Indiana Economy Feels Ripples After Gov Signs Anti Gay Bill

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow any individual or corporation to cite its religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. But many opponents of the bill, which included business leaders, argued that it could open the door to widespread discrimination. Business owners who don't want to serve same-sex couples, for example, could now have legal protections to discriminate.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/indiana-governor-mike-pence-anti-gay-bill_n_6947472.html

 

 

Since the year after its 1995 founding, Angie's List has been headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. The $315 million corporation which lets users review local businesses, especially home improvement professionals, has been planning a $40 million renovation of its own, moving its headquarters across town and adding 1000 new jobs over five years.

 

But thanks to state lawmakers and Republican Governor Mike Pence's new Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, those expansion plans have been canceled.

 

"Angie's List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents," CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement today, adding, the expansion is "on hold until we fully understand the implications of the freedom restoration act on our employees, both current and future."

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/angie_s_list_cancels_40_million_1000_jobs_indiana_expansion_over_anti_gay_religious_freedom_law

 

Leading tech entrepreneurs that have condemned the measure include Tim Cook, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, who recently posted on the Yelp blog: "These laws set a terrible precedent that will likely harm the broader economic health of the states where they have been adopted, the businesses currently operating in those states and, most importantly, the consumers who could be victimized under these laws."

http://www.eater.com/2015/3/27/8302641/chipotle-yelp-slam-indiana-new-religious-freedom-law

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/27/3639895/8-entities-may-boycott-indiana-new-lgbt-discrimination-bill/

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/27/swift-corporate-backlash-indiana-governor-pences-decision-sign-anti-gay-law.html

 

 

And this is how our country is supposed to be ran. You don't need the federal government to hold our hands... If state leaders try pulling stupid things like this, let them feel the wrath of those who really make a difference. Love stories like this.

[blotsfan 2,112]

So basically problems are only real if people with money think so.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I seriously wonder how a powerful individual can be so damn sheltered throughout his life, to the point that he can't foresee the reaction to this legislation, let alone still harbor such incalculable hatred. I simply do not care who or what deity you worship, it does not give you the right to discriminate in your professional life.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

So basically problems are only real if people with money think so.

When it comes to effecting an entire state economy, I don't thin kit's a stretch to say people with money have more impact from a media perspective. To make generalizations like you have though is completely absurd. You want to live in a world where politics is black and white... All or nothing.. Fortunately it doesn't work like that.

 

Doesn't mean people who aren't well to do don't or can't make an impact.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/28/thousands-protest-religious-freedom-law-indy/70596032/

 

Never doubt the power of the individual.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm not saying what these companies are doing is bad, it's just that letting the free market decide can lead to bad consequences, and Definitley makes it so rich people have more of a voice. I'm not naive enough to think that isn't the case as it is, it's just I don't think that's the way "it should be."

[Guest Phailadelphia]

What I find sad is the Indiana governor and legislature are only considering "clarifying" the law's verbiage not because it discriminates against the LGBT community but because it's proving to be harmful to the state's economy.

 

What's worse is people don't see anything wrong with this and are in fact applauding it.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Phailadelphia

[Thanatos 2,847]

It doesn't discriminate against the LGBT community specifically that's the whole damn point. It discriminates against *anyone* the business owner doesn't care to serve, including a Muslim not wanting to serve a Christian or a Hindu not wanting to serve a Jew.

 

The law is completely asinine and is bad for *all* people, not just those of the LGBT persuasion.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

It doesn't discriminate against the LGBT community specifically that's the whole damn point. It discriminates against *anyone* the business owner doesn't care to serve, including a Muslim not wanting to serve a Christian or a Hindu not wanting to serve a Jew.

 

I mean...in a vacuum, sure.

[oochymp 2,393]

this might be the best response I've seen: The First Church of Cannabis was approved after Indiana’s religious freedom law was passed - The Washington Post

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

I mean...in a vacuum, sure.

 

Explain, please.

 

The whole reason why the law is so damn stupid that no one should be supporting it is because its not just about Christian vs LGBT.

 

There is already a case on the books about a lesbian couple turning away a Muslim because they dont want to serve him, (this is in Canada). Cases like that would also be upheld by this law, because its incredibly dumb and discriminates against everyone.

 

Sure, the intent of the person signing the law was to stop Christian businesses from serving LGBT folks if they didnt want to, but the application of the law is going to go waaay beyond that. So, you can use that argument even for people who may like the law because of its intended application to show that its not a good idea period, even for fundamentalist Christians.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Thanatos19

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

Explain, please.

 

The whole reason why the law is so damn stupid that no one should be supporting it is because its not just about Christian vs LGBT.

 

There is already a case on the books about a lesbian couple turning away a Muslim because they dont want to serve him, (this is in Canada). Cases like that would also be upheld by this law, because its incredibly dumb and discriminates against everyone.

 

Sure, the intent of the person signing the law was to stop Christian businesses from serving LGBT folks if they didnt want to, but the application of the law is going to go waaay beyond that. So, you can use that argument even for people who may like the law because of its intended application to show that its not a good idea period, even for fundamentalist Christians.

