Indiana wants me

[Lord Jim]

I'm guessing that this is probably not an official Indiana Tourism Association (http://www.aicvb.org/) promotional video:



ETA:

That Indiana tourism site says that tourism is the state's 6th largest industry with 72 million visitors a year, and over 10 billion dollars brought in annually...(Also that tourism provides income for 75,000 state residents)

If those numbers are accurate, that is considerably more substantial then I would have thought...

[TPFKA@W]

I didn't even realize that was a thing that is.

No, the 500 used to pack them in, no so much so these days, there are some other races I think but overall I do not think of Indiana as a vacation destination. We are pretty much just here to grow corn and dodge tornadoes I think.

[Big RR]

That and some popular sporting events like the Indy 500 and Notre Dame football.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, the 500 used to pack them in, not so much so these days, there are some other races I think

That and some popular sporting events like the Indy 500 and Notre Dame football.

Yeah! Fight!

[Big RR]

sorry @W, I didn't catch your reference to the 500 when I read your post; I don't follow auto racing, so I defer to you about attendance declining. But I do think Notre Dame football still is a pretty big draw.

[Lord Jim]

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard on Monday called on the Indiana General Assembly to either repeal the divisive Religious Freedom Restoration Act or add explicit protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in state law.

Ballard also issued an executive order that anyone who receives money from the city government must abide by its human rights ordinance, which has had such protections in place for a decade.

His comments at a Monday afternoon news conference were the strongest yet from the Republican leader of the state's capital and largest city in the wake of the bill, which was passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Mike Pence last week.

Flanked by business leaders, Ballard denounced the law not only as a threat to the city's economic interests, but as a serious concern for residents and visitors who fear that they could be subjected to discrimination for religious reasons.

"Our city thrives because we have welcomed and embraced diversity. And RFRA threatens what thousands of people have spent decades building," Ballard said.

"Discrimination is wrong. And I hope that message is being heard loud and clear at our Statehouse."

Supporters say the RFRA, set to become law on July 1, is needed to protect religious freedom from government intrusion, pointing to similar laws across the country. But circumstances unique to Indiana's bill have sparked a national firestorm over fears that it could legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Chief among those circumstances is the fact that many states with an RFRA, including neighboring Illinois, also have statewide bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation, alongside other protected classes such as race, sex and religion. Indiana has no such protections. And it explicitly prohibits local human rights ordinances from being exempt from the RFRA.

The backlash has come fast and furious, with publicly traded companies such as Angie's List and Salesforce threatening to reduce their investment in the city, and celebrities such as George Takei and Charles Barkley calling for a boycott of Indiana. As the host of this year's NCAA men's basketball Final Four, Indianapolis has found itself under a shared spotlight with Pence and state lawmakers.

Ballard devoted a portion of his speech to reassuring those who planned to attend the tournament from out-of-town.

"Indianapolis will not be defined by this," he said, repeating it for emphasis. "Indianapolis will not be defined by this. Indianapolis welcomes everybody."

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70674176/

[Lord Jim]

Embattled Indiana Gov. Mike Pence attempted again Tuesday morning to "clarify" the state's controversial new "religious freedom" law.

Pence said it has been a tough week and said "we've got a perception problem" that needs to be fixed.

Pence said he concluded that it is necessary to move legislation to amend the law to make it clear that it does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. He said he wanted legislation on his desk by the end of the week to accomplish that.

The governor also said:

-- There's been misunderstanding and confusion and mischaracterization about the potential impact of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

-- This legislation was intended to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in this state.

-- He has been working around the clock, talking to people around the state and nation, and "we've been listening."

He stressed that RFRA was about "religious liberty, not discrimination" and emphasized that the law does not give anyone the right to turn away customers on religious grounds.

"This law does not give anyone the right to discriminate...This law does not give anyone the right to deny services," he said.

When asked whether Christian businesses should be compelled to supply services to gay and lesbian weddings, Pence answered: "I don't support discrimination against anyone."

"I don't support discrimination against gays and lesbians or anyone else. I abhor discrimination."

However, Pence again said that adding protections for gays and lesbians is not on his agenda.

