North Carolina County Violates First Amendment

[KingsGambit]

CivilDiscourse is calling it out because he doesn't want cancel culture on either side. I think it is a big reason why many are becoming more disillusioned with the two major political parties. I also have to agree it is bad when either side does it.

To be clear, I recognized this as the point of the OP. It just got me thinking a little deeper about the morality of the "fight fire with fire" approach in a political context. The example I've been thinking about lately is the sanctuary city movement. For years, progressive activists have been pushing (with success) for cities to declare themselves as "sanctuary cities" where federal immigration laws are not enforced; conservatives have been aghast. In more recent years, though, the pro-life movement has switched gears to push towns (not cities, generally!) to declare themselves as "abortion sanctuary cities" where Roe v. Wade is ignored. James White is one figure probably familiar to most on here who has been involved in that movement. This may be admirable, but it hasn't stopped the complaints about ignoring the rule of law in regards to immigration. It seems to betray that the rule of law itself is not the real issue.

[Watermelon]

No. it still wouldn't be a first amendment issue. Not unless they passed some law preventing that Christian company from selling products everywhere in their jurisdiction because of their religion. (e.g. It is now illegal for Christian organizations to have bible vending machines anywhere in North Carolina)

I think the first amendment issue is:

A company voices strong opposition to some legislation.

Government punishes company as a result.


The issue isn’t how the government is retaliating. The issue is that they are retaliating.

[CivilDiscourse]

To be clear, I recognized this as the point of the OP. It just got me thinking a little deeper about the morality of the "fight fire with fire" approach in a political context. The example I've been thinking about lately is the sanctuary city movement. For years, progressive activists have been pushing (with success) for cities to declare themselves as "sanctuary cities" where federal immigration laws are not enforced; conservatives have been aghast. In more recent years, though, the pro-life movement has switched gears to push towns (not cities, generally!) to declare themselves as "abortion sanctuary cities" where Roe v. Wade is ignored. James White is one figure probably familiar to most on here who has been involved in that movement. This may be admirable, but it hasn't stopped the complaints about ignoring the rule of law in regards to immigration. It seems to betray that the rule of law itself is not the real issue.

The biggest problem with the "abortion sanctuary city" idea compared to the "immigration sanctuary city" is that those harmed (in tort concept) have redress against the abortion side, while none against the immigration side. If you ban abortion in your city, or punish a doctor, refuse a clinic, etc. You open the city up to lawsuits, which you lose on, and then you are forced to pay. With immigration, when you refuse to enforce immigration, the immigrants aren't going to sue, and anything that happens as a result ends up being a couple of steps removed from your culpability.

[Sparko]

I think the first amendment issue is:

A company voices strong opposition to some legislation.

Government punishes company as a result.


The issue isn’t how the government is retaliating. The issue is that they are retaliating.

I think it comes down to a matter of degree. Simply not renewing a contract in some buildings is not going to do much to the company's bottom line. If they passed legislation that banned the company from selling product in the entire state, then it would be an unfair punishment which would be a 1st amendment violation interfering with their business. But they don't have any right to sell product in government buildings, they had to bid for a contract in the first place.

[Watermelon]

I think it comes down to a matter of degree. Simply not renewing a contract in some buildings is not going to do much to the company's bottom line. If they passed legislation that banned the company from selling product in the entire state, then it would be an unfair punishment which would be a 1st amendment violation interfering with their business. But they don't have any right to sell product in government buildings, they had to bid for a contract in the first place.

It’s not about really about how it affects the company, the decision to take any sort of action against a company due to their political support/opposition is the issue.

It affects the 1st amendment for everyone not just Coca Cola as it turns whatever actions Coca Cola took in voicing their opposition into something that is punishable by the government and therefore no longer “free speech”.