Slashdot Mirror
W. Virginia Bans Direct Tesla Sales, With Urging of Car-Dealer Senate President
Ars Technica reports that another state has buckled to the auto dealership lobby, though with an interesting twist:
West Virginia became at least the fifth state to ban the direct-sales approach practiced by Tesla Motors following Friday's signature by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. ... The bill was championed by West Virginia's Senate president, who is an auto dealer in his home state and Kentucky. ... The legislation says a vehicle maker may not “act in the capacity of a new motor vehicle dealer” or “operate a dealership, including, but not limited to, displaying a motor vehicle intended to facilitate the sale of new motor vehicles other than through franchised dealers, unless the display is part of an automobile trade show that more than two automobile manufacturers participate in.” ... The Palo Alto, California-based electric-vehicle company operates so-called "galleries" in Texas, Arizona, and Maryland because the company's sales practices are barred there, too. Customers can see Tesla cars in these galleries, but they may not order vehicles, discuss prices or take test drives."
NObody can? seems fair.
So what im hearing is.... Tesla needs to make 2 NEW car companies so it can display its cars in West Virginia and sell them? seems legit!
I'm a West Virginia guy
A West Virginia boy
West Virginia is my pride and joy.
West Virginia's good enough fer me.
And I say goo-de-gook-de-gook-de,
Gooo-de-gook-de-do.
West Virginia's good enough fer me.
I'm a West Virginia guy
With a twinkle in my eye.
West Virginia's good enough fer me!
Can't believe these politicians are still thinking its the 1950s.. The future is here, we should embrace it.
Clearly "what the people want" isn't working here. So why don't they simply sell the cars direct there anyway and disregard the law? Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars. It would seem near-impossible to get a unanimous verdict to convict, as is required in Virginia.
Is this allowed by the commercial clause in the 1st Amendment?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I test drove a Tesla in Maryland (Bethesda Mall) just a couple months ago.
Why not? Why do these carmakers let us pick the color and interiors on their websites yet not let us shop off the internet? Please come to the dealership Hey that's why I am getting a car, Einstein.
So, basically, they are FORCING people to buy the Teslas in another state, thus screwing themselves out of several thousand dollars worth of sales taxes per car? Kind of like the Indiana and Arkansas governors signing bills that drive away business... too bad government isn't like corporations, wherein officials are obligated to act in the company's fiduciary interest. In this case, government appears to be screwing themselves to protect specials interests.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
That way people can at least drive the car.
There are specialized car rental agencies that deal with Ferraris and other high-end cars.
Obviously trying to enforce such an idiotic law will cause law suits going all the way to the Supreme Court and Tesla will win. I'm dead certain that W. Va. is so loaded with wealth that a waste of millions of dollars means nothing to them at all. Tesla should be allowed punitive damages for this outrage.
So, basically, they are FORCING people to buy the Teslas in another state, thus screwing themselves out of several thousand dollars worth of sales taxes per car? Kind of like the Indiana and Arkansas governors signing bills that drive away business... too bad government isn't like corporations, wherein officials are obligated to act in the company's fiduciary interest. In this case, government appears to be screwing themselves to protect specials interests.
Why do people like you hate people in Indiana and Arkansas? Do you hate just Christians? Or is it just Jews and Christians? Or people of all faiths? Tim S.
In my opinion the more Christian someone calls themselves the less like Christ they act.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Even worse than lawyers (effectively) banning film documentaries.
Specifically, the more they hate anyone else.
I could careless what happens in america, this goes agaist everything your capitalist culture cheers on doesn't it? Competitions drives innovation, jobs, & society growth? Tesla sell direct to market around the world now, and dealerships aren't falling apart, nor are automakers choosing to sell direct. Surely someone could counter the law by using foreign markets as active models to demostrate both models work. Its the same as the pc industry sorta, all sell direct online but only hand full sell through their own shops (apple), and rest use bestbuy, amazon, new egg, etc to sell in volume to, acting as a fiacal recevnue buffer. And now apple to the point they use 3rd party more and more.
