GOP Legislators Creating A Hostile Business Enviornment In Georgia

Rep. Earl Ehrhart and Sen. John Wiles say they intend to introduce a bill in January 2007 that would prevent the state from doing business with companies who’s policies prohibit discrimination.

In essence what these legislators are saying is that they want big government in the boardrooms of our corporations telling them what decisions they ought to be making regarding their business policies and their charitable giving.  I thought that Republicans stood for getting government out of the way?  I guess not. 

This is just another situation that demonstrates Georgia Republicans addiction to big government.  We already knew that Georgia Republicans want big government in your bedrooms, in your familiy life, and in your schools.  However, their addiction to using big government to further their social goals has led them to want to be in our corporate boardrooms as well. 

Georgia Republicans apparently do not trust our businesses to make their own decisions.  They need the help of big government to guide them in the right direction.

Well, this is creating a hostile business environment in Georgia.  Businesses do not want to be told what to do by an all knowing big government.   

Can’t the Valdosta Boy Scouts come up with the money they need to operate without punishing one of the largest corporations in Georgia?  And don’t these legislators realize that only the government can restrict the “freedom to associate” rights of citizens, not a priavate corporation? 

They’ve actually got it backwards.  By passing this law, the government would be restricting Bank of America’s right to not associate with organizations that engage in discrimination.  A private bank can’t restrict anyone’s freedom to associate, but the government can restrict a private bank’s rights.  And a private bank may decide who they want to give their charitable money to without government interference.

And you’d better watch out for the precedent this might set.  Before you know it, a conservative business might be forced to give to liberal causes.

Atlanta Voic.Us has a post about Ehrhart’s propensity to legislate based on his own personal issues.


  1. gopdoc says:

    Another interpretation–Georgia is not going to let the liberal social agenda of other states, or liberal leaning companies, or universities direct who we are or what we do. If you want gays in the boy scouts, move to MA.

    Go for it guys. Send the message.

  2. schleyguy says:

    Gopdoc, as a shareholder of Bank of America, I’d appreciate the final say in what BoA does and doesn’t do with it’s money. Not you.

  3. Rusty says:

    Eventually the grown-ups are going to realize the behavior-policing faction of the GOP is dead weight on business in the state and show them the door. Bigotry is bad for business.

  4. Erick says:

    Isn’t this the same thing Bank of America is doing? BOA says to the boyscouts, “we won’t give you our money you because of you discriminate against homosexuals” and the state says to Bank of America, “we won’t give you our money because you don’t support the boyscouts”?

    It seems if BOA doesn’t have to do business with someone whose policies they disagree with, others, including the state, can do the same to BOA.

    We may be troubled with the state doing this to BOA for the reason that we don’t like the state encouraging a business to support discriminatory policies, but just because we don’t like it doesn’t mean the state has no right to do it. Ditto for BOA.

  5. Decaturguy says:

    There is one big difference Erick and that is something that you all don’t seem to understand. Bank of America is a private business. The State of Georgia is a government.

    The State cannot punish a private business for exercising its freedom of association.

  6. Rusty says:

    So… my tax dollars should only be spent to support companies that support interest groups with anti-gay stances.

    Hey, next, let’s say no state contracts with negros. And no business with people with green eyes. And Jews. Especially Jews.

    I wish Earl Ehrhart and the other supporters of garbage like this would just come out and say “we only want the state to do business white Christians.”

    And while they’re at it, I’d like for them to explain why this is more pressing business than addressing the three dollars per gallon I’m paying for gasoline.

  7. Dan says:

    I put this bill right up there with the one that would make it illegal not to serve sweet tea in a restaurant in Georgia. It’s just ridiculous.

    It’s not that I don’t think BOA should give to the Boy Scouts, I think the Boy Scouts is a good organization and deserving of the gifts. I also think that BOA should be able to choose who they give their money to.

    From reading the article, I think that the bill was born out of some personal vendetta against BOA by Rep. Ehrhart.

    And seeing how Jim Lientz is still COO of the state, I doubt this bill will ever get past the “let’s punish the big bad bank for picking on the poor poor boys” stage.

  8. Maybe a better question to ask is what kind of bank exists that is large enough to handle the banking portfolio of a $18 billion / year corporation (Georgia) yet doesn’t prohibit discrimination?