Pence also said he found "deeply offensive" the criticisms lodged against Indiana and its residents after the passage of the law last week. He blamed the national media and critics partly for those perceptions and any damage that may have done to the state's reputation.

"We want to make it clear that Hoosier Hospitality is not a slogan, it's our way of life," he said.

"Hoosiers are a loving, kind, generous, decent and kind people," Pence said.

Pence said he will work with the Indiana legislature this week to make the changes he is seeking to the RFRA law.

"We will fix this and we will move forward," he said.

Since Pence signed the law on Thursday, he has faced a barrage of criticism from top business executives, celebrities and civil rights groups who fear the law would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians. He attempted to "clarify" the law on national television Sunday, but was widely derided for repeatedly refusing to answer a yes-or-no question regarding whether the law would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Pence acknowledged Tuesday that he had done not a good job of explaining the law.

Supporters have said the law is necessary to protect religious freedoms from government intrusion. Opponents say it will give businesses the right to deny services to customers on religious grounds.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70712968/

[TPFKA@W]

I can't imagine what one would do with such a bill if one removes the teeth with which it bites. Essentially the bill was supposed to allow religios to refuse to serve on the grounds that serving gays, and no matter what this is aimed at that specific group, would infringe on their religious beliefs. This boiled down to refusing service to gays. If you say, "oh dear we didn't mean they could discriminate against people", then just what the heck did I miss?

I call bullshit. (Duh) Best shelf the whole stupid thing and slink off to lick their wounds.

[Lord Jim]

My understanding from Pence's, performance today (which was much better than his "homina, homina, homina" Ralph Kramden impersonation on This Week on Sunday) and from what others have said about this, is that this law doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate in providing goods or services...

What it's supposed to do, is to allow folks to be able to make the argument in court that they shouldn't be required to provide "XYZ" based on religious grounds...

Not that they would necessarily prevail in court making that argument, (the law doesn't mandate that) but just to give them standing under state law to raise that as a legitimate defense for not providing said good or service...

If this is accurate, I am compelled to agree with rube when he said:

Reactions to the bill are out of proportion to what the law actually says

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, I didn't imagine that this bill proposed giving anyone the right to say "I will not sell you a car because you're a homosexual" or even to allow that as a defense in a case such as that.

I thought it was more applicable to (and I know we disagree on this, folks) to situations where to provide the service was to (in some way) acknowledge or approve of a religiously offensive (whether you and I think it is or not) "thing".

Perhaps it would be possible for the owner of a B&B to refuse to take a booking from Mr Smith and Miss Brown if they happened to know that Mr Smith was a married doctor and Miss Brown was his teenaged patient. Perhaps even refusing a room booking if such people were not married to each other. Hopelessly old-fashioned of me, ain't it?

Also, if I owned a cake decorating business you can be sure I'd not be decorating a cake with anything that I found offensive, whether that be a slogan using foul language (my definition) or a request for a decoration consisting of two men in tuxes on top of a "wedding" cake. In either case, I might offer the cake and tell 'em to get their jollies from some other source.

Blathering about opening doors to sharia law is absolute rubbish. If some Moslem owner of a shop refused to serve me because I'm a Christian - that would be wrong. But if he was decorating cakes and I wanted a picture of a pig swigging whisky on it, then I'd not be offended at all if he said he couldn't do that because he found it to be in conflict with his own religious teachings. That's his right, in my opinion. Now if he told me I had to convert to Islam to get a cake, I'd think he was just nuts and leave.

But it's the popular hobby-horse isn't it? "Discrimination" is wrong - no matter that one has to discriminate between right and wrong to say "that's wrong" (or "that's right"). Stupid people.

[Big RR]

Well Jim, in other words what it did is created a new statutory defense based on religious beliefs to permit private individuals (including corporations) to deny some services to others. True, they would likely not win in state court for denying services to protected classes (like race-based ones), but it is conceded that gender and sexual orientation are not protected classes in Indiana--so saying the courts will have to decide each case is a bit disingenuous, they will be applying existing state law which would likely not be interpreted to protect gays/lesbians, etc. from such denial of services. This is why some in the Indiana legislature are proposing to make sexual orientation a protected class to remedy the immediate problem.

