïve if you think the only people involved in this anti religion campaign are gay. The impetus is the secular progressive movement, some of whom happen to be gay.
Bob,
I’ll propose that Barronelle Stutzman wouldn’t be in hot water had she kept her mouth shut, and made the bouquet accepting the money for it. Her bottom line (aka PROFIT) wouldn’t be negatively affected and we wouldn’t be bothered with her. But no. She decided her religion was more important than the business she inherited from her mother and now, may lose it all because of her failure to comply.
She’s a poor business owner with little to no public relations ability and, according to her, is in need of an accountant than can show her how to balance a bottom line while staying in business.
Bob,
Did the State order her to provide flowers as restitution?
You can keep repeating yourself Bob.
Doesn’t mean it applies to Barronelle Stutzman.
Max,
I’ve come to the conclusion that you couldn’t find a syllogism with two hands and a flashlight.
Goodnight.
Bob,
Barronelle Stutzman refused the original settlement of $7.91 by the couple she wronged. As a result, the State fined her $1,000. And now she refuses to pay and instead has a GO FUND ME site. Pity the fool…
Yes Bob,
She broke the law and was fined.
Often equated as punishment for breaking the law.
“The state may impose involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, but it may not compel one man to labor for another in payment of a debt, by punishing him as a criminal if he does not perform the service or pay the debt.”
Bob
Rest assured… the only time you’ll be my slave is when I place the harness on ya with a ball gag and a collar. I’ll be holding the leash and riding crop.
Bob
When the Florist refused service to a gay couple that she’s regularly sold flowers too all because of marriage… and Washington State law forbids such exclusionary acts against LGBT then…
= = =
servitude as a punishment for crime
= = =
She was fined $1,000.
Why is that a difficult issue for you.
There is no reason to believe that the LGBT community has evil intent on destroying Christianity or subjugating anyone. That is absurd. We all just want to live an ordinary life free of being deprived of the rights that everyone should enjoy and partake in within a society.
Now if you will excuse me for the moment, it is time for me to head down to my regular Sunday haunt. And yes it is with LGBT people in an LGBT bar downtown. I’ve went there for years and frankly I believe it is one of the most civil places to have a drink, and that is why I go there. They also have good Tequila and Bourbon if you are so inclined.
And no, they do not refuse service to me on account of my Christianity or sexual orientation.