It's a reference to the "religious freedom" legislation those two states passed recently that allow for discrimination based on religious beliefs that prompted several tech companies including Apple to curtail their business there, which was covered on Slashdot here and here. Essentially if a resident of those states has a personal prejudice against some group and can find a relevant passage in their religious book of choice (generally not too hard, given how open to interpretation the texts are), then they can quite legally tell them to take a hike. It doesn't mean that they're not going to face a backlash from the rest of society or the media, of course, as several people/groups have already found out.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
If I were Tesla Motors (owned it, whatever) I'd park a new Tesla across the street from every new car dealership with large signs saying things like "This Is The Car $DEALERBRAND Doesn't Want You To See Or Drive!".
I'd take a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and bus-in protesters to march in front of every dealership every day, plus full-page ads in every paper..
Use a buggy-whip as a symbol for the car makers/dealers to frame them as outmoded and obsolete in the public's eye.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So if it's good for Tesla to sell directly, why not let GM do it? You can certainly trust THEM to take care of customers.
Driving around with no noise, plugging into walls like they are some kinda glorified sectual aid all those liberals use in California . Ever notice that ever since that South African fascist started selling his eeeelectric cars that Detroit started goin out of business. This is no coincidence. Those Teslas are some kind of communist plot put forth by the Trilateral Commission on the New World Order to bring down this merica's great automobile industry. I for one applaud West Virgina's bold stance against all that is bad for this great nation.
When I have read of a law like this for the first time, I checked, whether I have read of the correct country. But when I thought it over, I came to the conclusion, that I must be right - your country is run by a bunch of greedy oligarchs, not by elected representatives of the people.
In Germany, a rule like that will never make it through legislation because it is outright against the constitution.
Some regimes are calling themselves communist but are capitalist like China, some call themselves home of capitalism but seem to me quite the opposite - like US of A.
So, could a black gay diner owner refuse to serve someone coming in wearing Nazi regalia, who is well-known in the community for a stance calling for death for all blacks and gays?
Or does the freedom to choose to do with your own time, money, and business what you wish, only extend against one group?
I'm not sure if I saw a buggy whip, I'd know what it was.
Why do people like you hate people in Indiana and Arkansas? Do you hate just Christians? Or is it just Jews and Christians? Or people of all faiths?
We don't hate christians, We don't people who think it is a right of theirs to deprive others of their rights. Hypocrites.
A lot of fundamentalist Christians just happen to be hypocrites. And you do such a good job of hating that we don't need to. You are just so full of hate that you think everyone is.
You'd be screaming like a stuck pig if people refused to sell to christians.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
For my freedom for you to choose for me.
than in a red state.
Without Telsa, who will compete with West Virginia's single BMW dealership!?! I guess anyone interested in the $70k luxury sedan range will have to drive the extra 56 miles to Ashland, KY if they want the full range of options. I sure hope they can afford the gas...
In a state where coal is king, you ban the direct sale of electric cars.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
They don't need a passage in a book to justify discrimination. They simply need to state it's their religious belief. The problem with the two most recent laws is that it makes this type of discrimination a defense against civil tort and doesn't provide protection for legally protected classes. This is the difference between the federal law and what the states are recently passing.
The important bit here is that when amendments were offered to prevent this discrimination and make the law look and act like the federal law the people behind this have refused because that would void the purpose they are targeting here which is to make discrimination against gay people legal. They don't like that the attitude about gay marriage being legal has changed and want to be able to refuse service to gay people and any attempt to put provisions into these laws making that no longer possible is opposed very heavily.
If someone wants to open a business but exclude groups of the public that they don't even know they should open that business as a private club, not as a public business.
What's a "public business"? Businesses are privately owned.
I think buyers pay sales tax in their home state anyway even if they buy in other state.
And why would they care about sales tax, it is not their money. Their dealership business is their money, and the whole business model is threatened by direct sales.
Just another example of GOP small government for you.
What does it mean when a politician does something bad (by the standards of the reporter) and no party is mentioned?
That right! Earl Tomblin (D).
See that "Preview" button?
people who think it is a right of theirs to deprive others of their rights. Hypocrites.
So - for example - if a baker were to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that would mean that this couple would be unable to marry? Even if there are other bakers in town who have no problem accepting the business? They are THAT powerful?
Or did you mean that since gay people can now legally marry, that anyone who sells custom cakes is compelled to bake a cake for them? In essence, the gay couple's rights deprive the baker of theirs?
Just goes to show that personal enrichment is higher on the average policician's priorities than ideology for all parties.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
How does this kind of law can block Tesla from creating 100% privately owned subsidiary company to offload what they are not allowed to do as a car builder?
