Discussion for article #234772
For the life of me I can’t think of any reason to ever go to Indiana. I think I went to Gary once. Not a garden spot. Otherwise . . . . . no, can’t think of anything. Oh . . . . auto racing. That’s it.
I passed through Muncie once and had some pizza. It was OK.
All of this national criticism is fine, but it won’t move the needle at all for the bigots who passed the law in Indiana. To the contrary, criticism by San Francisco politicians and corporations based in the Bay area will just confirm them in their prejudices. It won’t be until corporations or organizations without any specific ties to those icky gay cities or icky liberal causes stop spending money in Indiana that the GOPers will even think about rescinding the law. In other words, if the National Organization for Sane Gun Laws announced they were moving their convention to some other state, the troglodytes in the legislature would celebrate. If the NCAA or the Big Ten conference announced that they would no longer hold basketball tournaments or conference football playoff games in Indy, that would get their attention. It would be better if Indy 500 drivers announced a boycott of the biggest spectacle in racing, but that ain’t happening in that testosterone- and gasoline-fueled world.
2 Likes
I appreciate what you are saying and wish the NCAA and other equally-powerful organizations would boycott. Nevertheless, each ban costs Indiana money and will hopefully cause other businesses to reconsider their relationships with Indiana and other states with discriminatory laws.
2 Likes
The latest religious freedom rhetoric from conservative Catholic Cardinal Burke:
I had supposed that laws to penalize or (as in this case) support businesses that turn away G/L trade would have much less effect than market forces.
Most Americans don’t like this sort of thing, not just LGBTs, and Americans 40 and younger (i.e., the age demographic that spends the most on weddings, suppliers for which are presumably most affected by these laws [1]) even more so.
Whatever the intended effect of those laws (pro-gay or pro-closet), they can’t force people to spend their money at your business. So firms that turn down gay clients tend to go out of business, not because of fines or civil suits, but because once word gets around, customers dry up.
Not gay customers. All customers.
Anyway, that’s my supposition, but this law is a real test of it–and of the libertarian idea that market forces can fix anything, especially at the legislative level.
[1] Furthermore, for het weddings, brides still tend to make more of the purchasing decisions than their fiances, and women are even bigger supporters of SSM than men are.
I have to say that this concerns me. The law is stupid and evil, but I don’t think anyone should be using taxpayer dollars as a means to make political points. If a city employee from San Francisco has to go there for work (it could happen, I guess), they should be allowed to go.
It’s fine for corporations to pull out and make their voices heard, but this rubs me the wrong way.
2 Likes
Call this what it is the “Jesus Told Me to Hate You Act of 2015”.
6 Likes
Ooh, that’ll leave a mark. Not.
Good for him, but I can’t imagine there’s a big audience for travel from San Francisco to Indiana in the first place.
Still a good thing–let’s hope for more and more announcements like this.
2 Likes
Why? Seems appropriate that tax payer dollars not be used for travel to a state that just institutionalized discrimination. That’s the issue, isn’t it? State sanctioned discrimination?
1 Like
I went to a 4 day training course for work. It was out by the Indy beltway, near the cornfields. Ugh.
It felt like a month. Worst steak I ever had.
1 Like
You gotta love San Francisco. God bless 'em! Honestly, I love the city and I would live there if the sun would shine more. Just gotta love San Francisco.
2 Likes
Good for you mayor!
Hit the bigots where it hurts most, their wallets!
1 Like
Four words: Three Floyds Alpha King.
Lee is my mayor so call me a chauvinist in all things San Franciscan, but it seems to me a San Francisco-based city employee wouldn’t have much business to conduct in that state. We’re near Washington and Oregon which both have much to offer other states and more easily accessible, so why go to the mid-west. However, last year Mayor Lee threatened travel sanctions against Arizona when they were considering a similarly biased bill and the AZ bill was vetoed.
I love my City, but I’ll admit it took me more than a few years to realize that cooly foggy summers and warm winters were the norm. Sunshine is optional. The other song about San Francisco I love is the one with cable cars and stars. You know it.
1 Like
But of course. We used to play it in junior high band. And besides that it was ubiquitous for a decade or two. Lovely song. It’s one of the songs I sing on road trips! ;^D
I’m fairly sure that Indiana was already on a lot of people’s don’t go list. Putting into law what they are deeply all about brings Indiana’s religious fanaticism to the fore but its always been there just like all of the other states that have these laws or are trying to pass them.
The bible belt is accommodating unless you aren’t one of the tribe.
When I hear “Indiana”, the movie junkie in me thinks of the film Friendly Persuasion with Gary Cooper about peace loving, non violent Quakers in Indiana during the Civil War. They even welcomed rebels into their home fo take some food on the road with them. If Quakers still live in IN they don’t seem to have any influence on the pols.