    I think if you look, you’ll find that SunTrust, BoA, Wachovia, etc, all the big players in the SouthEast market, wouldn’t pass muster under this law. So who does Earl have in mind?

  9. debbie0040 says:

    You are right on target Erik. Turn about is fair play. As a taxpayer, I don’t want my tax dollars going to a bank that refuses to give money to the Boyscouts. That is unamerican. BOA should change their name to the Bank of Unamerican.

    The gay lobby lets their voice be heard and it time we do as well. The voters in this state would agree with what Earl and John are doing.

    Way to go Earl and John!! Got get ’em!!

  10. Decaturguy says:

    Debbie, it is you that is “unamerican.” You may want to use our government to impose your theocratic views on everyone, but that is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the drafted the Bill of Rights.

    The “freedom to associate” is sacred and it must be upheld. Just as I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Boy Scouts do not have to allow gays, I support Bank of America’s right to not give them any charitable contributions because they discriminate. And the government should not get involved with deciding to whom Bank of America associates with and gives money to. And, yes, that includes deciding not to do business with them because of their position. That is most definately a state action.

    Debbie, you have every right to take your personal business away from Bank of American, and I support your right to do so, but keep the government out of your moral crusades.

    Since when is a group “owed” a charitable contribution from a private company? Why shouldn’t the Boy Scouts have to go out and earn contributions from people and companies who support their mission. I’m sure there are plenty out there. That is the “American way.”

  11. Eddie T says:

    Any company that doesn’t give money to the Boy Scouts is unamerican?

    What about a political party? I don’t see any record in the disclosure of the Republican Party of Georgia giving money to the boyscouts. Guess they’re un-American. Them and EVERY OTHER COMPANY that doesn’t give to the boyscouts. Terrorists.

    This is quite possibly the most ridiculous idea for a bill to come out of the Republican Party here in a long time. And given the behavior of the Republicans here as of late, that’s saying quite a bit.

  12. debbie0040 says:

    I should have phrased it “any company that refuses donations the the Boy Scouts based on their membership requirements”. The Boy Scouts are as American apple pie.

    The tax payers have a right to decide what is done with their tax money. John and Earl are duly elected representatives of the voters. The officials that will be voting on this bill are duly elected Representatives of the voters. If the voters disapprove of their actions they can vote them out of office. I believe the voters will overwhelmingly support John and Earl in this endeavor.

    No one is taking away BOA’s right to associate or donate money to anyone they choose. They don’t have a right to do business with the state. The taxpayer and their representatives should determine that.

    The freedom to associate does not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights but has been mentioned in Supreme Court Decisions.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  13. conservativecore says:

    Ok so making a decision in of where the state does business is wrong? I think that evaluating the banks, and I think if you look it will be determined that while other banks may have internal policies, as well as other corporations, that they still choose to give to organizations that do good works. Can all of you say you agree 100% with every elected official you have supported? Or that every organization you have been part of has done exaclty what you would have wanted them to do? BoA and others who are blackmailed by the militant gays, jesse jackson and others need to start to take back their right to make judgements as they see fit. Take a cue from McDonalds and let the stores, or in this case banks regionally decide how they will act. You can get lobster in McDonalds in Maine and it makes sense. Well in Valdosta they may not want gays in their group but in San Francisco they do have gays involved in the Boy Scouts. Big business needs to start to stand up to the minority groups who black mail them. Then the state wouldn’t have to get involved in the arguement.

  14. Bill Simon says:


    I’ll betcha Earl Ehrhart WOULD be stupid enough to write a bill on the Jewish problem in this state of them likely contributing more money to Dems than the GOP…and, I’ll betcha Sadie Fields wouldn’t say one word in protest.

  15. Decaturguy says:

    Debbie, I don’t think you are a lawyer, so don’t try to be one. Freedom of assciation is inherent in the First Amendment to the Constitution and has been for some 50 years. And you should be glad it has, Debbie, because if it was not, there would be gay scouts in New Jersey right now. And wouldn’t that just be a travesty!

    You are right, Debbie. The State does not have to do business with Bank of America. However, when it takes its business away because it does not approve of its political views or about its charitable giving program, it is violating Bank of America’s constitional rights. In other words, if there is every reason to belive that the government would do business with Bank of America, but for its not giving charitable donations to the Boy Scouts because of its non-discrimination policy, then they are violating BofA’s rights.