How is that states can pass laws that relate to in-state sales of cars to consumers, but apparently laws that relate to in-state sales of drugs to consumers are pre-empted by federal law?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Why do you think there is such dread and menace in that whispery interrogative: "Do you know, the Muffin Man" . Medieval crime lords, worse than any yak.
Just goes to show that personal enrichment is higher on the average policician's priorities than ideology for all parties.
It's hard to make any statements about the 'average' when there's only one data point.
The math doesn't work out.
These dealerships are [working] for Tesla to prop up its sales!
By preventing people from buying, they build demand, cause people to "want" that which they can't have any other way.
It also "filters" the causal annoying people who aren't really going to by a Tesla.. they really have to [Want to] so [EVERY] Tesla sales engagement is both a positive one and a [certain sale] they simple don't have to deal with the [Noise].
All these dealerships are loosing out on the people who have the money to bank role purchase themselves and are absolutely certain they are going to "get that car".
How idiotically stupid these Politicians are taking this stance.. if even one dealship files a lawsuit stating that the Laws are herding Profitable clean, well researched people direct to a small number of Tesla sales people in other states.. and the dealerships are "loosing" those sales and getting a higher number of marginal.. less profitable.. more noisy sales.. the tide will absolutely flip and there will be Counter lawsuits.
There's this fiction that "we done did paid for dur roads!!!" and this therefore means they are "public" and we can tell them what to do beyond fairly obvious shit like taxation and worker safety.
It's basically the "government can do whatever the fuck it wants because TAXES!" neglecting the fact that these businesses themselves already pay taxes.
You have no right to force a private citizen or business to serve you. That is what's called a "made up right", aka one that does not at all exist.
I'm an atheist and I fully stand for these business' right to 'discriminate'. I also think it's fine (and appropriate/correct) to boycott businesses when they do such things. No gays welcome? OK, bye - good luck fuck-douche.
What you people don't get is you can't stop them from effectively "discriminating" anyway. It's a feel good law with no practical value. If they don't want to serve gays all they have to do is, when they come in to buy or plan it, say "Hi faggot, how can I help you and your devil's gay dirty fag wedding?" and continue to hurl abuse at them, provide shitty service, etc...
You can't stop people from being assholes unless they are assaulting or defrauding, etc...
West Virginia has a special tax for engineers because they are engineers. Silicon valley innovation is never going there.
It is utterly unsurprising that an old-boys network has won in politics in West Virginia. They are once again demonstrating that they are backwoods and anti-intellectual. They are anti-innovation and pro-poverty. If they want to stay poor and lose any talent they happen to grow - then their policies have to change.
people who think it is a right of theirs to deprive others of their rights. Hypocrites.
So - for example - if a baker were to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that would mean that this couple would be unable to marry?
So for example, if a baker refused to bake a cake for a fundamentalist Christian couple, that would be prefectly okay?
It's one of the problems of people of great faith, I was raised by them, and they believe that they do have the right to do whatever they want to to those they hate.
Or did you mean that since gay people can now legally marry, that anyone who sells custom cakes is compelled to bake a cake for them? In essence, the gay couple's rights deprive the baker of theirs?
Tell me, would you support a law that didn't allow Christians to marry? Or not allow to be sold to because they were Christian? Careful that one's got some history.
Of course you wouldn't. I wouldn't either. That's because I believe all people have fundamental rights. even gay people. Or balck people. Or Jewish people, or atheists. Even Eskimos and Canadians.
Christians didn't invent marriage, so you don't get to define it. And the ban on gay marriage was an old testament religion based discrimination that needed to go.
But as for selling a cake to a couple homosexuals, the last time I checked, their money was just as good as anyone else's. I'd sell to them, I'd sell to you. As long as it's lawful, no reason not to.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So, can someone remind me why Amazon doesn't sell new cars yet? Or would that only happen if they had their own brand ?
vice other states, where any minority can force anybody in business to actively participate in what they believe is sinful.
...who could afford a Tesla are going to be real disappointed.
Who is the unnamed West Virginia Senate President and auto dealer in West Virginia and Kentucky?
That's right! Bill Cole (R).
So for example, if a baker refused to bake a cake for a fundamentalist Christian couple, that would be prefectly okay?
