Indiana Gov. signs law allowing businesses to refuse service to gay customers.

[copperfiend]

The law so bad that the governor signed it in private.

Now the losing of business to the state begins...

Gamer convention talks about moving to another state and take their 50 million dollars of economic impact with them.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/24/gen-con-threatens-move-convention-gov-mike-pence-signs-religious-freedom-bill/70393474/

The NCAA (based in Indianapolis) is examining the law and "how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."

Former NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen, who once ran the men's basketball tournament, wrote on Twitter this week, "Spent my life working to bring events/corps [corporations] to my home state. Any law allowing discrimination is embarrassing, unacceptable."

The NCAA has taken stands on social issues in the past involving the location of its championships. In 2005, the NCAA banned schools with Native American mascot names deemed inappropriate from hosting NCAA championships or using their mascots at those events.

Since 2001, the NCAA has banned the state of South Carolina from hosting NCAA championships because the Confederate flag is flown on the statehouse grounds.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/26/ncaa-indiana-religious-freedom-law-mike-pence-mark-emmert-final-four-indianapolis/70490096/

This could also impact future Super Bowl in Indianapolis as well.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25123924

[copperfiend]

Soon after Gov. Mike Pence signed the religious freedom bill into law Thursday, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that he would no longer send employees or customers to Indiana.

"Today we are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination," he tweeted.

Salesforce, a cloud computing company headquartered in San Francisco, acquired Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget last year for $2.5 billion.

Business leaders in the tech community had addressed a letter to him urging him to veto the measure.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-address-letter-to-pence-urging-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/

[spuwho]

Per the Indy Star:

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this beIt's because — despite all the rhetoric — the bill has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld. And this brings us to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Under the Indiana RFRA, those who provide creative services for weddings, such as photographers, florists or bakers, could claim that religious freedom protects them from local nondiscrimination laws. Like other religious objectors, they would have their day in court, as they should, permitting them to argue that the government is improperly requiring them to violate their religion by participating (in their view) in a celebration that their religion does not allow.

But courts generally have ruled that the government has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination and that this interest precludes the recognition of religious exceptions. Even in the narrow setting of wedding-service providers, claims for religious exemptions recently have been rejected in various states, including states that have adopted the RFRA test. A court could rule otherwise, protecting religious freedom in this distinctive context. But to date, none has.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a "license to discriminate," and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

Daniel O. Conkle, professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

[JaxJersey-licious]

Good God, Indiana! Where to begin? The coded wording of the law? Pushing it through the legislature with little time for review or debate? Or the hypocrisy of a governor who believes he stands firm on his Christian principles then secretly signs such a law where only his like-minded associates where present as if he were ashamed of his decision and couldn't stomach being ridiculed and chastised? Like the decline of rates of heterosexual couple being wed and the increase of baked goods championing gay marriage would miraculously halt coming the passage of this precious bill. And you want us to believe this bill is only focused on preserving religious freedom since before the legalization of gay marriage and the Affordable Care Act religious freedom hasn't been a big pressing crisis in your state? Really, Indy?!

It's not just the impact this law would have on gays and lesbian discrimination that is troubling but also the repercussions this law can have because of its fucked-up wording. Let's say I wanted to rent a semi-enclosed part of a restaurant for a sizable celebration and presentation and the owner took my deposit no questions asked. They wouldn't even have to serve us since me and my group would take care of food, drinks, decorations, clean-up, what have you. As the event grows nearer, the owner gets word that I and my group are Catholic and the party was for several children receiving the sacrament of Confirmation. Now let's say said owner, newly emboldened by this stupid new law protecting his religious freedom, gives me my deposit back and forbids our party taking place within earshot of his staff and customers because he believes us Catholics goes against his beliefs by praying to dead people and worshiping idols and shit? Or else have our celebration while throughout the night having to hear chastisements from staff and being told whats the correct way to worship Jesus? Even if the owner doubled my deposit because of the trouble, that wouldn't make up for the money me and my group had to spend to prepare everything or make up for us not able to get a similar venue in time. And Catholic confirmation ceremonies are normally done with a group and traditional given by the Diocese's bishop so it can't just be rescheduled on the fly.

Yes, I realize that will probably not happen and if for someone that ignorant tried to do that to my group or any other denomination that would not be the spirit of this new law. But how or why would I live or do business in a state that with this "spirit" of encouraging discrimination? Apparently many other individuals, businesses, and organizations will be asking that same question to the detriment of the state's economy.

There is a thin line between being guided by one's beliefs and being blinded by those same beliefs,,,and it seems the majority of the Indiana state government can't help using that big-ass eraser on that line.

[Charles Hunter]

Would the law allow discrimination against fundamentalist Christians?

