Politics, Society

Bad Precedent Set By Seattle Mayor And Washington Governor Issuing Orders Prohibiting Government Employees Travelling On Business To Indiana

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

Mayor Ed Murray
Mayor Ed Murray

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
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.

By Darren Smith

Sources:

The Olympian
City of Seattle

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”

  2. Pursuant to the following excerpts, this entry should be voided due to vagueness.

    “…asserts by implication that Washington State has jurisdiction…”

    “…it can unduly influence the voters to vote according to another state politician’s wishes.”

    “…are in effect regulating interstate commerce…”

    The quality of this blog has substantially and rapidly deteriorated to such a degree that sometimes it is reminiscent of Fox News (i.e., we can’t have dead air, so just say something…hell, say anything).

  3. When it comes down to it, sacred freedoms and rights sometimes collide. Those that believe that ‘freedom of religion’ trumps ‘freedom from religion’ go with the cake bakers. Those that believe ‘freedom from religion’ trumps ‘freedom of religion’ go with those who are discriminated against. It is just that simple, unless you notice the stuff Madison and the other early guys stated, that stuff about the civil rights of none to be affected by religious types, or something like that.

    I go with ‘freedom from religion’. The reason can be found by reading history, or simply reading the papers. In my opinion, religion should be a private affair, conducted privately, away from the workings that include and affect all of society, for example the right to buy a g*ddamm*d cake.

    What I believe is my business. If I am open for business, unless the customer is dangerous, dirty, or openly offensive, they are right. I do draw the line at two guys walking into my establishment with *ssless chaps, one guy’s hand up the other guy’s butt. Hypocritical? Perhaps.

    1. issac – ‘ I do draw the line at two guys walking into my establishment with *ssless chaps, one guy’s hand up the other guy’s butt.’ This could be unhygenic. But if you are in the chaps business, they are good money. 🙂

  4. Weddings…..(of a contemporary sort)

    I love the part when the pastor turns to the couple and says…..

    Who made the Holy Cake that we are about to share that God has seen fit to bless? Is it brought forth from a Holy place, a place of Purity and Obedience to God? Who vouches for the sanctity of this Holy Cake?

    And the congregation responds…..

    We do Lord. We do.

  5. Thomas

    The many communists on this blog control everything. We control all the universities. We even control your thoughts. We are all powerful. We control who will win the NCAA. We control all media outlets and pizza parlors.

    Look deep into my eyes. You are now in my power. Boo!

  6. usn, It is painfully obvious this is not a positive movement. It is not pro gay, it is anti religion. And they lie. Go through these threads and there are numerous times they say “don’t want to serve gay customers.” It’s a flat ass lie. The issue is being part of a gay wedding, something that did not even exist until just recently!! You would think none of these disingenuous people had never been to a wedding! There is the wedding and the reception, the CELEBRATION of the marriage. And now, many weddings have both together. Historically, it was a church wedding, then move to the hall, restaurant, etc. for the reception. Our daughter got married recently. Both the ceremony and reception were @ the restaurant. That is becoming the norm.

  7. Max-1, do you have the controls to CENSOR this thread? Are you the censor?

    “It’s good to be CENSOR.”

    You make my point.

    Dictatorship or Freedom.

    Dictatorship CENSORS Freedom.

    I love it.

  8. Max-1…

    The premise of your position is hard for me to comprehend due to the following… Disagreement with an “action” does not automatically mean hate. It could just mean disagreement.

    The doctrine of most Christian denominations identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Because a church believes this, it does not mean they “hate” homosexuals. It simply means they think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    This belief is unacceptable to the gay community in particular and to progressives in general; so the straw-man argument of “gay hating” is presented as being factual. In other words… one is not allowed to disagree. To disagree is to be a “hater”, a “bigot”, or a “racist” depending on the topic.

    I don’t want to pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, but I can assure you that I harbor no ill will, hatred, or quite frankly much of any other thought in my heart about homosexuals. Never have. I simply do not think a persons sexuality is any of my business and it has zero bearing on what I think of them as a person. I think most American’s are that way in today’s world.

    I am about as apathetic as a person can be on homosexuality. I have no personal problems with “gay marriage” and think the tax code should be modified so that ALL people are treated equally.

    Where I start to have a problem is when liberal progressives want to use bullying tactics, slander, and boycotts to trample the rights those who simply disagree with the cause du-jour.

    Because a small town pizza parlor owner answered a hypothetical question in a manner unacceptable to some, the left tried to destroy them. I and many others found this unacceptable and donated some money to that shop owner.

    1. Thomas – JT is the censor and in his absence it is Darren. Nothing is pre-censored. It is only censored if it violates the Civility Code. Go to the Home Page and read it and follow. 🙂 WordPress eats comments at random and if you just say “Help! WordPress ate my comment” Someone will try to rescue it. They will let you know if they find it You cannot have more than two links in a comment, that will be eaten. Also certain words are not allowed by WordPress, they will be eaten (actually they go into moderation).