Yep. If the baker had some reason - real or imagined - not to bake a cake for a fundamentalist Christian couple, why is it OK for the government to say "either you bake a cake for them, or go out of business".
It's one of the problems of people of great faith, I was raised by them, and they believe that they do have the right to do whatever they want to to those they hate.
So now simply saying "Sorry, I choose not to provide this service at this time" is "doing whatever they want to those they hate"? Um, sure.
Tell me, would you support a law that didn't allow Christians to marry? Or not allow to be sold to because they were Christian? Careful that one's got some history.
I picked the wedding cake because that's a case that did exist. It's a big reason all these laws are springing up. There is a huge difference between not allow to be sold to, and some people chose not to provide custom products to. If this was a party favor store, and someone comes in to buy wedding favors - the store owner does not need to know or care what it's for. The particular example is one where the product is custom made to specifications. That's the difference. Nobody is saying that they can't marry - or even that they can't have a cake. There are plenty of bakers who will perform the service no problem.
That's because I believe all people have fundamental rights. even gay people.
So do I. I just think buying a cake from a particular store is not one of them.
Let's turn it around - suppose a gay person owned a custom T-shirt shop. Could they refuse to print up 100 T-shirts with anti-gay slogans on them?
But as for selling a cake to a couple homosexuals, the last time I checked, their money was just as good as anyone else's. I'd sell to them, I'd sell to you. As long as it's lawful, no reason not to.
And aren't you glad you have that choice? If someone else decides to make a different choice, why is it your business?
Seems like this is one of those situations where we should let the "invisible hand" of the free market sort it out.
So for example, if a baker refused to bake a cake for a fundamentalist Christian couple, that would be prefectly okay?
Absolutely.
It's one of the problems of people of great faith, I was raised by them, and they believe that they do have the right to do whatever they want to to those they hate.
Enh, not so much. Declining to participate isn't so much doing to someone as it is not doing. The baker isn't stoning the prospective customer, flogging him, or even raising public sentiment against him; the baker is just saying "hey, I don't want to be a part of this; why don't you take your money to our competition instead?"
But as for selling a cake to a couple homosexuals, the last time I checked, their money was just as good as anyone else's. I'd sell to them, I'd sell to you. As long as it's lawful, no reason not to.
So would I. But if a business owner doesn't want to take a customer's money, preferring instead that it go to his competition, it seems like that's a problem that will sort itself out. Furthermore, nothing prevents the customer from sharing his experience; given the ever-increasing climate of tolerance, it seems like that sort of publicity would cause even more harm than just the loss of that single customer, and I'm glad of that.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I just finished my taxes. Going over the available deductions, I was (darkly) amused at how clearly organized interest groups get their pet deductions put in the federal and state tax codes.
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." -- James Carville.
The same statement is applicable to federal, state and local legislatures.
Why not other products too? Then there would be no company owned Apple or Microsoft stores. No company owned McDonald's or Burger King stores. No company owned gas stations either. Every store would be required by law to be a franchise independent from the manufacturer of the branded products sold.
I guess this is how Republicans want to get government off people's backs.
Corruption is one thing, probably the only thing anymore, that is bipartisan.
"Why do people like you hate people in Indiana and Arkansas?Do you hate just Christians? Or is it just Jews and Christians? Or people of all faiths? " - i doubt it, people just hate small minded bigots of any or no faith
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"Let's turn it around - suppose a gay person owned a custom T-shirt shop. Could they refuse to print up 100 T-shirts with anti-gay slogans on them?" - thats not a "turn around", its an apple and oranges example. If the gay cake was to say "up yours christian biggots," then you'd have a comparable analogy.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
if that discriminatory attitude spread to every business in town and a gay person could not buy anything in that town, would that still be okay?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
replace "gay" with "black" - does your argument still hold up?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
In my opinion, anyone that honestly believes there's big man who lives in the sky and made everything, is stupid and shouldn't be trusted.
Now there's free markets for you, Republican style!
Republican idea of capitalism: regulation and the government choosing for you what's best.
It means we don't give a flying fuck which flavour of corrupt cocksucker is in office.
Why do you? You think putting (R) after someone's name makes them fucking perfection personified, the second coming of Jesus and above all critique?
Just fucking get over it.
What does it mean when a politician does something bad (by the standards of the reporter) and no party is mentioned?
That right! Earl Tomblin (D).