Now there are other religious freedom laws (including a federal law), but these are designed to permit a religious institutions to be protected from government intrusions (like requiring Christian scientists to be vaccinated), not to create a private defense to discriminations charges.

Are the reactions "out of proportion"? I guess it depends on what side of the debate you stand on.

Meade--

Yes, I didn't imagine that this bill proposed giving anyone the right to say "I will not sell you a car because you're a homosexual" or even to allow that as a defense in a case such as that.

What leads you to that conclusion? Certainly nothing in the text of the law provides such a restriction. It basically says I can invoke my religious beliefs as a defense to a denial of services, and many are saying people should be able to deal/not deal with whomever they wish (of course subject to other laws defining protected classes). I see no reason a court would interpret a denial to prepare a wedding cake with two people on top as any different that refusing to provide a cake at all to a gay couple getting married, or a gay couple celebrating a birthday, or a gay man picking up a cake for his non-gay niece. Why leave to up to a judge? Of the only thing you wanted to prevent was requiring people to take exceptional actions that they find religiously abhorrent (like making a cake with two men on it, but not just selling a cake to two men getting married), why not craft a law saying just that and let the courts know what the legislature is legislating? Some might still find it offensive, but it would be addressing your apparent concerns.

[TPFKA@W]

Dear MajGenl.Meade, opening it to support Sharia law is not BS. Or is it simply that you think only Christians ought to benefit from such a law? I live in a heavily Muslim area and many seem to be employed at the airport as cab drivers. They often refuse to haul people who have purchased a bottle of alcohol and have it on their person. I expect a side of bacon or perhaps an egg McMuffin with Canadian bacon on it would be met with said refusal. I am not sure if they are being sued for this behavior or not, but it is not outside the real of belief that they could employ this law to support their beliefs. Oh what a shock religious bigots are in for when this all comes home to rest. A better suggestion is that religious people with strong beliefs should not take jobs, or offer services where they must mix with and serve the public. Or they could learn something form Hindus who can prepare a hamburger but must not eat it.

[Sue U]

A better suggestion is that religious people with strong beliefs should not take jobs, or offer services where they must mix with and serve the public. Or they could learn something form Hindus who can prepare a hamburger but must not eat it.

Exactly.

A Muslim who takes a job at barbecue joint can't expect to claim religious freedom as a defense for refusing to serve ribs or pulled pork to customers. It is ridiculous both in terms of denial of service and in terms of employment discrimination (should he be fired for such refusal). If people are engaged in a business that is a public accommodation, they should be providing the same goods and services to all customers regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have no problem with those cab drivers - God bless 'em. Presumably he's not refusing to transport me but does not want to transport my pork burger. That's an entirely different matter (though some confusion of the two is understandable ). Was I unclear with some part of:

But if he was decorating cakes and I wanted a picture of a pig swigging whisky on it, then I'd not be offended at all if he said he couldn't do that because he found it to be in conflict with his own religious teachings.

[TPFKA@W]

I have no problem with those cab drivers - God bless 'em. Presumably he's not refusing to transport me but does not want to transport my pork burger. That's an entirely different matter (though some confusion of the two is understandable ). Was I unclear with some part of:

But if he was decorating cakes and I wanted a picture of a pig swigging whisky on it, then I'd not be offended at all if he said he couldn't do that because he found it to be in conflict with his own religious teachings.

Well in the unlikely event that the request for professional services actually touched some personal and very important aspect of your life, say professional wedding photos to be taken at your daughters wedding, not some stupid-assed imaginary scenario you made up and pulled out of your ass in an attempt to make light of a serious topic, then your feelings would likely be different.

I am going to take a guess and think that you would never accept being turned away for something that you actually wanted by someone who thought your lifestyle was unacceptable. You would never in a million years come out and admit it but I will venture it to be the case.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I may have stopped beating my wife, too

[Joe Guy]

There's a lady who's from Indiana
Who thinks she is the top banana
She'll call you a stalker
If you try to mock her
She would not do well in Montana

[Lord Jim]

Not once...

Not a single time...

From the late 70's to the late 90's , did I ever have any Inn Keeper refuse to offer me a room because "we were not married"...No...

In fact, I can't even recall being asked the question when we were checking in...

Never came up...

[Gob]

That's because you LOOK married.

[Lord Jim]