Mike Pence could have literally set a random homeless person on fire and extinguished the burning corpse by taking a leak on it and it would have caused less economic damage than him signing this self-serving law. Sure, it would be an outrage and he would go to prison, but it wouldn't cause economic harm.
Mike Pence has literally set fire to the economic groundwork that Mitch Daniels accomplished while in office. When the CEO of the biggest company in the world, and arguably the most influential company calls you out and pretty much urges businesses to boycott your state, you pretty much flat-out failed in your primary job role.
This is a man who has presidential aspirations and he signs a law like this right before the NCAA Final Four comes to town? All of this so some nutjob baker can legally tell a gay couple he wont bake a cake for them???
Here is the other dumb unfortunate thing ... it's not like this was a topic of conversation or debate among common citizens prior to the law being signed. It wasn't like the Right-To-Work union debate that raged for years before being signed. Everyone just woke up last week to find themselves being demonized by Tim Cook as bigots for something we were all unaware of.
Interesting explanation on how the Indiana law differs from other RFRA laws. If the info presented is true, it looks pretty sure the law was meant to protect discrimination, especially in light of the backers and their histories.
""Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language. What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”
Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.
So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’s definition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals."
If Pence is serious about governance he has to do something. This standing his ground business is only doing more damage, and economically they can't afford this buffoonery.
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
I think there is a big difference between using free market pressure to effect legislation, and using campaign contributions to control politicians.
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
Well they aren't evil when they are donating millions to charity either. You can be against a corporation overall and still support select things that they do, such as speak against a discriminatory law (for whatever reason).... Not that I think Apple is evil. I just don't particularly like their business practices so avoid their products, and I think some people feel the same.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
Apple is doing this so that they can get a pass on the other countries they do business with. We'll all look the other way as long as they make a statement on Indiana. Now where's my damn watch already!
Can't we move past all this nonsense. Live and let live.
The same freedoms afforded to those seeking religious freedoms should be exactly the same as the ones offered to those who choose an alternate lifestyle.Why does one belief carry more weight then the other.Stupido.
I mean it is Indiana.......
It's not a choice. There is no difference between refusing service to a gay person because they're gay and refusing it to a black person because of the colour of their skin.
Face-palm. There is a difference, simply, if one man wants to shove his penis in another man's anus or wave it in his face, I as a small business owner should have the ability and freedom to refuse service. Am I wrong for having moral convictions based on what my religion considers a taboo behavior? So then, you will discriminate against me for my belief system? What taboo behavior is a black man exhibiting? They are not the same, the argument that being black and being gay have the same discrimination is straw-man argument.
You speak of choice - does anyone else see the irony in this - many pro-choice liberals are up in arms at the conservatives over their freedom to choose and refuse service based on moral convictions. Seriously - c'mon Pro-choice people - have a backbone! This is what you stand for.
That is pretty fucked up.
Seriously, if a man put's his penis in another man's anus - still won't make a baby. That is what we are really talking about here and how many in society have a problem with that. It is not discrimination if you disagree with it, it is a personal conviction - so which is greater - a personal conviction based on freedom of religion or personal conviction of a man waving his penis in another man's face or shoving it in his anus?
So then, are you discriminating against me as a religious person who may have a belief system with moral convictions? I would say yes.
Have never had that many dick images appear reading something. Visuals wow. You've written these episodes before huh?
It's not a choice and if you think it is and you made a choice well ah ah ah
Kidding aside if you care who's screwing who your a dick. If you treat a person differently and don't want their money your stupid as well.
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
Good point and agree.
The positive for me is that there aren't enough conservatives to threaten Apple with boycott and they feel confident all the gay haters won't dump their precious phones for their cause.
I wish this law would have been signed last month. It may have been enough time for the NCAA to move the final 4. If they had any balls, they would move it anyway. I hope Indiana goes broke with the boycotts.
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
I think there is a big difference between using free market pressure to effect legislation, and using campaign contributions to control politicians.
Certainly there is a difference, but whether a corporation uses a $1,000,000 or uses a press release it is still a much bigger voice than the average Joe or Jane. If it is wrong for Coke Industries to pay a million dollars to fund advertisements by a PAC, then there probably should be something wrong with Apple using their "capital" to make a press release that they know everyone will see.
Threatening to take away future money from the state in order to create a law change is similar to providing money in the future to create a law change.
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I feel bad for the local folks whose income is dependent on these types of events.