Oh grow up. The SECOND sentence of the story is this:
The bill was championed by West Virginia's Senate president, Bill Cole, who is an auto dealer in his home state and Kentucky.
Do you see a party affiliation mentioned there? No you do not.
And yet he's a republican.
What does it mean when a politician does something bad (by the standards of the reporter) and no party is mentioned?
That right! Earl Tomblin (D).
Far worse than the governor who signed a bill passed by 96% of the senate and 91% of the house is the senate president who pushed it through himself and stands to directly benefit from it because he owns a car dealership and he's a republican. But the article did not mention his party either either.
So, what does it mean when an internet jag-off whines about his own confirmation bias?
That's right! He's a hardcore conservative, living in the conservative bubble.
That would be a business providing goods and services to the general public.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So now simply saying "Sorry, I choose not to provide this service at this time" is "doing whatever they want to those they hate"? Um, sure.
Ah, but now you are modifying things a bit. Some years back, I had a Photography/Video business. And that gets inot the wedding trade. After I was established, I could see red flags with some customers. You might be surprised, but there are a lot of assholes in this world, who are alomst impossible to work with.
So I was already booked that weekend. Or I thought that there were other photographers who were more suitable for the purpose. One time for a bar Mitzva I was videoing, they made me stand outside the main room and in an enclosure. So I had no intention of doing one of those again, and kept the names of some Jewish Video businesses.
My point is that if I was dealing with an asshat, or possibly put in a degrading postion, I would politely decline, and offer alternatives.
But I would never ever frame it as a religious thing. I'd explain that someone might do it better. And some times someone would ask why - for the mitzva case, I noted that due to restrictions placed on me, I couldn't do the job they deserved. So a year later, after explaining that to parents of a young lady and her bat mitzva, they checked into it and there were no restrictions, so I did video it. Everybody happy.
So if a person is so upset at selling a stupid cake to a couple fags or lezzies, maybe they should just be too busy that weekend, or provide so references to someone who specializes in that, so can do a better job for the doomed to hell couple.
Times change, and perhaps some folks who had to stay in a closet, and who a few centuries before would be burnt at the stake might be forgive if they get a little annoyed at someone who decides to make a big deal out of their orientation.
That's the difference. Nobody is saying that they can't marry - or even that they can't have a cake. There are plenty of bakers who will perform the service no problem.
You aren't in America are you? This is the country that passed the defense of marriage act. Those people who have a big boner about making a cake damn well wouldn't allow those sinners to marry each other.
Let's turn it around - suppose a gay person owned a custom T-shirt shop. Could they refuse to print up 100 T-shirts with anti-gay slogans on them?
If it were me, and I was gay, I'd print them up. For the same reason I would print up anyone's T-Shirts. I note I'm not gay, because I'd print up gay, biker, silly shit teenagers think is funny, even religious stuff. As long as it was legal, I'd have no problem if the customer paid their bills.
And as noted before, If I were annoyed because they didn't pray to the great jub jub at the bottom of the sea, and I didn't want to sell to them, I'd politely suggest some other folks that might do a better job for them.
And aren't you glad you have that choice? If someone else decides to make a different choice, why is it your business?
Let's go away from cakes, ant into more tangible items.
Let's say you got a job in a town, yet all of the real estate agents in the local association were of the religious sort. Let's say they didn't cotton to your atheist ways. So they wouldn't sell a house to you because of your lack of belief. Or a car, or groceries. This is all good?
Or your race? You believe that a person can declare any Chocolate people on my property will be arrested and/or shot? Seems in your world, a person could transport themselves back to Jim Crow or even medieval times and call it an increase of freedoms.
'ceptin they lynched those chocolate people, and you didn't have to worry about caterin' to those homos because they were all burnt at the stake.
But all that is silliness - if some gays offend you, come up wiht a better reason than your religion tells you it's wrong. Because just as I slippery sloped your argument, there are religions out there that have rather more intense ways to treat gay peeps.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Let's turn it around - suppose a gay person owned a custom T-shirt shop. Could they refuse to print up 100 T-shirts with anti-gay slogans on them?" - thats not a "turn around", its an apple and oranges example. If the gay cake was to say "up yours christian biggots," then you'd have a comparable analogy.
Good point.
I really suspect that what got this started was that the gay couple came in, and in true fundamentalist fashion, they not only got a refusal, but probably a holier than thou lecture about it.
