indiana
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
But what about 'protecting' religious-freedom, man?
The chief executive of tech giant Salesforce told Pence that his company -- which had bought Indianapolis-based Exact Target for $2.5 billion in 2013 -- would abandon the state and its expansion plans there if he signed the measure into law.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted on Thursday, after Pence signed the bill: "Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."
And the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard, broke with Pence on the bill, saying it would put his city's economy at risk.
"Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents," Ballard said Wednesday in a statement. "We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/
The chief executive of tech giant Salesforce told Pence that his company -- which had bought Indianapolis-based Exact Target for $2.5 billion in 2013 -- would abandon the state and its expansion plans there if he signed the measure into law.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted on Thursday, after Pence signed the bill: "Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination."
And the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard, broke with Pence on the bill, saying it would put his city's economy at risk.
"Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents," Ballard said Wednesday in a statement. "We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/
That's a little misleading. The bill's language is pretty similar to the federal RFRA that Clinton signed into law in 1993. And there are other states that have these laws on the books already, and there's no rampant, legally-defensible discrimination happening in those states.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, the whole point of this bill is to make denial of service to gays legally defensible on the grounds of "because jesus".
I read the bill and it says no such thing. Again, the language is similar to a bill Pres Clinton signed into law in 93 and I think we can agree he was not anti gay.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
The bill, now a law, allows any person or corporation to cite religious beliefs as a defense when sued by a private party. The intent of the bill is to give companies and business owners legal cover if they don’t want to do business with same-sex couples.
http://recode.net/2015/03/26/salesforce-ceo-benioff-takes-stand-against-indiana-anti-gay-law/
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Not quite. Religious freedom, as in the right to practice your religion with your own believers unmolested, is a worthy freedom. It stops being worthy- or free- when people impose their religion or beliefs upon others, which is exactly what this legislature did.
The governor signed the BILL into LAW lol. And that's not language from the bill.
I checked and New Jersey has a similar bill, too. Though Mt Laurel might have their own local ordinance
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it is when you translate from legalese. read section 9 and tell me what you think it says.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197
"9. A person whose exercise of religion has beensubstantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, bya violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impendingviolation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrativeproceeding, regardless of whether the state or any othergovernmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevantgovernmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, thegovernmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene inorder to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter."
No gays! Verrrry similar to the '93 bill. Civil Rights Act still intact, bruh.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You came into the politics section all by yourself, no one made you. The language doesn't single out gays, it allows anyone to deny services on the basis of 'because, Jesus.' That's wrong, because in this country we are supposed to have freedom of religion, AND protection from it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why would i do that? what i've seen form you in other sections suggests the opposite.
i just think you have it wrong on this one. this bill provides legal cover to people who want to discriminate against gays under the misleading guise of religious freedom.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm pleased that we agree nobody should impose on others. Human interactions should be on a voluntary and consensual basis of all the involved parties or somebody is imposing right?
How would you solve the imposition of a non property owner on a property owner when the non property owner seeks to determine (forcefully) who the property owner must interact with?
it should be, but it's not and it never will be when you work for someone else. everything about employment is designed with you in mind..how to get more out of you..divide and conquer peers..promotability amongst peers causing conflict..they control everything about you..what you do during the week at night..what time you go to bed..what time you wake.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how is a gay couple imposing on a business by trying to buy their goods and services, oh master of language?
panhead
Well-Known Member
Yes religiuos freedom in concept is a good thing , in pratice its used as a weapon by organized religion , the same organized religion that enjoys freedoms over & above regular citizens .