I was all for the NFL telling Arizona that it would pull the Super bowl from their state if they passed that bill. If private business can legally discriminate against people, why can't businesses stop doing business in these bigot states?
I was all for the NFL telling Arizona that it would pull the Super bowl from their state if they passed that bill. If private business can legally discriminate against people, why can't businesses stop doing business in these bigot states?
Indiana gave its electoral votes to a democrat (Obama) for the first time in forever, so let's not get over dramatic on calling it a bigot state. This bill passed under the radar. They passed it closed door without inviting media or public. And local media and business is calling for repeal. For someone who hails from South Carolina, I would expect you have had to deal with past stereotypes.
When Richard Murdoch was running for senate a few years ago, he was a Republican lock to win. And then he made a dumb comment about rape and abortion and he got his ass kicked by a democrat who previously had little chance to win.
I can't take this anymore.Its time for action,not talk. So I am officially boycotting the watching of the movie Hoosiers.Until further notice. Bam!!! How's that shit feel Indiana.
Here is the other dumb unfortunate thing ... it's not like this was a topic of conversation or debate among common citizens prior to the law being signed. It wasn't like the Right-To-Work union debate that raged for years before being signed. Everyone just woke up last week to find themselves being demonized by Tim Cook as bigots for something we were all unaware of.
So to summarize, Wilco is as dumb as this law.
About as dumb as a rock band taking a stand against a ticketing agency and then when it all got too hard, throwing their hands up and deciding to suck on that corporate teat.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Here is the other dumb unfortunate thing ... it's not like this was a topic of conversation or debate among common citizens prior to the law being signed. It wasn't like the Right-To-Work union debate that raged for years before being signed. Everyone just woke up last week to find themselves being demonized by Tim Cook as bigots for something we were all unaware of.
So to summarize, Wilco is as dumb as this law.
About as dumb as a rock band taking a stand against a ticketing agency and then when it all got too hard, throwing their hands up and deciding to suck on that corporate teat.
I'm against the law in Indiana but do think it is ironic that no one seems to have a problem with Apple using its corporate clout to impact legislation on this issue. I guess the evil corporations are only evil when they don't support a particular ideology.
I think there is a big difference between using free market pressure to effect legislation, and using campaign contributions to control politicians.
Certainly there is a difference, but whether a corporation uses a $1,000,000 or uses a press release it is still a much bigger voice than the average Joe or Jane. If it is wrong for Coke Industries to pay a million dollars to fund advertisements by a PAC, then there probably should be something wrong with Apple using their "capital" to make a press release that they know everyone will see.
Threatening to take away future money from the state in order to create a law change is similar to providing money in the future to create a law change.
Did Tim Cook say he was "taking money" away from Indiana? I was under the impression that he wrote a letter on behalf of himself, not Apple. I could be wrong though.
Comments
Mike Pence has literally set fire to the economic groundwork that Mitch Daniels accomplished while in office. When the CEO of the biggest company in the world, and arguably the most influential company calls you out and pretty much urges businesses to boycott your state, you pretty much flat-out failed in your primary job role.
This is a man who has presidential aspirations and he signs a law like this right before the NCAA Final Four comes to town? All of this so some nutjob baker can legally tell a gay couple he wont bake a cake for them???
Anyway, it's Wilco. About a big as loss as the National Kite Flying Convention cancelling their annual meeting in Indy.
So to summarize, Wilco is as dumb as this law.
""Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”
Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.
So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’s definition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals."
It's not a choice and if you think it is and you made a choice well ah ah ah
Kidding aside if you care who's screwing who your a dick. If you treat a person differently and don't want their money your stupid as well.
The positive for me is that there aren't enough conservatives to threaten Apple with boycott and they feel confident all the gay haters won't dump their precious phones for their cause.
Priorities you know.
I really mean God. The guy is a born again. All those politics aside, him and Laura thought that God had chosen them.
'Parks And Rec' Actor Nick Offerman Cancels Indiana Show Over Anti-Gay Law
Threatening to take away future money from the state in order to create a law change is similar to providing money in the future to create a law change.
When Richard Murdoch was running for senate a few years ago, he was a Republican lock to win. And then he made a dumb comment about rape and abortion and he got his ass kicked by a democrat who previously had little chance to win.
So please cool thy jets when judging.
So I am officially boycotting the watching of the movie Hoosiers.Until further notice.
Bam!!! How's that shit feel Indiana.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Did Tim Cook say he was "taking money" away from Indiana? I was under the impression that he wrote a letter on behalf of himself, not Apple. I could be wrong though.