I never thought this bill would be passed in Indiana, but they did. And the consequences are going to be a financial nightmare for the city of Indianapolis.
The whole point of the bill is to allow businesses to not allow gay people in their establishment. There's a lot of fluff around it, but that's the main point. The Senate Republicans here are still upset about losing the same-sex marriage bill last year, and have been trying to come up with something to get back at the gay community, either for religious purposes, or to try and fire up their base so Pence can make a presidential run.
Unfortunately, they passed a state wide bill, and Indianapolis is going to take a massive hit unless something drastic happens. So far here are the companies/conventions who have gotten involved.
1. Gen-Con-A $50 million dollar convention has said they will fulfill the next two years and then they will look at moving. 2. Exact Target/SalesForce-a $4 billion dollar company suspended all travel into Indiana, and is researching where to move their corporate offices. 3. NCAA-National headquarters are here, and as most of you know we get the final four, sweet sixteen and big 10 tournaments here. They have already spoken out against it. 4. Eli Lilly (who literally helped build Indianapolis so it can attract the smartest and best people in the industry) have said they are going to have problems attracting people. 5. Yelp has stopped expansion. 6. San Francisco government will refuse to pay for any politician to travel to Indiana. 7. No way we get another Super Bowl. 8. We will probably lose the combine.
As a small business owner here in Indianapolis it's a little scary to see the financial consequences of a bill that got passed even though it was very unpopular. Even the Republican Mayor asked Pence to not pass it.
Even my Republican friends are embarrassed. As my buddy said, "We're the party of tight wads. There's nothing tight wad about this".
It sucks to watch this happen in the city I live in.
I never thought this bill would be passed in Indiana, but they did. And the consequences are going to be a financial nightmare for the city of Indianapolis.
The whole point of the bill is to allow businesses to not allow gay people in their establishment. There's a lot of fluff around it, but that's the main point. The Senate Republicans here are still upset about losing the same-sex marriage bill last year, and have been trying to come up with something to get back at the gay community, either for religious purposes, or to try and fire up their base so Pence can make a presidential run.
Unfortunately, they passed a state wide bill, and Indianapolis is going to take a massive hit unless something drastic happens. So far here are the companies/conventions who have gotten involved.
1. Gen-Con-A $50 million dollar convention has said they will fulfill the next two years and then they will look at moving. 2. Exact Target/SalesForce-a $4 billion dollar company suspended all travel into Indiana, and is researching where to move their corporate offices. 3. NCAA-National headquarters are here, and as most of you know we get the final four, sweet sixteen and big 10 tournaments here. They have already spoken out against it. 4. Eli Lilly (who literally helped build Indianapolis so it can attract the smartest and best people in the industry) have said they are going to have problems attracting people. 5. Yelp has stopped expansion. 6. San Francisco government will refuse to pay for any politician to travel to Indiana. 7. No way we get another Super Bowl. 8. We will probably lose the combine.
As a small business owner here in Indianapolis it's a little scary to see the financial consequences of a bill that got passed even though it was very unpopular. Even the Republican Mayor asked Pence to not pass it.
Even my Republican friends are embarrassed. As my buddy said, "We're the party of tight wads. There's nothing tight wad about this".
It sucks to watch this happen in the city I live in.
Does the bill they passed say they don't have to allow GhAppY people in their establishment, like a restaurant, or is it where a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for someone if he/she chooses no to? Or also a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures at a GhAppY wedding. The reason I ask is because the latter examples have been in the news lately in different parts of the country. The former (denying access into their establishment like a restaurant) is different, which is a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause set forth in the Supreme Court Case Katzenbach v. McClung 1964.
As a social libertarian I would personally bake their cake because money is money but I think if a baker doesn't want to bake someone's cake or a photographer doesn't want to take pics at someone's wedding then they shouldn't be forced to.
In this day and age people are overly sensitive when it comes to political issues. I'm all for one side boycotting the other side if that's what they choose. If you don't like a company's politics then don't buy their product and the free enterprise system will work itself out.