 

You summarized what would have been my explanation in the first sentence of your last paragraph.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Except its incorrect? I already provided an example where the law could be used to discriminate against someone other than LGBT.

 

Your initial statement is based on the intent of the law not its practical uses and/or unintended consequences.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Your initial statement is based on the intent of the law not its practical uses and/or unintended consequences.

 

Of course it is. I think the only reason the law doesn't specifically target LGBTs is because it would have been too obvious.

 

How many Hindus or Muslims do you think reside in Indiana and would want to use the law to refuse service to others based on their religious beliefs? Again, in a vacuum that argument makes sense but Indiana isn't exactly brimming with diversity. The "practical uses and/or unintended consequences" are irrelevant when they would be of no impact.

[oochymp 2,393]

somebody posted an interesting blog post on Facebook, so I thought I'd share it here, I'm not saying I agree with this, but I think it gives a good picture of the overall push for this sort of measure, it's pretty short in full, but I quoted the paragraph that I think is the thrust of the argument:

Why I Will Gladly Bake You A Cake, But Won’t Bake Your Wedding Cake | The Blazing Center

...

​But by asking me to bake a cake for your wedding, you’ve asked me to help you celebrate something that I believe is truly wrong. Do you see where that puts me? If I asked you to help me host a celebration of something that went directly against your conscience, how would that affect you? Would that cause you any inner conflict or turmoil? Would that cause you to struggle at all?

 

[Guest Phailadelphia]

People used that same argument to justify slavery, and then to justify racial discrimination, and then to justify opposition to interracial marriage, and now to justify opposition to same-sex marriage...

 

Not to mention it's a poor argument. That person is being paid to bake a cake. That's it. They're not helping the couple host a celebration of anything. They're only providing a service. And since when is it acceptable for a business to make moral judgments about how its clientele are using its services? In what scenarios does this occur on such a large scale except to LGBT people? The bible says a plethora of things are immoral and sinful, but is anyone committing other non-harmful sinful acts denied service by people of Christian faith? If this is truly an issue of religious liberty, why are these business "principles" restricted to only target LGBTs?

[oochymp 2,393]

do you really think that baking a wedding cake in no way helps a couple celebrate their marriage? the cake is one of the biggest symbols of the wedding and usually the focal point of the reception, which is really the celebration segment of the marriage, their work is one of the most visible things at the wedding

 

that question aside, let's look at other services that would be required for a wedding (and before I get into this, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because these discussions don't go anywhere when everyone argues for the same side, so I'm going to go a bit further with the rhetoric than I'm actually comfortable doing) photography, you're going to force someone who is morally opposed to the idea to help capture the moments of the happy couple celebrating what the photographer views as a sin? catering, I guess if you don't consider the cake a part of the celebration of marriage maybe you'd say the same about the caterer, but they're definitely more involved on the day of with a much larger presence at the ceremony/reception than the baker, or, since you mentioned hosting, let's talk about venues, if you're going to allow discrimination suits against people for refusing to provide services to a gay wedding, how long will it be before a church is sued for not allowing a gay couple to use their sanctuary for their marriage? and yes, people do get married in churches they don't attend, even some that don't attend any churches, for aesthetic or sentimental reasons, so it could very easily happen. I hate the slippery slope argument, and I'm admittedly getting dangerously close to making one here, but I really don't think it's much of a stretch given some of the stories that have come up lately to consider venues as a potential target

 

to your last question, I think these people would have the same issue if asked to bake a cake for use in a satanic ritual, or whatever sinful acts their customers may want a cake for, those just don't come up nearly as often and aren't the current hot button issue

[Guest Phailadelphia]

do you really think that baking a wedding cake in no way helps a couple celebrate their marriage? the cake is one of the biggest symbols of the wedding and usually the focal point of the reception, which is really the celebration segment of the marriage, their work is one of the most visible things at the wedding

 

that question aside, let's look at other services that would be required for a wedding (and before I get into this, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because these discussions don't go anywhere when everyone argues for the same side, so I'm going to go a bit further with the rhetoric than I'm actually comfortable doing) photography, you're going to force someone who is morally opposed to the idea to help capture the moments of the happy couple celebrating what the photographer views as a sin? catering, I guess if you don't consider the cake a part of the celebration of marriage maybe you'd say the same about the caterer, but they're definitely more involved on the day of with a much larger presence at the ceremony/reception than the baker, or, since you mentioned hosting, let's talk about venues, if you're going to allow discrimination suits against people for refusing to provide services to a gay wedding, how long will it be before a church is sued for not allowing a gay couple to use their sanctuary for their marriage? and yes, people do get married in churches they don't attend, even some that don't attend any churches, for aesthetic or sentimental reasons, so it could very easily happen. I hate the slippery slope argument, and I'm admittedly getting dangerously close to making one here, but I really don't think it's much of a stretch given some of the stories that have come up lately to consider venues as a potential target

 

to your last question, I think these people would have the same issue if asked to bake a cake for use in a satanic ritual, or whatever sinful acts their customers may want a cake for, those just don't come up nearly as often and aren't the current hot button issue

 

To you 1st question: No, not really. Again, IMO they're providing a service, not a favor.

