Anews article today that the AG of Kalifornia has banned all State government officials from travel to Oklahoma due to what he says is the States LGBT bias and discrimination. This can help ashure Oklahoma that Kalifornia officials woun't be spreading their Liberal/progressive BS that is destroying their state.

Texas too, hopefully.

The AG, a law enforcement officer, not a law maker, is doing this? Under some existing California state law, then?

I haven't read the AG's directive, but typically these kinds of things are full of all kinds of waivers and exemptions so that anyone who actually needs to go to OK for state business can do so.

It's most likely all for show - virtue-signalling and PR.

It's BS, really.

EDIT: SEE BELOW: California taxpayers are taking a stand against .... BS! Not all tax payers! Many California taxpayers are NOT for any of this BS! JAllen is right, GDC's!

California's attorney general is banning all future state-funded travel to Oklahoma because of a new child placement law that is being criticized there as discriminatory.

The ban goes into effect June 22.

The restriction is unlikely to impact the 2018 OU-UCLA football game in Norman because it was scheduled by contract in 2013.

The Oklahoma Sooners play the Bruins from the University of California, Los Angeles on Sept. 8. The game is expected to be one of the early highlights of the college football season.

The new law allows private adoption and foster care agencies to still get state funding even if they refuse on religious grounds to offer their services to gay couples.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the ban on Friday. He said he acted because of a California law that prohibits state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with laws that discriminate "on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression."

Oklahoma is the ninth state to be put on the travel ban list since the California law went into effect in 2017.

Gov. Mary Fallin signed the child placement bill May 11, disputing criticism that it was discriminatory. She said the state "will not be in any way restricting current practice allowing LGBTQ individuals and couples" to be foster parents or adopt.


"Other states that have declined the protection to faith-based agencies have seen these agencies close their doors, leaving less options for successful placement of children who need loving parents," the governor said.

The law goes into effect Nov. 1.

"California will not use state resources to support states that pass discriminatory laws," the California AG said Friday. "The law enacted in Oklahoma allows discrimination against LGBTQ children and aspiring LGBTQ parents who must navigate the adoption process. California taxpayers are taking a stand against bigotry and in support of those who would be harmed by this prejudiced policy.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter quickly denounced the ban as politics.


"We're going to brainstorm about it," Hunter told The Oklahoman on Friday. "The attorney general's office will be conferring with other states that have been blacklisted by the California attorney general to determine what legal remedies are available."

He defended the new child placement law, saying "Oklahoma puts the interests of children ahead of political games."

"It is utterly undeniable that our state, like many others, needs more participants in the foster and adoption systems — not less," Hunter said in a news release.

“Senate Bill 1140 encourages increased participation by barring the type of discrimination we have seen in various parts of the country, like Massachusetts, where religious organizations like Catholic Charities have been excluded from the adoption field," Hunter said.

LINK

Now if we could only get all the other states on their ban list, they will stay in Kalifornia and keep their libtard bias there...

As a taxpayer in this bankrupt hell, I say ban all .gov persons travel. All of it. Except maybe law enforcement bringing prisoners back. There is nothing a gov employee (ex. LEO) can’t do by real time video conferencing that can’t be done face to face.

So California is divesting from....Oklahoma?

quote:

Originally posted by mr kablammo:
Texas too, hopefully.

The other states already on the travel ban list are Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

They pulled this garbage in Alabama too. Prevented a CA college rocket team to travel to Huntsville for a competition. Eventually, after their stunt was publicized, relief was championed by Homer Hickam and the trip was funded privately and they made the trip.

What a bunch of idiots.

I would like to see this policy broadened.

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
As a taxpayer in this bankrupt hell, I say ban all .gov persons travel. All of it. Except maybe law enforcement bringing prisoners back. There is nothing a gov employee (ex. LEO) can’t do by real time video conferencing that can’t be done face to face.

Curious, how much of their travel is for the public good, how much is a defacto perk?

And all of Oklahoma is laughing with delight?

P.S. So am I...

Commifoamia-at the mouth and it's nasty politics can stay in Commifoamia.

Please add Colorado to the list. Thx!

Sigh. I am really hoping I can hang in long enough for my youngest to finish High School, but Sacramento seems to produce more and more intact male bovine effluent faster and faster. The insanity of this state is beyond belief.

This is what happens when your AG is a calf.

There is a law on the book that the AG of California must be an active member of the California Bar for a minimum of five consecutive years before being elected into the position. When moonbeam appointed the current AG, he was on inactive status with the bar for more than 10 years then changed his status to active.

This may account for why so many suits have been filed which first years law students know won't win.

It's also why a suit declaring the AG ineligible for the November election had been filed [by a real attorney].

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
There is a law on the book that the AG of California must be an active member of the California Bar for a minimum of five consecutive years before being elected into the position. When moonbeam appointed the current AG, he was on inactive status with the bar for more than 10 years then changed his status to active.

This may account for why so many suits have been filed which first years law students know won't win.

It's also why a suit declaring the AG ineligible for the November election had been filed [by a real attorney].

I don’t know about the law exactly, but Xavier Becerra the AG went inactive 1/1/91 and back active 1/1/17.

Add:

According to a news article,

quote:

According to the suit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court by rival candidate Eric Early, Becerra cannot serve because he was listed as “inactive” from 1991 to 2017 in the state bar. State law requires the attorney general to have been “admitted to practice” before the state Supreme Court for five years before taking office. Becerra was admitted to the bar in 1985.


“For almost 26 straight years, he was an inactive member of the state bar,” Early said in an interview. “He does not have what it takes to be the chief legal officer of the state of California.”

But Becerra’s campaign and Brown’s office noted this all has a familiar ring — a judge 11 years ago threw out a lawsuit claiming Brown was ineligible for the office of Attorney General to which he had just been elected because his bar membership was inactive from 1997 to April 2003.

The judge in that 2007 ruling argued that “admission to practice law is separate from the question of ‘active’ or ‘inactive’ membership in the State Bar,” which she called a “purely ministerial” distinction that affects only member dues.

“They made this same frivolous argument after Jerry Brown was elected Attorney General and the courts shut them down and ordered them to pay Brown’s court costs,” Becerra campaign manager Dana Williamson said. “I don’t anticipate a different outcome in this case.”

The state bar says that “only active licensees may practice law in California,” but adds that “inactive licensees have chosen this status voluntarily and may transfer to active at any time upon request.”

Early, however, said the issue has yet to be decided by the state’s high court and that the trial court judge in 2007 also was concerned about reversing the will of voters who already had elected Brown, whereas Becerra has yet to be elected to his office. His lawsuit is being handled by former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and asks the court to declare Becerra ineligible and order his name stricken from the November ballot.

Link

It isn’t exactly active upon request and paying dues. Inactive means “not eligible to practice law.” You also have to comply with continuing education requirements.

If a state is not on the banned list from CA, can they apply so CA won’t come to their state too ? Probably have to pay a fee to CA to get on the list, and pay an annual fee to stay banned.