Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
I believe that is what I wrote.
Ah yes, the businesses can choose to not do business in the largest state in the nation. Or, the businesses can choose to set up parallel sources and production lines for their products that will be shipped to California. Or, businesses can recognize that to stay in business they need to remain in the California market and the only way to do that is to change their sourcing which will affect all their products whether they are shipped to California or not. Really not much of a choice for the businesses.
|
It is possible that I am splitting hairs, but I do think that miniscule difference matters. I was understanding you to say that CA voters were telling you what you can or cannot do, and you had no say in that. That may not have been what you were stating. But if it was, CA voters do have a right to say they do not what porks sold in their state under a certain set of conditions. If the businesses that sell in that state choose to apply those conditions everywhere else, CA cannot be blamed for that. Yes it is a side effect of their law, but they did not (directly) force the businesses to do anything any different for any other state. So, you not having a say in CA law does not make you a victim of CA law. It may make you "collateral damage" but I don't think a state should be prevented from implementing a law that only applies to goods and services sold in their state, because the businesses that operate in their state CHOOSE to apply the law for other states, and that bothers/affects the residents of the other states.
Bottom line is I agree that it may (probably will?) affect you. But that is not CA's concern.
You can read in my post before this that I think the law may be flawed for other reasons, but that is a different discussion.