[I-10east]

The NFL is not commenting so far, but they did express concern when Arizona had such a bill (it wasn't passed). Stay tuned.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/26/nfl-not-commenting-on-controversial-new-indiana-law/

[fsquid]

Let the market speak

[simms3]

Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce, very publicly today announced that his company would ban all travel to Indiana and he is urging all of his employees to forgo any sort of travel to the state.  I know someone new at Salesforce who happens to be from IN, coincidentally.

[Rob68]

I now can call the republican party AMERICAS HOMEGROWN TERRORIST...Whos with me?....where is the outrage about the right wing idiots trying to ruin our great country...they make our country look like backward idiots to other more evolved societies...im so ashamed of us.

[Awlloyd7]

I don't understand the logic behind this law. I went to catholic school for 8 years and one of the biggest lessons they pushed was to treat everyone with love and respect, don't discriminate. The whole idea of "hate the sin, love the sinner." So saying this law is based on the idea of religious freedom goes against the very foundation of the religion it refers to which is paradoxical and plainly idiotic.

It's very clear the law is serving the masses' personal feelings of hatred as opposed to protecting religious freedom.

[JeffreyS]

In St. Louis the way you call someone ignorant or backwoods are any of those sort of characterizations is tocall them Hoosier.  I guess I understand why.

[TimmyB]

My wife and I were scheduled to run a tri in Indy this summer.  I've already notified the race director that we would not be coming and this law was the reason why we would spend our tourism dollars elsewhere.  He got back to me right away and to say the least, he is very disappointed and embarrassed by the actions of his legislators and governor.

I agree with fsquid: the market will play out and it will be ugly.

[spuwho]

I hope everyone here posting do know that the Indiana law simply codifies the Federal RFRA act at the state level.

The same RFRA has been passed in 30 other states.

No where does the law make any anti gay statements. It simply provides the framework for how to handle legal issues surrounding ones religious views.

That can include *ANY* religious view. Its not exclusive to Christianity.

No where does it say one group should be discrimated against.

[finehoe]

I hope everyone here posting do know that the Indiana law simply codifies the Federal RFRA act at the state level.

The same RFRA has been passed in 30 other states.

No where does the law make any anti gay statements. It simply provides the framework for how to handle legal issues surrounding ones religious views.

That can include *ANY* religious view. Its not exclusive to Christianity.

No where does it say one group should be discrimated against.

I hope you know you're full of shit.

Indiana's SB 101, is not an exact replica of the federal RFRA. A February 27 letter by 30 legal scholars expressing their concern over the proposed Indiana RFRA explains the distinction between the SB 101 and the 1993 federal law:

    The state RFRA bills do not, in fact, mirror the language of the federal RFRA.

    [...]

    The definition of "person" under the proposed RFRA differs substantially from that contained in the federal RFRA, affording standing to assert religious liberty rights to a much broader class of entities than that currently recognized by federal law.

Unlike the federal RFRA, Indiana's RFRA contains an extremely broad definition of "person" that includes organizations, corporations, or companies that are: "compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual or the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes."

As Buzzfeed also reported:

    The Indiana bill is broader than federal law. While the Indiana bill says that a "governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion," it also applies those rules to businesses and interactions between private parties "regardless of whether the state or any other government entity is party to the proceeding."

As the same legal scholars explain in their letter (emphasis added):

    This parallel between support for the federal RFRA and the proposed state RFRA is misplaced. In fact, many members of the bipartisan coalition that supported the passage of the federal RFRA in 1993 now hold the view that the law has been interpreted and applied in ways they did not expect at the time they lent their endorsement to the law. As a result, the legislators who voted on RFRA have distanced themselves from their initial backing of the legislation.

As legal and religious scholar Dr. Jay Michaelson noted, these unintended consequences amount to a broad license to discriminate against LGBT people, because state RFRA laws could allow "individuals and businesses [to] exempt themselves from anti-discrimination laws by proffering religious objections to them."

Portraying Indiana's RFRA as benign legislation identical to the "bipartisan" federal law isn't just inaccurate It is a part of the right's larger role in promoting the narrative of Christian persecution to support the passage of a number of state RFRAs now being considered in states across the country. Expect to see wingnuts continue to misrepresent RFRA as a harmless law protecting "religious liberty" while ignoring the fact that these bills are actually the product of powerful anti-LGBT organizations lobbying to legalize anti-LGBT discrimination.

[pierre]

Will be interested in seeing how the NFL handles this. They have their annual combine in Indianapolis as well as have a future Super Bowl on the books for that state.

They have not commented. But based on how they approached Arizona when a similar law was potentially happening, they will be strong about it. I would not be shocked if the combine is moved.