BTW, you mention you are a small business owner. May I ask what it is? You don't have to be specific, like the name of the company, I'm just curious what industry it is.
Does the bill they passed say they don't have to allow GhAppY people in their establishment, like a restaurant, or is it where a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for someone if he/she chooses no to? Or also a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures at a GhAppY wedding. The reason I ask is because the latter examples have been in the news lately in different parts of the country. The former (denying access into their establishment like a restaurant) is different, which is a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause set forth in the Supreme Court Case Katzenbach v. McClung 1964.
As a social libertarian I would personally bake their cake because money is money but I think if a baker doesn't want to bake someone's cake or a photographer doesn't want to take pics at someone's wedding then they shouldn't be forced to.
In this day and age people are overly sensitive when it comes to political issues. I'm all for one side boycotting the other side if that's what they choose. If you don't like a company's politics then don't buy their product and the free enterprise system will work itself out.
BTW, you mention you are a small business owner. May I ask what it is? You don't have to be specific, like the name of the company, I'm just curious what industry it is.
alan, unfortunately, "religious liberty" trumps all of that. while the bible considers wearing mixed fiber clothing, getting tattoos, eating shellfish, marrying someone who isn't a virgin, premarital sex, divroce and many other things a sin, most importantly, it suggests homosexuality is a sin so that must be stopped and "small government" republicans need to get government to involved to pass lows to further God's will in this matter.
"religious liberty" used to be invoked to attack those black folks but unfortunately, that's not as accepted as it used to be so we need to redirect "religious liberty" to attack the sinful gays. i'm sorry for the threat to your business but your business is not as important as God's will.
alan, unfortunately, "religious liberty" trumps all of that. while the bible considers wearing mixed fiber clothing, getting tattoos, eating shellfish, marrying someone who isn't a virgin, premarital sex, divroce and many other things a sin, most importantly, it suggests homosexuality is a sin so that must be stopped and "small government" republicans need to get government to involved to pass lows to further God's will in this matter.
"religious liberty" used to be invoked to attack those black folks but unfortunately, that's not as accepted as it used to be so we need to redirect "religious liberty" to attack the sinful gays. i'm sorry for the threat to your business but your business is not as important as God's will.
As a social libertarian I would personally bake their cake because money is money but I think if a baker doesn't want to bake someone's cake or a photographer doesn't want to take pics at someone's wedding then they shouldn't be forced to.
Yeah,, but would you make a sodomite a pie ? Making someone a pie is a real sign of love..
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal law does not apply to state-level court cases ..18 other States have have passed their own “Religious Freedom Restoration Act's ..
Originally the RFRA federal law was signed into law by President Bill Clinton ..later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it only applies to the federal government not states ..
As a social libertarian I would personally bake their cake because money is money but I think if a baker doesn't want to bake someone's cake or a photographer doesn't want to take pics at someone's wedding then they shouldn't be forced to.
Yeah,, but would you make a sodomite a pie ? Making someone a pie is a real sign of love..
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal law does not apply to state-level court cases ..18 other States have have passed their own “Religious Freedom Restoration Act's ..
Originally the RFRA federal law was signed into law by President Bill Clinton ..later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it only applies to the federal government not states ..
alan, unfortunately, "religious liberty" trumps all of that. while the bible considers wearing mixed fiber clothing, getting tattoos, eating shellfish, marrying someone who isn't a virgin, premarital sex, divroce and many other things a sin, most importantly, it suggests homosexuality is a sin so that must be stopped and "small government" republicans need to get government to involved to pass lows to further God's will in this matter.
"religious liberty" used to be invoked to attack those black folks but unfortunately, that's not as accepted as it used to be so we need to redirect "religious liberty" to attack the sinful gays. i'm sorry for the threat to your business but your business is not as important as God's will.