I don't see gay people marching or getting together to restrict Christian rights. The other way? Hell yeah.
Well, except for that one where Christians think they have the right to remove other people's rights.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, it's comparable. In each case it's a direct offense to the other's beliefs.
Yes. Why wouldn't it?
get out the guillotine. zero tolerance for corruption!
Back in the middle of the past century it was very common to see signs proclaiming:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"
What these bigots would not post on their signs was "we don't serve blacks" (though it would be the N-word) here, or "we don't serve indians here" (native americans), or what ever the hated minority was in that time and place.
All of the arguments about the rights of the business proprietor's rights fall on deaf ears with me. In our country no one has absolute and total freedom. Rights of individuals are balanced against one another. I don't have the right to shoot my gun in a public place in most regions because of the danger to other's life and liberty. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, slander and libel are other examples. In the case of civil rights the decisions were taken at the very highest levels of our government and courts. Individuals and businesses offering public accommodations could not refuse service to protected classes of people. In the 60s that generally was to the benefit of blacks.
At the time the civil rights laws were enacted there were people who claimed religious rights for their bigotry and racism. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and guess what folks, you don't have absolute religious freedom or absolute freedom of speech or any other absolute rights in this country, nor should you.
The fight these days is about one of the last classes of people that you can still legally discriminate against in many areas, the LGBTs. In most of the country you can fire, or refuse to hire, someone be cause of their sexual orientation or sexual identity. That is just as wrong as refusing to employ blacks or women. These new state Religious Freedom Restoration laws are very thinly veiled legal discrimination plain and simple. The federal law prohibited governments from unnecessarily restricting religious freedoms. The Indiana law went further in that it created a legal defense against civil discrimination lawsuits. Basically establishing a right for you to discriminate against me because I happen to be gay by just claiming it is against your religious belief.
Believe your religion all day long. Pray as much as you like. Believe that I will burn in hell if you need. But don't tell me that my money isn't as good as the other guy's and refuse to sell to me or provide service to me because I am gay. It doesn't really affect your religion at all does it? It is just unwarranted hate on your part.
You must not get out much. Go look up:
42 U.S. Code 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
It might be a made up right but since due process and all was involved it is my right nonetheless to expect a business owner to provide service to me if his business falls under the purview of the law.
being able to screw everyone else as hard and as fast as you can, for your own persona; gratification and profit. We tried it your way once in the 40's. Please don't make us have to re-educate you.
It is just like when people like you refused to let blacks eat at the lunch counter. while they could possibly eat somewhere else, you do not have the right to screw them over just so you can feel good.
All the hillbillys in WV should go back to riding mules to work in the mines or at their stills.
So for example, if a baker refused to bake a cake for a fundamentalist Christian couple, that would be prefectly okay?
Absolutely.
Good, we have a baseline. Now the next question. Is it acceptable to refuse to give say, insulin to a diabetic gay man?
If he dies because of that, is that an acceptable outcome? If it is not perfectly acceptable, then why?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
not its not. being gay in not offensive
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
that says more about your attitude to in moving forward along the civilised path to enlightenment.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The bill was championed by senate president Bill Cole (R).. duchebaggery is generally bipartisan.
once more into the breach
Seriously who gives a fat rats arse if tesla want to sell direct?
This smells of politicians bowing to campaign funding or worse.
Why can't the politicians just say to these greedy arseholes go fuck yourselves and run your businesses properly and stop wasting my time?
Don't brand your cars as Tesla.
Give each model it's own brand name, produced by a separate company. You'll be able to have auto shows all over the country.
Or say a big fuck you to protectionist lobby groups and their anti-free market laws and move your company to Europe.
Because one of the politicians owns a car dealership.
The greedy assholes are the politicians.
I was not interested in one before, but now I may buy one. I really don't like some asshole interfering with me and someone who wants to do business with me.
When it comes to introducing economic efficiencies that delete/off-shore US labor, I frequently see comments to the effect that you can't stop "progress". Ah, but when it comes to economic efficiencies that makes the business model of a major fraction of the top 0.1% redundant, many state legislators are the model of efficiency of preventing the destruction of capital. Well, screw 'em. If economic efficiency is "good", then it's good for everyone. Time for a bit of market discipline, rather than continued state-supported rent collection.
Tesla has lost 3 sales. They should sue.