    But despite all of that, my original point is that it is stupid, anti-business, and pro-big government nanny state.

  16. debbie0040 says:

    Decatur guy, I may not be a lawyer, but I do study Supreme Court Decisions quite thoroughly to debate liberal activists such as yourself.

    That law will not violate BOA’s Constututional rights.

    In the 1984 Roberts vs. United States Decision , the leading case on freedom of association, the Supreme Court recognized the fact to determine it’s own membership or association is central to the free speech rights of expressive organizations. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor found that that the Jaycees were a commercial organization and therefore subject to state regulation of its membership.

    The Court in Roberts, however, upheld a Minnesota public accomodations law (Minnesota Human Rights Act) that required the Jaycees to admit women as members in contravention of that organization’s rules.

    Justice Brennan, for the Court, found that Minnesota had a compelling interest in providing the women of Minnesota the economic benefits that came with membership in the Jaycees.

    That is an example of allowing States to intrude on the freedom of association right of private organizations.

    The State of Georgia does have an interest in companies that do business with the State and their policies. Bank of America is discriminating against the Boy Scouts and their membership requirements.

    BOA has no right to do business with the State of Georgia. You would not have a problem if the legislature passed legislation that prohbited the state from doing business with companies that do discriminate against homosexuals. BOA does discriminate against the Boy Scouts because of their policy.

    I do not believe homosexuals are afforded protection under the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Other than religion, the Constitution does not afford behavior based protection.

    In 2000,Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court, upheld in a A 5-4 majority, found unconstitutional New Jersey’s decision prohibiting the Boy Scouts from terminating the membership of a gay scoutmaster. The Court held that the First Amendment protected the Boy Scouts, as an expressive organization promoting the view that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle, from excluding scouts on that basis. One of the approaches the Court takes in this case is to give great deference to the Boy Scouts and to the Boy Scouts’ opinion that allowing Dale to remain in the organization would harm the Boy Scouts’ message about leading a clean and morally straight lifestyle.

  17. Decaturguy says:

    “Other than religion, the Constitution does not afford behavior based protection.”

    What Debbie??? How about freedom of speech and expression? Is that not behavior?

    You comment smacks of a cut and paste job that has absolutely no relation to the issue at hand.

  18. Dignan says:

    debbie: DecaturGuy couldn’t be more right on this issue. There is nothing “conservative” about this bill and you should know better. This is a silly knee-jerk reaction to anything that smacks of “multiculturalism”, “tolerance”, or “political correctness”. Well, while I’m not a big fan of political correctness, conservatives should not find themselves on the other side advocating crass behavior involving racial or sexist slurs.

    Conservatives have long defended private institutions and their right to run their organizations as they see fit. See Augusta National. So why is this issue any different? You are being very inconsistant if you say a private business can’t engage in so-called “liberal” activities. That is hypocricy to the fullest.

    I’m also not sure why you feel the need to go to the ad hominem attack of “liberal activist” when talking to DecaturGuy. Would it be ok for me to refer to you as an “extremist rightwing nutjob”? Of course not. So drop the attack mode please.

  19. conservativecore says:

    Tell me if I am wrong here but you are all against disrimination against gays, and are willing to forget the right to free assembly, or the fact that we as a people rarely ever agree 100%. OK as Republicans do you have an opinion, any of you about reverse discrimination? of Affirmative Action?

  20. Decaturguy says:

    I would tell you whether or not you are wrong conservativecore, but I don’t understand what the hell you are trying to say.

  21. conservativecore says:

    Where do you stand onaffirmative action and reverse discrimination? Its a question actually 2

  22. debbie0040 says:

    Decaturguy, Sexual preference is not given protection in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Gays want the same type of protection that minorities receive and that is wrong.

    When have gays been denied the right of free speech or expression?

    What I posted is relevant, you are the one the mentioned the law would violate BOA’s Constitutional Right and I disagreed. Go read your own post.

    Dignan, this bill is conservative. It is a rejection of political correctness when it harms a great American institution like the Boy Scouts. The BOA has a right to donate to anyone they want and have whatever policy they want to. They do NOT have a right to state business.

    The voters of this state and our duly elected representatives have a right to determine the rules and guidelines in place on who the state does business with. You defend BOA’s rights while ignoring the rights of voters and the State of Georgia.

