kimmy Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 This week the state of Indiana stepped on a political landmine when they passed a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". A few years ago some baker got sued because she refused service to a lesbian couple who wanted a wedding cake, and since then a lot of states have come up with laws that will allow businesses to refuse service based on religious views. Supporters of these laws say they protect religious people from having to act against their conscience; opponents say they legalize discrimination. Indiana isn't the first state to come up with a law like this, but it's the first time that one of these laws has caused this degree of political fall-out. That's because this time, the criticism of the law isn't coming from the usual social activists, it's coming from business quarters. San Francisco-based software company Salesforce bought an Indiana-based company a few years ago and has in the neighborhood of 3000 employees in Indiana. Immediately after the law was signed by the governor, Salesforce announced that they will no longer be sending employees to Indiana for business, and put talk of expansioning their Indiana operations on hold. A burgeoning business in the conventions and hospitalities sector has been a key to economically reviving Indianapolis, but in wake of the law, the very large "Gen Con" gamer convention and a Disciples of Christ convention have both expressed plans to take future events out of Indiana. The Gen Con convention is contractually locked in to Indianapolis until 2020, and the Disciples of Christ convention isn't until 2017, so these aren't immediate threats. The NCAA and NFL have also announced plans to review locating upcoming events in Indiana. The "Angie's List" social networking and product reviews site has just canceled a planned Indianapolis expansion that was expected to bring 1000 jobs to the city. They are now looking at expanding outside the state instead. The reason isn't on moral grounds, it's about the Benjamins. "Angie's List" was to receive tax breaks on the expansion project in return for meeting job-creation benchmarks, and they believe that the law will hinder their recruiting efforts. The bottom line to Angie's List, Oesterle said, is that the new law hurts the company's ability to recruit and retain top-flight talent. The project, which required assistance from the state and city, contained hiring benchmarks. "We believe that what that bill does to our efforts to recruit good talent into Indiana is significant," he explained. "We're unwilling to engage in an economic development agreement that is contingent on us hiring people in when the state is sending a message out to potential employees that is not always palatable." Indiana-based Cummins, world-renowned maker of diesel engines, echoed the same concern: "We're disappointed with the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act," said a Cummins spokesman. "Cummins believes it's bad for business and bad for Indiana and sends the message that the state is unwelcoming." He added, "We are a global company in a competitive environment and it could hinder our ability to attract and retain top talent." Basically, what it boils down to is that companies like Cummins and Salesforce and Angie's List need to attract educated young professionals. They're concerned that the RFRA makes Indiana sound like a redneck backwater, and young educated professionals don't want to move to a redneck backwater. (this is why no businesses were up in arms about the Arkansas RFRA, which also passed this week. No educated young professionals were planning on moving to Arkansas anyway.) Indianapolis businesses are now sticking up "This Business Serves EVERYONE" stickers in response to the RFRA. On Monday the Indianapolis city council is looking to pass a resolution denouncing the RFRA and proclaiming Indianapolis open to everyone. The city is trying to do damage control on a public relations disaster that was not of its own making. The RFRA was obviously brought in by legislators from rural parts of the state, but it is Indianapolis that will bear the economic fallout. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 I wonder where the outrage from liberals was when the Democrats enacted the federal RFRA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) If so many states have enacted the same sort of legislation, why is everyone down on Indiana? Not that I support the legislation, but what will the practical effects be in terms of discrimination against gays? Probably close to nil, I would think. There might be some Jehovahs Witness or Evangalical types working in bakery shops which will lose business from gays, but so what, really? I suspect this is more related to the emotionalism of the thing. There was a time when homosexuality was basically not talked about much, and where 'discrimination' against gays was not merely a matter of course, but the law. I remember when the Liberals passed the last changes to the Marriage Act in 1999 and Anne Mclellan was adamant that they had no intention of changing the definition of marriage. In fact, the Liberals had to amend the legislation to specifically say marriage was only between a man and a woman, not because of opposition from the Tories, but because of opposition within the Liberal Party. Fast forward fifteen years and it seems like any opposition or discomfort or dislike for gays and anything to do with homosexuals causes a collective gasp of horror among the media