I don't have the attention span to absorb info from Think Progress links so I have to ask what happens if it is a black person that shows anti-happy tendencies towards happy whites?
alan, unfortunately, "religious liberty" trumps all of that. while the bible considers wearing mixed fiber clothing, getting tattoos, eating shellfish, marrying someone who isn't a virgin, premarital sex, divroce and many other things a sin, most importantly, it suggests homosexuality is a sin so that must be stopped and "small government" republicans need to get government to involved to pass lows to further God's will in this matter.
"religious liberty" used to be invoked to attack those black folks but unfortunately, that's not as accepted as it used to be so we need to redirect "religious liberty" to attack the sinful gays. i'm sorry for the threat to your business but your business is not as important as God's will.
I don't have the attention span to absorb info from Think Progress links so I have to ask what happens if it is a black person that shows anti-happy tendencies towards happy whites?
I don't have the attention span to absorb info from Think Progress links so I have to ask what happens if it is a black person that shows anti-happy tendencies towards happy whites?
i don't think the "religious freedom" group is doing overt racial discrimination anymore. it just doesn't go over as well as it used to. so, i think your guy should fit right in.
I don't have the attention span to absorb info from Think Progress links so I have to ask what happens if it is a black person that shows anti-happy tendencies towards happy whites?
i don't think the "religious freedom" group is doing overt racial discrimination anymore. it just doesn't go over as well as it used to. so, i think your guy should fit right in.
Yeah,, but would you make a sodomite a pie ? Making someone a pie is a real sign of love..
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal law does not apply to state-level court cases ..18 other States have have passed their own “Religious Freedom Restoration Act's ..
Originally the RFRA federal law was signed into law by President Bill Clinton ..later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it only applies to the federal government not states ..
Me likes pies.
If those pies were for two consenting adults then I would bake it. However, if it were for a member of NAMBLA and an eight year old I would have to reconsider.
Yeah,, but would you make a sodomite a pie ? Making someone a pie is a real sign of love..
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal law does not apply to state-level court cases ..18 other States have have passed their own “Religious Freedom Restoration Act's ..
Originally the RFRA federal law was signed into law by President Bill Clinton ..later the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it only applies to the federal government not states ..
Me likes pies.
If those pies were for two consenting adults then I would bake it. However, if it were for a member of NAMBLA and an eight year old I would have to reconsider.
The bill says that a business owner can refuse service/entrance to anyone because of "religious beliefs".
This whole case started because a local bakery refused to make cupcakes for two gay men who were getting married. The story got traction and lines were drawn in the sand. The Republicans sided with the shop, and the public went the other way. The shop closed in 3 months because everyone stopped going there and business dried up.
That's what I don't get. The public is against this bill, financially it's going to crush Indianapolis potentially, but they went full speed ahead.
Any business that openly denies G Ays in Indianapolis will probably suffer financially due to the public rejecting their business. There's already a website/Facebook page that is going to post businesses who discriminate. I'm just failing to see why they ignored all the financial troubles this bill is causing/will cause.
There's also a real possibility of Republicans getting killed next year in the elections. This will bring out a ton of Voters just to vote against Gov Pence and the Senate Republicans. It seems like such a risky move with not much upside and a ton of downside.
The bill says that a business owner can refuse service/entrance to anyone because of "religious beliefs".
This whole case started because a local bakery refused to make cupcakes for two gay men who were getting married. The story got traction and lines were drawn in the sand. The Republicans sided with the shop, and the public went the other way. The shop closed in 3 months because everyone stopped going there and business dried up.
That's what I don't get. The public is against this bill, financially it's going to crush Indianapolis potentially, but they went full speed ahead.
Any business that openly denies G Ays in Indianapolis will probably suffer financially due to the public rejecting their business. There's already a website/Facebook page that is going to post businesses who discriminate. I'm just failing to see why they ignored all the financial troubles this bill is causing/will cause.
There's also a real possibility of Republicans getting killed next year in the elections. This will bring out a ton of Voters just to vote against Gov Pence and the Senate Republicans. It seems like such a risky move with not much upside and a ton of downside.
Today,, the Arkansas Senate voted 24-7 on legislation patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act...If signed by Arkanasa's Gov.Hutchinson ( who has said he will) it would be the second state this year to adopt a law approving religious protection bill.
Today,, the Arkansas Senate voted 24-7 on legislation patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act...If signed by Arkanasa's Gov.Hutchinson ( who has said he will) it would be the second state this year to adopt a law approving religious protection bill.
I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone if it violates their religious beliefs, similar to businesses not having to provide contraception if it violates their religious beliefs, but a state legislature shouldn't have to pass a bill stating that. The First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no laws..." when it comes to religious liberty.
Congress, or a state legislature, shouldn't have to pass a law giving someone religious liberty.
The free enterprise system worked in this situation. There were enough people that disliked this bakery's stance so the bad publicity hurt their business.
The reason I asked what you did was because I wondered what would you do if you were put in a situation where the govt told you "you had to do something" that went against your personal beliefs. Maybe religious beliefs, maybe personal morals. Think of something reprehensible to you and then having to do something for that person or group.
I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone if it violates their religious beliefs, similar to businesses not having to provide contraception if it violates their religious beliefs, but a state legislature shouldn't have to pass a bill stating that. The First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no laws..." when it comes to religious liberty.
Congress, or a state legislature, shouldn't have to pass a law giving someone religious liberty.
The free enterprise system worked in this situation. There were enough people that disliked this bakery's stance so the bad publicity hurt their business.
The reason I asked what you did was because I wondered what would you do if you were put in a situation where the govt told you "you had to do something" that went against your personal beliefs. Maybe religious beliefs, maybe personal morals. Think of something reprehensible to you and then having to do something for that person or group.
can you make it known to potential clients that you don't discriminate? maybe put something on your website.
however, i'd still advise discriminating against the evil sinners who wear mixed fiber clothing. the bible is very clear about that.
My TV shows are my own concepts so I don't have very many "clients".
But I need a city with lots of events to keep some of my shows and business going. Losing the combine, NCAA tourneys, Gen-Con, and other businesses hurts me because the less content I have, the less shows I can make. Every year I shoot tv shows at these events. So if people withdraw from the city because of this bill, my business gets hurt and I have no control over it.
The other thing I don't get is why do you have to make a law about it? If a business doesn't want to service a certain segment of the population, word gets out, and the public will ultimately decide if that business stays or goes. Basic Capitalism. Let the market decide.
This whole thing started with a bakery that didn't want to make cupcakes for a G ay wedding. Word got out and the bakery closed 3 months later due to lack of business. There...basic Capitalism. The market decided. The same thing will happen with or without this law. All this law does is say the business has the right to discriminate..it doesn't say the business will survive. So why bring such negative attention to an issue with tons of backlash?
I do know this...next years election in this state is going to be veeeery entertaining. A lot of Republicans who normally vote Republican are going to be in a tough spot if they see financial troubles based on this bill. If there's a Republican business owner who sees a decrease in business or a decrease in the city's conventions...I can see them changing their vote to the Dems.
I think the Republican party could be in for a long election campaign. The Democrats can now run on repealing the bill and being friendly to businesses and all walks of life. It's a lot of ammunition to have next year.
can you make it known to potential clients that you don't discriminate? maybe put something on your website.
however, i'd still advise discriminating against the evil sinners who wear mixed fiber clothing. the bible is very clear about that.
My TV shows are my own concepts so I don't have very many "clients".
But I need a city with lots of events to keep some of my shows and business going. Losing the combine, NCAA tourneys, Gen-Con, and other businesses hurts me because the less content I have, the less shows I can make. Every year I shoot tv shows at these events. So if people withdraw from the city because of this bill, my business gets hurt and I have no control over it.
The other thing I don't get is why do you have to make a law about it? If a business doesn't want to service a certain segment of the population, word gets out, and the public will ultimately decide if that business stays or goes. Basic Capitalism. Let the market decide.
This whole thing started with a bakery that didn't want to make cupcakes for a G ay wedding. Word got out and the bakery closed 3 months later due to lack of business. There...basic Capitalism. The market decided. The same thing will happen with or without this law. All this law does is say the business has the right to discriminate..it doesn't say the business will survive. So why bring such negative attention to an issue with tons of backlash?