    Digman, he is a liberal activist so I called it like I see it and will not stop doing so because it offends you.

  23. Philly says:

    I agree with Wiles and Ehrhart and their bill. I am sick and tired of gay activists bullying their agenda on corporate America. It is time we strike back!! We should use whatever is at our disposal to do so, inclucing conservative legislation.

    Decaturguy, it will not violate Bank of America’s Constitutional Rights. You and your buddies can file court challenges all you want to. You need to keep in mind it is not the same liberal activist Supreme Court it once was.

    I am against affirmative action.

  24. Decaturguy says:

    I can’t state my argument any clearer. Y’all have it so screwed up (liberal vs. conservative, “activist judges”) you are not even making any coherent sense. This legislation is neither “conservative” or “business friendly,” it is not even pretending to be. Just because something is perceived as “religious” doesn’t make it “conservative.” My position on this issue is actually the conservative one: get the government out of our business! That used to be what Republicans and conservatives believed, that is until all of you Democrats became Republicans. There is nothing more I can say.

  25. Dignan says:

    debbie: I don’t think you know what conservatism is. There is absolutely nothing conservative about this bill. If you want to reject political correctness, then I suggest you not use BOA as your bank. Just don’t use the heavy hand of government to coerce a business to operate as you see fit. I used to think that conservatism was compatible with a free market.

    There are many corporations that have liberal business practices and donate lots of money to the DNC. Should we pass laws to penalize these companies? Of course not.

    What this bill proposes to do would end up penalizing companies with conservative business practices if Democrats gain control of the legislature. Is that what you want?

    I am aghast at the hypocrisy of the conservatives here advocating this bill.

    And Debbie, you show your ignorance and lack of class by using ad hominem attacks. You also do great damage to the ideas you believe in. Let your beliefs stand by themselves without resorting to personal attacks on others.

  26. conservativecore says:

    That is a nice try but it still begs the question as a consservative do you take a stand against those who have allowed themselves to be hijacked my the politically correct or do you do something about it?

    I am not much of a religous conservative, in fact I am one of those yankee conservatives who really doesn’t care about this social crap. What I do care about is the hyporcisy of a corporation.

    Just because you don’t like the fact that some conservative are taking action against those who would impose their moral compass on us some how galls you. Yet you claim to be conservative. What it seems to me is that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

    This is not a social issue it is an issue of protecting those who have taken a stand, like the boyscouts.

    Decaturgay I am curious why you didn’t answer my question from before. It is a simple for or against question. If you are so conservative tell us where you stand on the issue of affirmative action and reverse discrimination.

  27. Bill Simon says:


    Not that I’m yet prepared to argue for/against this, I do feel the need to point out to you that if you’re going to wage war with anyone (be it Debbie or otherwise) over the Bill of Rights, keep this firmly in mind: The Bill of Rights ONLY applies to individual citizens.

    It does not apply to BofA or any other “group” (whether private enterprise, government/public entity, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Gay Scouts, etc.). The Bill of Rights is only for the protection of the individual citizen from the threat of an oppressive government.

    So, when you state as you did the following “The State does not have to do business with Bank of America. However, when it takes its business away because it does not approve of its political views or about its charitable giving program, it is violating Bank of America’s constitutional rights.…the Bank of America DOES NOT have “constitutional rights” afforded to them by our Bill of Rights.

    Got it? Carry on, then. 🙂

  28. Decaturguy says:

    Oh, and despite the fact that you’ve tried to turn this into a argument about gays wanting protections from the Constitution, that has absolutely nothing to do with this legislation.

    No one is arguing that the Boy Scouts should have to accept gay members. I AGREE WITH THAT!

    However, the very same law that protects the Boy Scouts protects the rights of private businesses to choose who to donate money to. You cannot have it both ways because you agree with the outcome of one case and disagree with it on another. You have to be consistent.

  29. Decaturguy says:

    Yes, Bill, you are right, but BofA’s shareholders certainly are individuals who enjoy constitional rights, aren’t they?

  30. Bill Simon says:

    In other words, though the entity is comprised of individuals with rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, if you amass those individuals into a group of individuals who can be defined as “a group of investors,” the group does not take on the rights of the individuals.

    There is a USSC decision somewhere on this.

