Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Guttermouth's avatar

Devil's Advocate response to Reps voting NO (please re-read this line each time you feel yourself getting angry at me):

The first two words- REQUIRES AIRLINES- indicates this is a bill mandating a private business (yes, I know this is arguable when we're talking about Big Air) to operate in a certain way not having to do with EOE protected classes.

It's a mandate just like the first mandate, it's simply going in the direction we want this time.

If you're a Republican legislator who takes a hard line on government mandating private business, I can see voting against yet another forced hiring/firing precedent.

This is the same as being a free-speech absolutist: sometimes you have to vote on the side of odious behavior in the name of the principle at stake.

Expand full comment
John's avatar

I'm taking a short cut and not doing the usual research before commenting, but a few questions lingered. I will do some looking when time allows, but asking these may shed more light.

What government agency restricted smart non-vaccinated pilots from doing their job?

What did the amendment actually say? In other words, did it eliminate the offending fiat rule, or did it add another layer of gov't gobelty gook?

And was it another mandate for companies to comply to, or was it a restriction of gov't overreach. The two are very different.

I fully agree that this so called majority, that was supposed to be on the aide of restoring sanity, or at least slowing the hemorrhage of gov't has been disappointing at best.

The Uniparty is alive and well, unfortunately.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts