Indiana's Religious Freedom Legislation

[Palehorse]

I don't see a thing in the bill about businesses.

You don't see the discrimination it is driving and will drive; but plenty of entities that conduct the conventions the Indy CIB is counting upon to pay for that big new stadium called the Luke, and the convention center are already reaping the "rewards" this type of legislation is and will drive.

GenCon has already come out and stated they are now rethinking holding their convention in Indiana, and there will be a host of others that will follow suit. . . And don't be surprised if the football Gods frown upon Indianapolis surrounding a future super bowl too.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg ! 

http://www.wthr.com/story/28603977/gen-con-ceo-rethinking-indiana-as-host-site-if-religious-freedom-bill-becomes-law

http://www.wthr.com/story/28602411/kravitz-blog-religious-freedom-bill-may-hurt-indys-sports-convention-business

[Y]

Good for them!

I told my wife last night that this law was going to slit Indiana's throat - including Pence's and the legislature's.

There was already a tweet from a gay basketball player to Pence making a point about this law.

My wife told me that Bob Kravitz put out a fiery rant about it and roasting Pence and the legislature/legislators.

It's nothing less than any of them supporting this law deserve.

[Palehorse]

Good for them!

I told my wife last night that this law was going to slit Indiana's throat - including Pence's and the legislature's.

There was already a tweet from a gay basketball player to Pence making a point about this law.

My wife told me that Bob Kravitz put out a fiery rant about it and roasting Pence and the legislature/legislators.

It's nothing less than any of them supporting this law deserve.

Yep. Kravitz's rant is in the second link in my post above. . .

[me]

Things like this is what the bill is for. What happened to this woman is not even remotely right.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/woman-gets-sued-for-not-serving-gay-wedding-heres-what-the-judge-decided

[Y]

She deserves to be sued. 

Once she opened her doors to the PUBLIC, she doesn't have the right to discriminate against segments of that PUBLIC. 

If she didn't want to make cupcakes for EVERYBODY that wanted to pay for/buy them, then she should have just worked for someone else who wasn't a bigot...or just stayed home.

[me]

She deserves to be sued. 

Once she opened her doors to the PUBLIC, she doesn't have the right to discriminate against segments of that PUBLIC. 

If she didn't want to make cupcakes for EVERYBODY that wanted to pay for/buy them, then she should have just worked for someone else who wasn't a bigot or just stayed home.

It was no big deal, even though I disagree with her decision she, or any other small business owner, should have that right and the people should decided whether to patronize that business based on that not a law suit. She would either sink or float if she chose to do business in that manner. To lose everything because some malcontent wanted to be sue happy is just wrong and for the judge to grant them what he did without a trial is even worse.

[Palehorse]

It was no big deal, even though I disagree with her decision she, or any other small business owner, should have that right and the people should decided whether to patronize that business based on that not a law suit. She would either sink or float if she chose to do business in that manner. To lose everything because some malcontent wanted to be sue happy is just wrong and for the judge to grant them what he did without a trial is even worse.

I disagree. Doing so enables the bad behaviors that are and should be illegal.

[me]

I disagree. Doing so enables the bad behaviors that are and should be illegal.

But for a person to lose everything like this lady did is wrong also. I'm not saying she was right I'm saying the people who sued her and the judge were wrong.  If you don't like someone's business practices don't patronize them there is no need to ruin them. Were there other places these people could have gone? Yes. Did they seek her out knowing what would happen with the intent to sue and make a point? Highly possible. Should they or their attorney have profited from someting where no actual harm was done other than maybe hurting their feelings? Hell no.  I do believe that is what this law is meant to prevent.
It is getting to a point where if you even disagree with the wrong person you can be sued because you've offended them.

[Exterminator]

Legislation like this creates an unintended consequence for business, that of blurring the line between corporate and personal responsibility/liability.  If the corporation is nothing more than an extension of the individual who owns it, it can be argued that the individual should be held personally liable for the failures of that corporation.  You can't have it both ways.

The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision opened that door and it's only a matter of time before someone walks through it.

[me]

Legislation like this creates an unintended consequence for business, that of blurring the line between corporate and personal responsibility/liability.  If the corporation is nothing more than an extension of the individual who owns it, it can be argued that the individual should be held personally liable for the failures of that corporation.  You can't have it both ways.

The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision opened that door and it's only a matter of time before someone walks through it.

I agree with that but there should also be some way to protect people from losing everything in cases like I referrenced.

*BoD don't even think about stealing any letters today. 

[Exterminator]

*BoD don't even think about stealing any letters today. 

Not yet!   

[Exterminator]

Just saw a headline that read, "Indiana legislature passes law paving way for Sharia law."   

[Exterminator]

Another potential lost convention.

[Locutus]

Just saw a headline that read, "Indiana legislature passes law paving way for Sharia law."   

It's funny how the fucktards that pass this kind of shit, and those who support it, don't get that exact point. 

[Henry Hawk]

It's funny how the fucktards that pass this kind of shit, and those who support it, don't get that exact point. 

All I am saying that when a photographer, who is a strong Christian, can be sued for NOT wanting to do a gay wedding....there is a problem....when a deeply religious business has to either shutdown or engage in ceremonies that they find morally objectionable, we have a Constitutional problem.

I totally understand this dilemma, but to call people fucktards for wanting to stand on moral principals is fucked up!

Like I said before, the free market should decide this.  If people do not want to support this photographer because of his convictions, then don't hire him.  It doesn't mean this guy HATES anybody, he just doesn't want to support something he is morally against.  Yet, he has been SUED, because a gay couple couldn't just find another photographer.