Not surprisingly, Olbermann on a rant. The phrase "prejudice under the cloak of religions freedom" came up. Equating this with Jim Crow. Calling for the NFL to hold the combines somewhere else; Final Four not to be scheduled in Indy until this is off the books, etc. Cited "precedence" when the AFL boycotted an all-star game back in the day and forced a change of venue from New Orleans to Houston. Gave some interesting demographics about professional teams (or lack thereof) in the deep south until changes were made.

 

Not sure if I buy the analogies or not. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Individual businesses in Indiana are now issuing statements affirming their commitment to providing service to all.

Individual businesses in Indiana are now issuing statements affirming their commitment to providing service to all.

 

Good to hear.

 

What is one to make of business that issue no such statements? Anything?

Good to hear.

 

What is one to make of business that issue no such statements? Anything?

 

I have no idea. But I think the businesses who will see the most immediate impact are in the hospitality industry. If people don't feel they are welcome, they won't spend their important discretionary dollars there, especially those with heavy reliance on out of state dollars.

 

There have also been businesses who have issued statements and posted signs in their establishments in support of HB101. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by mcpapa
fixed typo

This entire subject is a mess...

 

1) Should All Tell be forced to take photo's on a Elk hunt just because someone want's to pay All Tell to do it?

2) Should a Christian be forced to make a Satanic Wedding Cake complete with Satanic imagery?

3) Should a Mosque be forced to allow a Same Sex wedding to take place in the Mosque, just because someone want's to make a point?

 

A) Should a restaurant be allowed to not serve same sex couples?

B) Should a Jewish own hotel owner be allowed to stop Muslims from staying at the hotel?

C) Should zoning boards decline building permits based on the race of the home owner?

 

While I'd like to say that has a Christian Photographer I shouldn't be forced to participate in a same sex wedding just because someone hires me to make a political statement. But is that any different than a restaurant owner refusing to serve blacks 40 years ago?

Maybe just maybe people should not think too hard about who they are taking pictures of and who they are baking their wedding cakes for. Someone pays you, and you take the pictures and you bake the daggone cake. Then you take their money and walk away. It's called business. :lol2:

Edited March 30, 201511 yr by hoops5

Maybe just maybe people should not think to hard about who they are taking pictures of and who they are baking their wedding cakes for. Someone pays you, and you take the pictures and you bake the daggone cake. Then you take their money and walk away. It's called business. :lol2:

 

Is there anything that you'd refuse to take photos of that was legal, even if you completely disagreed with it?

Would you be cool with being forced to make a cake for someone to celebrate Hitlers birthday, how about if you were Jewish?

 

I get what your saying and that's why this is such a slippery slope both ways. While agree that no one should be force to do something that is against their beliefs I also think it's wrong to tell someone they can't sit at the lunch counter and get something to eat because they look or act a certain way.

Not sure refusing to serve blacks would come under a religious exception but I get your confusion.

Maybe just maybe people should not think to hard about who they are taking pictures of and who they are baking their wedding cakes for. Someone pays you, and you take the pictures and you bake the daggone cake. Then you take their money and walk away. It's called business. :lol2:

That's how I see it, taking their money doesn't mean you agree with them.

Just so we're clear this would also mean that a staunchly pro-choice feminist photographer could be compelled to photograph pro life rallies as long as she gets paid for it?

Not sure refusing to serve blacks would come under a religious exception but I get your confusion.

 

Like I may have said before. I see a parallel but not sure it's apples and oranges.

Monday evening update

 

-- The public-employee union known as AFSCME announced Monday it was canceling a planned women's conference in Indianapolis this year because of the law.

 

-- The band Wilco said it was canceling a May performance.

 

-- Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued an open letter to Indiana corporations saying Virginia is a business-friendly state that does "not discriminate against our friends and neighbors," while Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel sent letters to more than a dozen Indiana businesses, urging them to relocate to a "welcoming place to people of all races, faiths and countries of origin."

 

Has the commonwealth tried to lure the Indy 500 race to the Kentucky Speedway?

18 State Statutes Later, Indiana?s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is Still Bad Legislation | Punchnels

 

Another analysis

Not sure refusing to serve blacks would come under a religious exception but I get your confusion.

 

It doesn't, my point is that is refusing service to same sex couples today any different that refusing service to blacks 50 years ago.

 

It's been said over and over that Gay Rights is the Civil Right fight of Today. Even though I don't agree with that I do see the comparison.

Just so we're clear this would also mean that a staunchly pro-choice feminist photographer could be compelled to photograph pro life rallies as long as she gets paid for it?

 

Or maybe a staunchly Pro-Life Photographer would be hired/forced to record the magic of an abortion.