 

If I may also play devil's advocate here: If that's the position we are going to take on this issue, then it needs to be taken seriously and in all cases. If vendors providing services are to be seriously considered as "helping" their customers, then in the event that that "help" is used maliciously, should those vendors also be held accountable? Ie. someone buys a gun and shoots up a school. By the "help" argument, the gun store or gun show HELPED this individual shoot up a school and should be held responsible in some capacity. If this sounds insane, it's because it is. The idea that the baker, photographer, or florist is helping their customers do anything is a fallacious argument that begins to erode when exposed to any real scrutiny.

 

My response to your final paragraph: According to the CDC, almost 97% of Americans identify as straight. How often does anyone think these people would actually have to bake a cake for a gay couple? Probably as often as they would have to bake one for a satanic ritual, I think.

 

This debate is precisely why the SCOTUS needs to take up the gay marriage cases. The constitutional rights of same-sex couples need to be established or this bullshit will continue to fester.

[oochymp 2,393]

I'm not doing giant quotes, this is in response to the immediately preceding post.

 

First off, if Person A sells a gun to Person B knowing (legal definition of knowing typically includes should know) that Person B is going to use the gun in the commission of a specific crime and then Person B uses that gun in the commission of that crime then typically Person A can be held criminally liable as an accessory

 

With that in mind, I generally agree that vendors aren't necessarily a part of what their customers do with their goods/services, but certain goods/services are different, for example if a hotel hosts a KKK convention would that not be seen as at least a tacit approval of the KKK's message? I consider services connected to a wedding to be in a similar category

 

To your last point, I'm surprised it's that low, but a quick google search was all that was necessary to confirm the number you posted, and I agree that it likely wouldn't come up much, based on that percentage and the fact that I'd expect most gay couples wouldn't want to involve people who are so opposed to gay marriages in their marriage even tangentially

 

I would also like to point out that this is a different conversation from "should gays be allowed to marry," what's at issue here is whether a person who is opposed to same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs should be forced to provide services directly related to same-sex weddings, a discussion which accepts the premise that same-sex marriage will be legal

[Sarge+ 3,436]

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Hey, it should comfort everyone who agrees with this legislation that Rick Santorum is in your corner.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Favre4Ever

[oochymp 2,393]

there are a lot of things that I think are wrong theologically with the Christian viewpoint embodied in this type of legislation, and that cartoon is just one of them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tell anyone they have to assist a ceremony that they feel is against their religious beliefs, I don't think that does anyone any good

[Thanatos 2,847]

there are a lot of things that I think are wrong theologically with the Christian viewpoint embodied in this type of legislation, and that cartoon is just one of them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tell anyone they have to assist a ceremony that they feel is against their religious beliefs, I don't think that does anyone any good

 

Here's the point that this cartoon is making: If this law's true intent was to "protect" religious people from being forced to serve those whom they don't agree with, then there'd be a hell of a lot more things that should have triggered this bill far before the LGBT controversy.

 

The fact of the matter is this, and I would wager a large amount of money on this statement:

 

The vast majority of people who would actively turn away LGBT clients do so not because their religious beliefs contradict serving them, but because someone has *told* them their religious beliefs contradict serving them. The only reason they are mad about it is because people have told them to be mad. If they were true Bible-thumping warriors like they make themselves out to be, why are they baking cakes for couples who they know have divorced their previous spouses? Why are they making out huge cakes for fat people? Gluttony is a sin, according to the Bible, simply one that Christians don't care to deal with. There are tons of things that they could have started an uproar over, but they chose LGBT people.

 

This is because of the real underlying cause- they find the idea of two men kissing to be repulsive and/or unnatural and want it to go away where they don't have to think about it.

[oochymp 2,393]

I hadn't thought of that angle, I just saw it as pointing out the inconsistency with which a lot of people follow their book of faith, which plays into a lot of your post

 

but hell, if you want to get into the theology I'd argue the Bible (New Testament anyway) doesn't say anything about gay marriage and what it says about marriage in general is little better than lukewarm acceptance

Edited April 6, 2015 by oochymp

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

According to the Bible, re-marrying when divorced is ok if the divorce happened due to adultery, or a pattern of abuse of any kind.

 

If a Christian makes a cake, or gives service for a wedding for two individuals who specify (or he/she asks them) that they were at one point married and divorced due to immorality on their own part, and isn't willing to do the same to a gay couple... Then it's clear they are just doing it out of their own discrimination/hate towards that gay couple, or are true hypocrites.

 

But it's completely unfair to those bakers, or whatever, who claim to be Christians, or any religion against LGBT marriage, to assume they wouldn't say no to a couple like the example I just gave.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

This is because of the real underlying cause- they find the idea of two men kissing to be repulsive and/or unnatural and want it to go away where they don't have to think about it.

Pretttty much. I'm reminded of this comic whenever this debate comes up: