Canceling trip to HW this world summer

LostKause said:

It's sad that bigotry is growing so rapidly. Are we moving backwards?

No, because it's not growing rapidly. What you see today was always there, it's just that the Internet makes it more visible, in part because people feel empowered to anonymously join a mob and engage in behavior that they would never do in polite company. I think it might be a good thing, because history is on the side of not engaging in this kind of stupidity, but it took longer to expunge from our culture because it was less in the open. Now you make one stupid tweet and the entire world makes its mission to end your career.

But the mob mentality works both ways. The boycott raging frankly isn't any better when you're targeting small private businesses that have nothing to do with a law that may or may not in practical terms cause an issue (to say nothing of how it rolls in the courts or how the market reacts to outed hater-businesses). Ideologues come in both extremes. I can't be the only one who finds it illogical that you want to boycott a park in Indiana run by the nicest people you'll ever meet, who had nothing to do with the passage of the law, just so you can visit a park in a state that has had a same-sex marriage ban as a constitutional amendment for years.

That's just it. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was voted by the voters in Ohio. The people spoke, in 2004! Yet, nobody is openly boycotting or cancelling their trips to Kings Island or Cedar Point on that basis.

I don't get why HW is getting singled out on this. Other than this is a knee jerk reaction to a law that is disagreed with. (Myself included)

I can assure each and every one of you that Holiday World is not supporting this law, and my guess is they are devastated with this news. They are a family run, family friendly business that is also respectfully inclusive.

I am loud and proud. I lived through the 70's and 80's as an out individual and I've seen it all. The activist in me sees the only way to support the cause and send a message is to boycott the entire state. But the realist in me sees otherwise.
I've never understood the reasoning behind punishing friends and supporters and their businesses because of something they didn't cause and can't help. I also don't get the mentality of trying to force a bakery into making my cake. You don't make queer cakes? You don't want me darkening your door? Fine, F ya then. I'll take my 300 bucks up the street, and maybe that will hit you where you live. My point is that a statewide boycott only punishes everyone including LGBT owned and/or friendly businesses? Indiana is still and will always be full of them. And that includes Holiday World.

Tekwardo said:

My only comment here is that there are other states that have this law in place already. I hope that Indiana isnt just the current trend to boycott and that those boycotting Indiana are also researching what other states do this AND treat them as equally.

Nearly every other RFRA law is in a state that also has a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Indiana does not have one of those bans in place. That's the difference here.

Whats your point? I said there are other states that have similar laws, you said 'nearly' all other states with those laws. Nearly doesn't mean entirely. My point is that if you're boycotting Indiana, don't boycott it because it's the trend right now. Boycott it because you want to make a difference, and don't let it be the only state, since other states have similar laws.

Do you disagree?

ApolloAndy said:

This. If the state of Indiana recognizes same-sex marriages as equal to hetero-marriages, how is that not a clear statement for businesses and other enterprises about how they are to treat these couples. If your religion tells you not to serve <minority race> people, you still have to do it by law because the law has proclaimed that they are equal. What's different here?

Andy, I believe the difference is that sexual orientation is still viewed by many as a choice, rather than being one's disposition from birth. People can't choose their race or gender.

For the record, it shouldn't matter whether it is a choice or not; if someone engages in homosexual activity because they've been gay for as along as they've thought about sex or because one day they just decided to try it because, "what the hell?", it should not matter. What consenting adults do in private is their business, regardless of what their motivation is. It's about the personal freedom to do whatever you want as long as you're not harming another sentient being. If you strip religion away, their is no moral argument against being gay, period.

Sorry for the digression--back to Andy's point. Getting married is something people do. So, in the mind of an anti-gay person, a married couple of the same sex has committed an act that they don't agree with. Moreover, being gay itself is an act that they don't agree with.

Let's say there's a man in a restaurant that starts hurling racial slurs (or homophobic slurs, if you wish) at another patron. Does the restaurant have the right to refuse service? Should it refuse service? What if the man did so in a quiet, non-disruptive way? You can't toss him out for being belligerent, but would anyone object to someone asking this person to leave?

In fact, to make it more clear, let's say this person isn't referring to another patron, and let's say the restaurant is empty except for he and his buddies. They start shamelessly tossing around racial and homophobic slurs, and the waitress overhears it and is deeply offended. If she's an upstanding moral person, should would be offended even if she was the same race as this group. So is it acceptable for her to tell her manager that she's not comfortable serving this table? Is it acceptable for the manager to ask this group to leave?

The point I'm making is that the problem doesn't lie with someone refusing service based on a deep moral conviction; the problem lies with the fact that being anti-gay is not a valid moral conviction, religiously based or otherwise.

I'm a gay dude married to a gay dude.

I don't have plans to go to HW this year, but if I did, I would happily visit the park, estimate how much tax revenue I contributed to the state of Indiana, and then offset it with a donation to an organization like this:

http://www.indianayouthgroup.org/give

http://www.indypride.org/

I've done this before and will do it again. I actually have plans to tour the Vatican later this summer and will probably be making a sizable donation to Planned Parenthood right after.

RCMAC said:

I also don't get the mentality of trying to force a bakery into making my cake. You don't make queer cakes? You don't want me darkening your door? Fine, F ya then. I'll take my 300 bucks up the street, and maybe that will hit you where you live.

Yes. This.

I don't get it either. If anything, if you want to put a positive spin on this, it's like an alarm for douchebaggery - a scarlet letter, a shining beacon - showing you exactly where in the state to spend your money and where not to.

Or we could just burn down the Capitol....

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/audra_mcdonald_just_slammed_indiana_gov_mike_pence_with_the_most_amazing_tweets

Some good tweets from Audra McDonald.

I wonder, when we're checking into a hotel in Indiana someday, should we pretend we're brothers? You know, just to be safe.

I'm not sure it's a question of forcing a bakery to bake me a cake, I think it's more a question of expecting a bakery to provide their advertised product without regard to their personal religious beliefs.

I laugh sometimes at people...while respecting their thoughts...heck I laugh at myself sometimes.

Sometimes I hate Cedar Point. Sometimes I love them.

We all have the right to make choices.

I agree the businesses should have the right to refuse people. Mine does in Ohio, and I have (under extreme circumstances.) I ALSO believe people have the right not go places. That's what's GREAT. Choices.

NOW, I think the problem I think this bill helps...is stopping people SUE because they didn't get there way.

If a place doesn't make you a cake, go down the street. Problem solved. Instead I believe to many people want to kick their feet and cause an uproar and say they are owed $$$$$$ for their conflict. RE-DI-CU-LOUS!

It's like Yelp. But it's also like my Heroes on the other end who have posted idiotic customers who demand things are they will post bad things on Yelp all because they got 1 instead of 2 icecubes (no, I'm not joking, people have really gotten made over that).

Make a choice. You don't like it go somewhere else. Get over it. Don't lose sleep over it. Freedom swings both ways.

I agree, and I disagree. I certainly agree that too many people are all too quick to file suit.

And I agree: you don't like business A, don't patronize business A.

Where I get hung up: if I walk into a bookstore and want to buy a book, I should be able to buy a book. The bookstore owner shouldn't be able to deny me the purchase based on their religious beliefs. If you open a business to the public, you serve the public.

Sure, businesses have the right to refuse service; but they should be refusing service based on actions or words of the customer, not on the business owner's private beliefs.

Jeff said:
I can't be the only one who finds it illogical that you want to boycott a park in Indiana run by the nicest people you'll ever meet, who had nothing to do with the passage of the law, just so you can visit a park in a state that has had a same-sex marriage ban as a constitutional amendment for years.

Thank you for your reply. I found it comforting, but I want to point out that I never stated my opinion about boycotting the park either way. That's why I think it would be awesome for businesses in Indiana to publically state that anyone is welcome to patronize them. That way, there is no doubt that certain people would be welcome, and I think it would be positive publicity.

Unless, of course, a business is worried that they would lose the business of those who agree with Christian Extremists. I think that may be why Chik-Fil-A didn't do back peddle way back when. ..Perhaps, anyways.