and intelligentsia. It's really quite amazing what a decade or so of persistently sympathetic gay news and media stories, pro-gay characters on television, and media disapproval of anything which seems to discriminate against or disapprove of gays has wrought in terms of popular sentiment. Edited March 29, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Anyone who believes in equality SHOULD support the Indiana legislation. Opposition to it is the very outright bigotry the opponents are pretending to be against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 This morning I was watching Indiana Governor Mike Pence being grilled by George Stephanopolous on the issue. When George asked the governor if it was now illegal for a baker or florist to refuse to cater a gay wedding, the governor started the old "religious freedom" tap dance. It reminded me of the arguments many, many years ago whether a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a person if he was black. God Bless America! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Anyone who believes in equality SHOULD support the Indiana legislation. Opposition to it is the very outright bigotry the opponents are pretending to be against. I understand the philosophy behind the bill. I can see not forcing deeply religious people to do things which go against their religion. I just don't think it happens often enough for it to be an issue worthy of the attention these bills have been getting. They've been spreading from state to state, always by Republican legislatures. It seems to me the purpose is not so much to protect the very occasional person who doesn't want to make a cake with two boys on it as to push this as a hot button issue amongst hard right wing Republicans who hate gay people. The Republicans are all about hot button issues now: abortion, guns, gays, birth control and sex education, prayer in schools, and cutting taxes. They don't seem to have anything else, or feel the need to have anything else. Then again, they're doing pretty good on just the hot button issues, regardless of what that does to their country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 It would appear that this legislation would also permit refusal to serve blacks or jews or roman catholics on religious grounds. You name the group and there will be a religious denomination that would be able to invoke this nonsense bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 It would appear that this legislation would also permit refusal to serve blacks or jews or roman catholics on religious grounds. You name the group and there will be a religious denomination that would be able to invoke this nonsense bill. Several states already permit legal gender discrimination at health clubs, without regard to religious beliefs or freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 The point is, it is not just gender or sexual orientation that is at risk. This bill allows discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, race or politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 The point is, it is not just gender or sexual orientation that is at risk. This bill allows discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, race or politics. Gender discrimination impacts a much larger group than religion, race, or politics. It is legal in many states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 The hysteria over this is another example of the drive-by media. That would rather incite people with headlines and question rather than reporting on actual facts. 20 states already have similar legislation in place, and Bill Clinton signed one of the original bills at the federal level. There's also strict scrutiny in place when it comes to this new legislation. 1- religious beliefs must be sincerely held. 2- if there's a compelling state interest, the religious objection can be overridden. 3- the states action in overriding the belief has to be the least intrusive, while still satisfying the state interest. States have been using these tests for decades. Anyways, I hope that helps. Honestly, some of you conduct yourself like Pavlovian dogs. The mere mention of something like this sends your hair on fire. Calm down and learn the facts. Not just what like-minded blog is telling you. Some of you are worse than teenagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It would seem this legislation is a Pavlovian response to the continued overturning of Marriage Act legislation. As has been shown the "free market" is correcting behaviour.....novel. The lobby that pushed for this useless crap has signed Pence's death certificate.......hope he gets his post-job kickback out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 The hysteria over this is another example of the drive-by media. That would rather incite people with headlines and question rather than reporting on actual facts. 20 states already have similar legislation in place, and Bill Clinton signed one of the original bills at the federal level. There's also strict scrutiny in place when it comes to this new legislation. 1- religious beliefs must be sincerely held. 2- if there's a compelling state interest, the religious objection can be overridden. 