  31. John Konop says:

    Before we all rush to judgment you should read this .

    Although CAFTA expands NAFTA to the Dominican Republic and five Central American nations, it is not only about trade. CAFTA contains 1,000 pages of international law that the United States is now obliged to follow thanks to Utah congressmen and others who provided the votes that passed CAFTA. Among CAFTA’s non-trade provisions is a new right for foreign firms to provide gambling services within the United States and to use United Nations (UN) and World Bank tribunals to demand payment of U.S. taxpayer funds if these new CAFTA rights are not respected – regardless of existing, contradictory U.S. or state laws. CAFTA specifically requires that state laws, which would include Utah’s gambling ban, be consistent with CAFTA’s investment and other requirements. (emphasis added)

    …CAFTA opens a new door to attack on federal and Utah gambling regulations by empowering foreign gambling companies to use UN and World Bank international courts to challenge U.S. laws, including Utah’s gambling ban, which they could claim undermine the special new rights CAFTA provides foreign corporations. And a CAFTA challenge to Utah’s gambling ban could prove more potent than the previous WTO challenge, because the trade pact governing the WTO does not include the special foreign investor rights and protections contained in CAFTA and permits only countries, not foreign investors themselves (as in CAFTA), to challenge U.S. laws. (emphasis added)

    The new threat posed by CAFTA is far from hypothetical. First, under similar foreign investor protections contained in NAFTA, Mexico’s national gambling ban has been challenged by a Canadian company called Thunderbird Gaming, which claims that the Mexican government’s closure of its gambling facility violated its NAFTA investor protections. (View summary and documents here). That case is now being decided by a UN tribunal.3

    Second, since CAFTA was signed in May 2004, many of the online casinos that once operated out of Antigua, a Caribbean island that has been a haven for Internet gambling, have relocated operations to Costa Rica, one of the CAFTA countries.4 Moreover, the world’s leading Internet gambling company, Sportingbet PLC, recently acquired, a Costa Rican firm, for more than $300 million.5 By having a Costa Rican subsidiary, the European company can now use the new CAFTA foreign investor rights that the Utah congressmen’s votes for CAFTA have put into operation to attack Utah’s gambling ban.

  32. Harry says:

    Here’s another reason for the State of Georgia not to bank with BOA: All of their Georgia mid- and higher-level employees here are in the process of being eliminated or offered transfers out of state.

  33. jacewalden says:

    Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, but I have a few observations, correct me if I’m wrong…

    (1) It seems the only entity that is being restricted is the state here…We’re not telling BOA or anyone else who to “associate” with. The State is simply refusing to do business with BOA. Nothing illegal about that.

    (2) This is not a case of the Government telling businesses what they can or cannot do. It’s simply the government making a policy decision regarding its OWN dealings.

    (3) Chalk one up on the Calendar, but I actually agree with Debbie on something besides illegal immigration. It’s kind of an odd feeling.

    Jace Walden is now bracing for impact…

  34. John Konop says:


    (2) This is not a case of the Government telling businesses what they can or cannot do. It’s simply the government making a policy decision regarding its OWN dealings.

    The point of my post is that CAFTA ultimates this whole debate. Under CAFTA the State laws are meaningless to multi-national companies.

  35. jacewalden says:


    So you’re against CAFTA…I agree with you there.

    Would you be in favor of the legislation at hand though, regarding the State of GA and BOA?


  36. debbie0040 says:

    Jace, I bet there are more issues we agree on. 🙂 It is nice to find common ground with you.

  37. John Konop says:



    I agree with your post. I am not a lawyer,yet some states have restrictions on buying from sweatshops. So following your logic ,the point you made is a state would have to change sweatshop,environmental…… standards on purchases if this is unconstitutional.

    (1) It seems the only entity that is being restricted is the state here…We’re not telling BOA or anyone else who to “associate

  38. jacewalden says:


    I think we’re on the same page here…but your last post kind of confused me. Explain the whole sweatshop thing if you don’t mind. And just to make sure we’re on the same page, I’ll make it clear where I stand on this issue.

    (1) The State is not telling BoA, or any other entity, who or who not to donate money to…

    (2) If this passes, BoA, or any other entity, will still have the freedom to choose whether or not to donate to BSA or whoever…

    (3) Really, all this amounts to, is the State setting forth its standards of business.


