And those pages boil down to guessing at intent and claiming control over hiring is part of free speech. Your dismissal of my comment would be more convincing if it addressed what I actually said.
> claiming control over hiring is part of free speech
The Supreme Court has upheld that freedom of association is a necessary part of the right to free speech. Do you not consider control over hiring to be freedom of association?
As mentioned in my earlier comment, the same political side and I bet the same judge, would support discriminatory requirements for the hiring practices of federal contractors. The question is whether the government can include things in its contracts to attain whatever political goals are desired, even if people have personal freedom of association. Whatever the answer, it has to be enforced equally in all circumstances. To me this judge is making a politically motivated ruling.
Instead of answering my very simple and straightforward question you instead do a "whatabout". Why is that? Do you not consider control over hiring to be covered by freedom of association?