  10. Thomas, Colleges and universities are the petri dish of how this ilk like to control EVERYTHING and dictate thought, words, and behavior. They are a collective borderline personality disorder, trying to control EVERYTHING about others and controlling NOTHING about themselves. Hell, I have a lonely, angry, control freak trying to tell me what team I can root for. LOL!

  11. OMG, somebody just discovered the ORIGINAL draft of Martin Luther King’s famous speech! Oh, this is astounding!!!

    To: Ralph Abernathy
    From: Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Dear Ralph,

    How are you??? Fine I hope! I got your draft of the speech and have reviewed it. The structure is fine, but it seems to be full of things that are silly and bizarre. You didn’t let that tooty-fruity Negro, Patrice’, help you write this did you??? Anyway, this is an important speech, and I do not want to get laughed at. Plus, the discrimination we have faced as a people is serious, and I would get on my knees and thank the Lord if the worst we ever faced was some cracker baker in Alabama not wanting to bake cakes for us. I have edited this, and am resubmitting it to the committee for review.

    MLK, Jr.

    PS: Watch out for that Patrice’. I was sitting in the bathroom one day, and that rascal was in the next stall tapping his feet like he was Bunny Briggs. I am telling you, something’s not right with that Negro.

    ——————————-

    I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, even those whose love dare not speak its name.”

    I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to meet for drinks, go dancing, and hold hands in public sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of nude males frolicking together in the pool of freedom and justice.

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be able to marry people of the same sex, and bakers, photographers, and florists will be forced to participate in the wedding not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    I think this is maybe genuine, because there really was a tap dancer called Bunny Briggs.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  12. Thomas
    “Freedom is neutrality and it is unbiased.”
    = = =
    Isn’t crafting laws allowing others to limit the Rights of others sort of your teams motto? So, why support unbalanced laws that grant special protections for bigots to be bigots outwardly in commerce? Because it’s never unbiased when supported by your team? The hypocrisy is rich… and even richer still when Christ is thrown in as the stop plate for bigotry.

  13. What Pat Robertson and his ilk aren’t honest about… is they are using their religion to force the Government into doing something that acts against other Citizens’ basic Rights. The freedom to exchange Caesar’s dollars for a good produced for profits (Caesar’s).

    When will I be free FROM that oppression?

  14. Thomas,
    Why fear love between two consenting adults?
    Yet, your fear has you defending a totalitarian principle that oppresses and limits the joy and happiness of the love between two people.

    Yet, I’m the commie pinko? For endorsing love?

    “You are a communist who despises success, dictates collectivism and violently opposes freedom, free enterprise and personal choice.”

    Quote me, please.

  16. Paul C.
    You have internet… you have a buybull. https://carm.org/online-bible
    You have internet, you have porn. And cooking, and auto repair and almost everything at your wish.

    And Paul C. You do know that many in the LGBT community are taught to hate themselves and others who are like them…

    1. Max-1

      And Paul C. You do know that many in the LGBT community are taught to hate themselves and others who are like them…

      I do know that some hate others in the now expanded community for some of the silliest things. I don’t know that they are taught to hate themselves. Every school I taught at (at risk) was very accepting of LGBT students, although I don’t remember having a transgender student while I was teaching. We had plenty of the others.

      Just so you don’t feel left out and end up hating yourself, there is now a gay gang.

  17. Max-1, you proffer nothing of value with your ad hominem attacks. You have lost the debate. You are a communist who despises success, dictates collectivism and violently opposes freedom, free enterprise and personal choice. What good are you? Do you lead rallies against the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights? I’ll bet your hero is justice Ginsburg who committed treason while overseas by disparaging the founding documents.

    You collectivists want to dictate the behavior of free individuals.

    Freedom is neutrality and it is unbiased. It is neither affirmative nor negative
    action. The founding documents refer to people not colors races or any other bio-criteria.

    Personal taste is 100% bias. That is freedom.

    The Founders destroyed dictatorship. They destroyed the King; the Monarch.

    You collectivists dictate and believe yourselves deities.

    Will you next tell us whom to marry? No. Will you DICTATE homosexual

    relationships? How about compulsory homosexual relationships as “sensitivity

    training.” I like it!

    Once you start a dictatorship, where do you end it?

  18. Wadewilliams – it is my understanding from my reading of the 14th century that doctors treated those that paid them. Sometimes they took their fee in trade (barter).

  19. usn420
    And “Love the sinner and hate the sin” isn’t a greater mystery?
    Jesus is often found talking about how hate isn’t an option, yet we see Christian Conservatives often defending the “right” to hate in Jesus’ name.

    That is the mystery here…

  20. Richard,
    At least we know you support dictatorships…
    … And the oppression of a minority class by that dictatorship.

Comments are closed.