    I have something to say about this post of yours:
    “However, the very same law that protects the Boy Scouts protects the rights of private businesses to choose who to donate money to. You cannot have it both ways because you agree with the outcome of one case and disagree with it on another. You have to be consistent”

    –I refer you to point number 2.


    Illegal Immigration and This Proposal. Maybe we’ll find more to agree on in the future.

  39. John Konop says:


    We have States that have laws that require business to not use sweatshop products or offshore labor…, they sell to the state.Your point is that laws like this are constitutional.

    By the way this an interesting group of articles about how congress sold states out to foreign courts. This is why Charlie Norwood thinks anyone in congress should pay the price for voting for this anti-American policy.As you can see we outsourced our immigration policy to foreign tribunal courts.Anyone who voted for CAFTA is not for real immigration reform.

    One article of CAFTA reads, “Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service … by a national of a party in the territory of another party.” CAFTA goes on to stipulate that member nations take care to ensure that local and national “measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services,” and to guarantee that our domestic laws are “not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.”

    What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are “unnecessary burdens to trade” that act as “restrictions on the supply of a service.”

    This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning.

    If CAFTA is approved, Congress’ “exclusive” authority to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals and trade panels —- in much the same way that Congress’ once supreme constitutional authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” has already been largely ceded to the WTO.

    Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is a member of the House International Relations Committee

    CAFTA articles: Amnesty for trade cheats, by Congressman Charles Norwood, June 17, 2005

    CAFTA’s big secret, by Lou Dobbs, CNN, June 30, 2005

    CAFTA: Ideology vs. national interests, by By Patrick J. Buchanan,, July 27, 2005

    There goes the neighborhood, by Phyllis Spivey,, July 22, 2005

    Does CAFTA include a visa?, by Rob Sanchez, July 11, 2005

    Will CAFTA Affect Immigration to the United States from Central America?, by

    CAFTA Squeaks by Senate, By Tiniest Margin Ever for Trade Bill in History

    CAFTA: Exporting American Jobs & Industry, by William Norman Grigg, The New American, published on, April 18, 2005

    Keystone to Convergence, by William Norman Grigg, The New American, published on, April 18, 2005

    U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports, by Assosiated Press, June 29, 2005

    CAFTA undermines immigration laws, by Tom Tancredo,, July 17, 2005

  40. jacewalden says:


    Thanks for the explanation. I can certainly see how my logic seems flawed in regards to the sweatshops. I agree with you that many American corporations are selling out the American people by outsourcing to “sweatshops” and other cheap foreign labor markets. I also agree that it is the government’s job to step in and do something about it…

    But, I don’t think regulating a businesses right to associate, even if it’s with a “sweatshop” is the answer. I think the answer is to provide true incentives for multi-nationals that choose to hire American over foreign. Also, the Government should do a lot more to encourage small business development. If we put all of our stock in the multi-nationals that end up selling us out…well, excuse the expression but we’re f***ing ourselves.

    What are your thoughts on this?

  41. Decaturguy says:

    “In other words, though the entity is comprised of individuals with rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, if you amass those individuals into a group of individuals who can be defined as “a group of investors,

  42. John Konop says:


    Adam Smith the father of free enterprise warned that monopolies destroy free enterprise. The real solution is to stop giving away programs to multi-national monopoly corporation to solve problems. We need to do SBA style loan guarantee programs to entrepreneurs to create competition and enforce anti-trust laws. A tax give away does not guarantee investment growth or competition. Loan guarantee guarantees investment ,a business plan and job and wage growth.

    For example if a company could create fuel cells to heat homes , alternative fuels,wind…. all of this would create jobs and force prices down.You can apply the logic to any industry. Small business creates jobs and wealth not monopoly style corporations. Richard A. Viguerie has been rather out spoken about big government Republicans have been selling us out to big business.. He is one of the conservatives that inspired me to speak out. This is part of an article you should read by Richard A. Viguerie one of the fathers of the conservative movement.

    But over time, most of them turned into the sort of unprincipled power brokers they had ousted in 1994. They lost interest in furthering conservative ideas, and they turned their attention to getting their share of the pork. Conservatives did not spend decades going door to door, staffing phone banks and compiling lists of like-minded voters so Republican congressmen could have highways named after them and so there could be an affirmative-action program for Republican lobbyists.

    Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of American Target Advertising, pioneered ideological and political direct mail and has been called “the funding father of the conservative movement

  43. jacewalden says:

    Decaturguy:”I’m conservative, you’re liberal, so that explains our difference of opinion on this issue.”

    You must be on crack. Decaturguy, I don’t think the government should have much power at all…but I do think the Government (speaking for the will of the people) ought to have the same freedom of association that individual people have. Where you got that I was a liberal, I’ll never know. I cannot stand liberals. Also, where you got that you’re conservative, I’ll never know.


    I agree with you 110% about big government conservatives betraying the conservative legacy. It’s hard to stress how much I agree with you on this point.

  44. Decaturguy says:

    Bill, here is Chief Justice Rhenquist in the Boy Scouts case:

    “The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.”

    Sounds like Chief Justic Rhenquist disagreed with you Bill on whether a group of individuals have First Amendment rights.

  45. Bill Simon says:

    Well..I’m going to have to back and beat-up David Shafer because he’s the guy that taught me that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to corporations.

  46. Bill Simon says:

    Well..I’m going to have to go back and beat-up David Shafer because he’s the guy that taught me that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to corporations.

  47. McCain-Rice\'08 says:

    Dear Lord, are we back on this subject again.

    I agree with Debbie, I support this piece of legislation proposed by Rep. Ehrhart, and Sen. Wiles. This state has, under Democratic control, given the boy scouts the cold shoulder by not allowing them to meet in schools and public facilities..the days of Tom Murphy are over (praise the Lord)..and we Republicans now control things, and we Republicans support the Boy Scouts.

    The Bank of America-Valdosta had every right to halt their funding of the Boy Scouts and bold face lie by calling them “an organization that promotes discrimination”..but the leaders that we Georgian’s have elected have every single right to make sure state money goes to scouting friendy coorperations..when it needs to. What happend was a horrible business decision on B.O.A-Valdosta’s part..and now they’re paying for it.

    This is yet another example of Decaturguy misunderstanding of the facts and devlivering them to us in a very slanted manner. I think it’s safe to say he is an active advocate for the Gay Community and I respect that, but I can not see how he can hold so much anomosity towards an organization that works to instill values and character in young men, like the Boy Scouts. They are a private organization that promotes moral values…and I think most Americans would agree that Homosexuality is not “a moral value” by any account…So, they have every right to restrict gays from being members.

    I see this bill passing with enormous bi-partisan support, now that we know that Mark Taylor wont be presiding over the Senate to block it.

  48. McCain-Rice\'08 says:

    In direct reguards to the Headline of this post, that is absolutley wrong…the GOP under Sonny Perdue have made Georgia a bussiness friendly enviornment and thus providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. This did not happen under Barnes, we Republicans advocate removing some of the unfair taxes so businesses can move here and provide even more jobs and economic gain to the state.

  49. Decaturguy says:

    Just so this thread is clear, I do not hate the Boy Scouts, I think they do good work, and I support their right to exclude whomever they want.

    I also believe that Georgia businesses have the right to make business and charitable giving decisions without the threat of big government punishing them if they don’t like those decisions.

    If some other business believes that the Boy Scouts are worthy of their charitable giving, then they should donate to the troop. It is called the free market – look into it, it’s called the American way.

  50. Demonbeck says:

    Well said Decaturguy. There is absolutely no reason why any business cannot make their own decisions on their charitable donations. If people are put off by who they do or do not give to, then they can take their business elsewhere – which is also their right. To have government step in and admonish them for such an action would be a misuse of power way beyond any eminent domain action ever has been.

    That being said, if the KKK and the Black Panthers can walk down a public street, then the Boy Scouts should be allowed to meet in a public school.

  51. McCain-Rice\'08 says:

    Realizing that the Bank of America-Valdosta is no longer “scouting friendly”…this state as well as regular citizens have the right to remove their funds from Bank of America and find another bank…I don’t think anyone here denies that BOA-Valdosta had the right to do what they did, it was simply a stupid business move…and now theyre paying for it. Decaturguy, thanks for clearing up your views on the Boy Scouts…However, I hope you understand that this bill also acts with in the means of FREE MARKET, and they are not “punishing” BOA..they simply would like to bank with a scouting friendly company.

Comments are closed.