I do know this...next years election in this state is going to be veeeery entertaining. A lot of Republicans who normally vote Republican are going to be in a tough spot if they see financial troubles based on this bill. If there's a Republican business owner who sees a decrease in business or a decrease in the city's conventions...I can see them changing their vote to the Dems.
I think the Republican party could be in for a long election campaign. The Democrats can now run on repealing the bill and being friendly to businesses and all walks of life. It's a lot of ammunition to have next year.
I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone if it violates their religious beliefs, similar to businesses not having to provide contraception if it violates their religious beliefs, but a state legislature shouldn't have to pass a bill stating that. The First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no laws..." when it comes to religious liberty. Congress, or a state legislature, shouldn't have to pass a law giving someone religious liberty.The free enterprise system worked in this situation. There were enough people that disliked this bakery's stance so the bad publicity hurt their business.The reason I asked what you did was because I wondered what would you do if you were put in a situation where the govt told you "you had to do something" that went against your personal beliefs. Maybe religious beliefs, maybe personal morals. Think of something reprehensible to you and then having to do something for that person or group.
When I'm in "business mode", I don't and can't discriminate. It's bad business. Plus, I just like everybody. I can't think of one thing that would disgust me enough to not to a video or tv show for/about that person. People that do discriminate against G Ays and others won't be in business very long...it's just how it is today.
IMHO this goes against separation of church and state. I've always thought that idea was laughable because religion is all over our laws and government, but to now have a government pass this law...it's 100% making a law based on a specific religion. They aren't even trying to hide it. And it's a law based on the Governors religion so it's not even like they took other religions into account.
I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone if it violates their religious beliefs, similar to businesses not having to provide contraception if it violates their religious beliefs, but a state legislature shouldn't have to pass a bill stating that. The First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no laws..." when it comes to religious liberty. Congress, or a state legislature, shouldn't have to pass a law giving someone religious liberty.The free enterprise system worked in this situation. There were enough people that disliked this bakery's stance so the bad publicity hurt their business.The reason I asked what you did was because I wondered what would you do if you were put in a situation where the govt told you "you had to do something" that went against your personal beliefs. Maybe religious beliefs, maybe personal morals. Think of something reprehensible to you and then having to do something for that person or group.
When I'm in "business mode", I don't and can't discriminate. It's bad business. Plus, I just like everybody. I can't think of one thing that would disgust me enough to not to a video or tv show for/about that person. People that do discriminate against G Ays and others won't be in business very long...it's just how it is today.
IMHO this goes against separation of church and state. I've always thought that idea was laughable because religion is all over our laws and government, but to now have a government pass this law...it's 100% making a law based on a specific religion. They aren't even trying to hide it. And it's a law based on the Governors religion so it's not even like they took other religions into account.
When I'm in "business mode", I don't and can't discriminate. It's bad business. Plus, I just like everybody. I can't think of one thing that would disgust me enough to not to a video or tv show for/about that person. People that do discriminate against G Ays and others won't be in business very long...it's just how it is today.
IMHO this goes against separation of church and state. I've always thought that idea was laughable because religion is all over our laws and government, but to now have a government pass this law...it's 100% making a law based on a specific religion. They aren't even trying to hide it. And it's a law based on the Governors religion so it's not even like they took other religions into account.
If it goes against church and state then the courts won't let it stand.
When I'm in "business mode", I don't and can't discriminate. It's bad business. Plus, I just like everybody. I can't think of one thing that would disgust me enough to not to a video or tv show for/about that person. People that do discriminate against G Ays and others won't be in business very long...it's just how it is today.
IMHO this goes against separation of church and state. I've always thought that idea was laughable because religion is all over our laws and government, but to now have a government pass this law...it's 100% making a law based on a specific religion. They aren't even trying to hide it. And it's a law based on the Governors religion so it's not even like they took other religions into account.
If it goes against church and state then the courts won't let it stand.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.