Holiday World is not in my planned park visits this year, not because of this, but because of the nine-hour drive. I think people should look at the business and their past inclusion, and not at the law of the state that they have nothing to do with passing. I would recommend calling the hotel you wish to stay at, asking to speak to the manager, and asking them if the hotel suports or opposes the law. That will find you a gay-friendly hotel.

I totally understand about not wanting the taxes you pay to go to the state. I was the same way about the profit that Chik-Fil-A earned from me that was gong to anti-gay groups.

So I suppose it's a personal choice to visit. It would be a tough choice for some people. I really like Matt.'s idea about counteracting the money spent with a donation to an opposing charity to balance things out. Even better, some businesses who may be concerned about this new law could offer to make a donation to some kind of pro-gay charity as answer to the law.

I understand the appeal of boycotts: easy to understand, easy to do. But in reality, they often have unintended consequences. Boycotting Chick Fil A means you're not supporting a corporation with an objectionable position -- but it also means you're not supporting the Chick Fil A franchisees who are gay-friendly and donating money to local LGBT organizations.

Holiday World shouldn't suffer because the state government wanted to pander to pretend Christians. I agree with LK: Matt.'s idea of offsetting any taxes paid during a visit with a donation to an in-state organization supporting the LGBT community.

The mayor of San Francisco has barred taxpayer-funded business travel by city employees to Indiana. Kudos to him, but, um -- exactly how often does the City of San Francisco have to send someone to Indiana?

Bakeman31092 said:

Andy, I believe the difference is that sexual orientation is still viewed by many as a choice, rather than being one's disposition from birth.

Sure, but I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. If a local business is SO offended by someone's sexual orientation, are they doing background checks on all their customers to see if they're sex offenders? Murderers? Drug dealers? Swingers? Muslims?

As a Presbyterian pastor (we *just* changed our national constitution to say marriage is between two people, not a man and a woman, like last week) I am so tired of people getting super-uppity about sexual orientation and then not giving a damn about much more harmful (to the person and to society) "choices."

Slither,

At the risk of offending you, I'm going to ask you to quantify just how many Chick Fil A franchises make such donations. Given that until recently (read "the California Expansion"), CFA's model was to recruit new franchisees via protestant (almost always Baptist) churches, I'm skeptical. Very skeptical.

I'm aware of the one franchisee who tried to be different during the CFA uproar a few years ago. However, my long familiarity with CFA and its corporate operations would tell me that what you describe is a rarity.

Jeff said:

I can't be the only one who finds it illogical that you want to boycott a park in Indiana run by the nicest people you'll ever meet, who had nothing to do with the passage of the law, just so you can visit a park in a state that has had a same-sex marriage ban as a constitutional amendment for years.

Jeff, it's a bit more simple than that. Gay Marriage is a new-ish trend, and most of those bans were the result of the Republican party shamelessly using the issue as a vote driver. I can honestly understand things moving slowly re: marriage equality.

What I can't countenance, is the thought that if I should somehow get injured while at Holiday world, the county EMT who comes to help my ass, might just leave me on the ground because he thinks I'm gay. Read that again, THINKS I'm gay. That's all he/she needs to step back, while I'm bleeding to death.

It's no different than Sammy Davis Junior being denied medical care at a white's only hospital.

So for THAT reason, I'm not stepping foot in that state. HW just happens to be an innocent bystander.

No argument, they're rare, but there are a few. The point I was hoping to make was that boycotting every business in Indiana impacts not only those whose owners are giddy with glee at the thought of getting to keep all those nasty homosexuals out of their businesses, but also inclusive businesses that welcome all customers.

For the record, I assume everyone is gay until proven otherwise :-)

Everybody keeps saying to just go to another business, but what about small towns that are removed those options? For example, if I chose to go to Holiday World, and once there, found out that every hotel and campground in the area has decided to join together and not let gays stay there. What is my option then? Drive hours each way?

In a perfect world, businesses that discriminate would close because nobody would support them, but that's not the world we live in.