Canceling trip to HW this world summer

Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:58 AM

Don't really want to drag the fine folks at Holiday World into this, but...

After the Indiana Governor signed the "license to discriminate" bill this morning, I've changed our plans for our (usually) annual trip to HW. I'm not spending a dime in that state. I'll be taking the niece and nephew to Kings Island instead. As they say, elections have consequences.

Here's a local article on the bill.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/national/indiana-gov-pence-signs-re...3916c.html

+2Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:25 PM

As a Hoosier and atheist (although I'm sure there are religious people who are also disappointed by this), I'm ashamed of my state for passing this bill into law. I respect your decision to boycott Indiana over this. One of our local sports columnists wrote about the impact this bill could have on the sports and convention business in Indianapolis, a city that has to this point been a mecca for such activity.

Have fun at Kings Island.

+1Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:01 PM

I have been very, very worried about this. It's nothing more than a slick trick to allow opponents of things like marriage equality (which they have in Indiana) to legally discriminate based on their religious or moral beliefs. It makes me sick.

From what I see today there's quite an outcry over this bill, and Indiana will feel the effects of it. So will their governor.

On a positive note, I'm very certain the fine folks at Holiday World in no way support such a bill, and make a practice of welcoming everyone. Sadly, it doesn't change the fact that they're still in Indiana. I take small comfort in knowing there are many Indianans who don't share the same views. Not to judge anyone else's decision, and at the extreme risk of seeming hypocritical, I'm keeping my plans to visit HW. Maybe I'll stay in Kentucky...

+5Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:20 PM

I was just logging on here to address this. I definitely won't be visiting HW and I feel bad for them for being stuck in that situation, but I won't be spending any of my money that goes to the state of Indiana.

+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:37 PM

I know this is a touchy subject, and I'm not trying to start a nasty argument or anything. I'm just saying that not forcing one's beliefs on others, an idea I support, mind you, must be applied universally. It's perfectly fine to say that members of a specific religion should not be allowed to force those beliefs on anyone, but those who disagree with said can't then force them to do something that flies in the face of their beliefs, either.

All that being said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but does this apply primarily to employers and the services they offer their employees, or does this include companies and what customers they choose to serve? Discriminating against customers is a whole 'nother issue.

Last edited by sirloindude, Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:42 PM
+2Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:48 PM

It's the latter. That's why it's so insidious.

+2Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:49 PM

sirloindude, it definitely includes choosing what customers can be served.

All of these "religious freedom" bills grew out of the fact that bakeries didn't want to make cakes for same-sex couples getting married. Now, they're legally allowed to discriminate against those people in Indiana.

Nobody was trying to require those bakers to get married to someone of the same sex - just to provide their services equally to everyone willing to pay the same amount.

+1Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:57 PM

"Religious freedom" is nice sounding name. What harm can there be, right?The name the bill SHOULD have been given: "State-Sanctioned Bigotry Bill."

Re: Bakeman's "I'm sure there are religious people who are also disappointed by this." Yes! For starters, Jesus.

+6Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:01 PM

Yes. If you want to bake wedding cakes and give them to your Religiously Approved Legitimate Couples at no cost (...or get paid under the table, which would call your values even further into question....), go ahead.

But if you want to open the doors of a legal, licensed business and enjoy the benefits of same that the taxpayers provide you, then in my book you can't deny your services to any of the taxpayers.

+1Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:04 PM

Exactly, gator. He must be rolling in His empty grave. :)

Ideally, government shouldn't have to get involved in this kind of thing. Business discriminates freely and openly, enough sensible people are appalled and decide to boycott, business gets a bad reputation, business goes out of business. Problem solved. Unfortunately, there may not be enough sensible people.

+2Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:12 PM

Oh, okay. The article I read seemed to make it sound both as I initially assumed as well as how you've clarified it to actually be.

I would still contend that the type of service being offered to a potential customer could, in some cases, be an infringement on that person's/institution's/company's religious freedom (like a wedding), but I understand where those who disagree are coming from. I think there's a definite line, though, beyond which crying religious freedom is secretly pleading for a chance to discriminate, but I suppose that one could argue that religious freedom by its very nature permits discrimination when pushed to extremes, but I think that within reason, it's okay to put limitations on it, i.e. full, true religious freedom means that if someone invents their own religion and condones murder, one can't really punish them for it, but no one in their right mind would ever let the law allow things to get that far.

I think the real challenge is the degree to which legislation should get involved and the role it plays. At the end of the day, legislation, by its very nature, involves the belief system of some to be given precedence over the beliefs of others.

Again, I want to very much emphasize that I think there have to be limitations in place to prevent extremism, though.

Slithernoggin, I also want to point out how good your last point was in your previous post. I think it raises a lot of good questions.

Last edited by sirloindude, Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:57 PM
+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 2:49 PM

Salesforce.com, a $4 billion based in San Francisco, has announced it will dramatically reduce its investment in Indiana and cancel all programs that involve sending employees or clients into Indiana. Here's an article.

+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:02 PM

sirloindude said:

I would still contend that the type of service being offered to a potential customer could, in some cases, be an infringement on that person's/institution's/company's religious freedom

if it is, then get a different job. A pharmacist who doesn't wish to prescribe AIDS related medicines can now legally tell a patient to go somewhere else.

I'm sure Jesus is just loving this.

+3Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:12 PM

I agree with you completely that if a Christian felt that way, that Christian should get a different job.

If I were to say the same thing to a Hobby Lobby employee who wanted morning-after pills, though, are you okay with my stance in that situation? I'm not saying I feel that way at all, but I'm just curious if there's a limitation to how far you'd go. By the way, I'm not going for sarcasm there. I actually have the utmost respect for where you're coming from, and I think that you stating you won't give a cent to the state of Indiana gives you an awful lot of credibility in this discussion.

To your last comment, I also think that there's a difference between Jesus, for example, spending time with prostitutes and tax collectors and outright condoning their actions. I don't think that associating with someone and approving of what they do are the same thing, and accusing Christians of not behaving like Christ because they don't approve of certain lifestyles isn't a fair accusation until the Christians outright refuse to even show them the love they are due. I'm not about to tell you that Christians are shining examples of the love of Christ, though, and any Christian who believes that they've got that down pat is sorely out of touch with their own religion.

By the way, I think that a Christian pharmacy employee refusing to sell AIDS medication would very much be a very un-Christian activity, just for a bit of context.

Last edited by sirloindude, Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:16 PM
+1Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:12 PM

The question I have is: are the religious freedoms of citizens really under attack by the government? Or has the slow erosion of religious privileges that have been enjoyed primarily by white Christians for centuries made people feel like their freedoms are under attack?

Last edited by Bakeman31092, Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:14 PM
+4Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:16 PM

If the Super Bowl were scheduled to be held in IN, large corporations could have forced the Governor's hand a la the Arizona bill a few years back. Something tells me there will still be a similar backlash, but it will take longer and be less organized. Eventually this so-called "freedom" bill will be overturned, but it should have died in committee if not on the Governor's desk.

Last edited by rollergator, Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:17 PM
+4Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:21 PM

We are also cancelling our trip. Won't spend a dime in that state as long as they support stuff like that.

+1Loading
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:26 PM

sirloindude said:

I agree with you completely that if a Christian felt that way, that Christian should get a different job.

If I were to say the same thing to a Hobby Lobby employee who wanted morning-after pills, though, are you okay with my stance in that situation?

I think these are different situations, though. The pharmacist wants to impose their personal religious beliefs on someone asking for a service that is within the law. The Hobby Lobby employee isn't.

If a pharmacist has a deeply held religious conviction that the sexes should not co-mingle, should the pharmacist be able to refuse to serve women?

+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:28 PM

sirloindude said:

By the way, I think that a Christian pharmacy employee refusing to sell AIDS medication would very much be a very un-Christian activity, just for a bit of context.

Well, you can damn well believe that's what this is about. It's already happened with pharmacists not wanting to fill valid legal prescriptions (Birth Control, Morning after, Plan B, AIDS related medicines etc).

+0
Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:29 PM

slithernoggin said:

If a pharmacist has a deeply held religious conviction that the sexes should not co-mingle, should the pharmacist be able to refuse to serve women?

See, that's the evil in this bill, It's worded so as to not apply to those protected classes already covered by federal law (sex, race, creed, religion). So, it's really aimed at only one group. Gays.

+3Loading

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...