3- the states action in overriding the belief has to be the least intrusive, while still satisfying the state interest. States have been using these tests for decades. Anyways, I hope that helps. Honestly, some of you conduct yourself like Pavlovian dogs. The mere mention of something like this sends your hair on fire. Calm down and learn the facts. Not just what like-minded blog is telling you. Some of you are worse than teenagers. Right, so let's discriminate against the LGBT community (who, by the way are just as normal and human as you and I) based on fairy tales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Right, so let's discriminate against the LGBT community (who, by the way are just as normal and human as you and I) based on fairy tales. They're definitely human, but being gay isn't normal. I can say that while at the same time supporting their rights and equality as I can separate the two things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Has discrimination ever really subsided in the US.....I think not from my numerous visits. May have been swept under the rug a bit, but apparently its still alive and well in Indy. And what ever happened to that idea of separation of church and state I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They're definitely human, but being gay isn't normal. I can say that while at the same time supporting their rights and equality as I can separate the two things. Well, good for you to recognize their rights and equality. But both of your statements negates each other. Can you imagine the feelings the LGBT community feel when they hear someone say they aren't normal. Do you have any idea of what you are proseltytizing? I would imagine your beliefs would change when and if you have a gay son or daughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Well, good for you to recognize their rights and equality. But both of your statements negates each other. Can you imagine the feelings the LGBT community feel when they hear someone say they aren't normal. Do you have any idea of what you are proseltytizing? I would imagine your beliefs would change when and if you have a gay son or daughter. Being as I had a gay best friend that was murdered, I doubt it. Being gay isn't normal. There's nothing wrong with it, but it isn't normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Being as I had a gay best friend that was murdered, I doubt it. Being gay isn't normal. There's nothing wrong with it, but it isn't normal. Being gay is normal. The fact you think it isn't normal is the problem with our society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Being gay is normal. The fact you think it isn't normal is the problem with our society. It is natural, but it obviously wasn't the biological intent. Being able to separate normal and okay is just fine. Edited March 30, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It is natural, but it obviously wasn't the biological intent. Being able to separate normal and okay is just fine. Right. I'm not going to engage in this ridiculous conversation with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Right. I'm not going to engage in this ridiculous conversation with you. There's nothing ridiculous about it. Being gay is just fine. Being gay is even natural (there are plenty of gay male animals). It doesn't though, meet the definition of normal, and that's fine too. I don't understand why you're so closed minded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 There's nothing ridiculous about it. Being gay is just fine. Being gay is even natural (there are plenty of gay male animals). It doesn't though, meet the definition of normal, and that's fine too. I don't understand why you're so closed minded. And exactly who gave you the authority, or more importantly the insight to decide what is normal...Perhaps you are hung up on the idea that procreation is the only acceptable reason for intimate connection between people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 There's nothing ridiculous about it. Being gay is just fine. Being gay is even natural (there are plenty of gay male animals). It doesn't though, meet the definition of normal, and that's fine too. I don't understand why you're so closed min Who defines normal? And what is normal? And who cares who is normal? Is a women who wears 5 piercings on her ear normal? Is a man who sleeps with men and women normal? Is a woman who would cover her body with tattoos less normal than a woman who wouldnt or a man who would do the same? Do you feel comfortable defining what is normal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Anyone who believes in equality SHOULD support the Indiana legislation. Opposition to it is the very outright bigotry the opponents are pretending to be against. Depends on your definition of equality and rights. Which right is more important? The right not to be discriminated against, or the right of businesses to deal with customers as they please based on their religious views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And exactly who gave you the authority, or more importantly the insight to decide what is normal...Perhaps you are hung up on the idea that procreation is the only acceptable reason for intimate connection between people. I'm rather hung up on the fact that word's have definitions. Who defines normal? And what is normal? And who cares who is normal? Is a women who wears 5 piercings on her ear normal? Is a man who sleeps with men and women normal? Is a woman who would cover her body with tattoos less normal than a woman who wouldnt or a man who would do the same? Do you feel comfortable defining what is normal? Society determines what is normal. Gay people are a small minority. They aren't normal. Still nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.