Canceling trip to HW this world summer

The devil is in the details.

How many of those states also have anti-discrimination laws that include all affected classes?

How many of those RFRAs accurately model the Federal one, or are they nuanced in a seemingly innocuous, but actually dangerous, way?

Not every RFRA is terrible, and in fact, there are a lot of reasonable things that come of out of RFRAs, but the one in Indiana is patently discriminatory, which is something that many others aren't.

It's not about the RFRA in name, it's about what the RFRA's consequences will be.

Edit: Indiana lawmakers actively voted down amendments to their RFRA which would have explicitly stated that discrimination is not allowed as a result of this bill AND that civil rights are not allowed to be infringed upon as a result of this bill. The only assumption to be drawn here (as was done in Georgia) is that without these amendments, the intent of the bill IS to discriminate and infringe upon civil rights.

Edit2: Unlike many other states' RFRAs, the Indiana one explicitly states that businesses are protected, not just people. Most of those RFRA in the other states have to do with a person's religious belief, not the public business(es) that that person owns, which is a huge difference as well.

OhioStater said:

... but 2015 is so different than even just 1995 in terms of the cultural shift that has happened in support of LGBT rights, and gay rights in particular.

Yes indeed. It's worthwhile, every once in a while, to take a step back and see how things have changed. One of the top-rated chat shows, Ellen, is hosted by a lesbian; gay and lesbian couples regularly appear on the cover of People and Us and other magazines; companies like Tiffany and Gap have gays and lesbians in their advertising because they recognize it's good business to do so.

Indiana, and those other states that have passed religious "freedom" laws are on the losing side of history.

As for Kim's Kake Kreations.... I "kringe" whenever I see a company name that's swapped out Cs for Ks. But the name seems to be working for them; they seem to be doing fine.

A boycott is not about punishing the businesses caught in the crossfire. That however is an unfortunate side effect of a boycott. A boycott is one of the few ways we as citizens can have some power to make change. It takes time and conviction. One if the problems with this country is apathy. For example, people that would rather have their self indulging day at an amusement park rather than stand behind their standards and not pay taxes to the rotten government of Indiana

I gotta be honest. I wouldn't even think of boycotting the entire state of Indiana. I'm not giving the bigots what they want, a decreased gay presence in their state.

Quite the opposite actually. As a gay man, I want to *be* where they don't want me. I will not let people tell me where I can and can't go, and my presence will be felt, whether it's wanted or not. Yes, I absolutely will be right there at Holiday World at the end of May, having the time of my life. Yes, I will be staying at nearby hotels, and eating anywhere I damn well choose. Don't people get it? These extremists groups would gladly sacrifice your sinful money, in exchange for your disappearance from "normal" society, so they can continue to perpetuate *their* agenda that there is something not normal about us.

I'm done disappearing, in the name of boycotting, or anything else.

Totally agree. A boycott only works if you get like-minded straight people involved. And local media. And local politicians. And churches. And businesses. Organize all of them and you can actually get things changed.

The CEO of Angie's List announced the company is cancelling a planned expansion of their headquarters, on Indianapolis' Near Eastside, because of the passage of RFRA. Here's an article from the Indianapolis Star newspaper. He's a Republican, who managed a campaign for former governor Mitch Daniels.

Bravo, John Knotts! As I was reading your post, I imagined a very flamboyant parade of rainbows and leather-wearing gays wreaking havoc, in their own special way, on an unsuspecting small town full of uncomfortable Christian Extremists. It made me chuckle a little.

Are there any laws against organizing gay pride parades yet? lol

^^That makes me think of the movie To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar.....

Once, years ago, a bunch of drag queens in my city went and sat in the rocking chairs on Cracker Barrel's porch and greeted the after-church crowd.

I see both sides to this. I understand the concept of the boycott and I kind of love it. I also live in John Knott's camp. Our now defunct City Center Mall in downtown Columbus was in the path of the Gay Pride March and one year a few of the celebrants took a detour through the mall and promptly got thrown out. The next year quite a few more took the same detour and the chant was "We're here. We're queer. And we're not going shopping!"

So there's a little bit of both.

Speaking of Columbus, Ohio, I read an article in the Dispatch just today about how Experience Columbus (our visitor and convention bureau, which has a LGBT division to entertain, tour, and recruit potential gay businesses and sporting events) is smacking their lips over the amount of business that will surely come our way on account of this. So is Nashville, Louisville, and similar welcoming cities.

^^This. It's hard for me to plant a foot firmly in either camp.

There's a certain satisfaction in saying "screw you, Indiana" -- but is it more satisfying to say that by not spending money in the state or by being very gay in the state and spending lots of money?

I came here to say that of all the small towns in Indiana to not be accepted in, as a gay man, I would place Santa Claus at the bottom of that list.

Every person that I have come across in that town has helped me in so many ways and has always opened their arms and welcomed me. I find it appalling that it is even a consideration that people would not be accepted in Santa Claus.

Of course there are a few that are more conservative, but none have ever treated me with any sort of disdain.

I cannot speak for these businesses, but I would feel more comfortable in Santa Claus and the thought of any of the kind people there turning away gay people would never enter my mind.

Even though I am no longer at Santa's Lodge, I do know that the new GM there would never stand for any sort of discrimination.

I do understand that this is more of a commentary about our inept government and not specifically about my friends and neighbors, but this discussion is really hitting close to home. There is nothing I want more than for each of you to come enjoy Santa Claus and to hear that some are considering a boycott brings me great sorrow.

I just don't get all this.

I have all walks of life work for me. I don't discriminate. If you can do the job i need done. I hire you.

We have been talking about this. I do believe the media is blowing this a little out of proportion.

Some of my workers love going to gay clubs. I'm not gay, but I like going clubing. I don't go to their clubs, but I go to other ones, and sometimes they do to...but they say they do act appropriate (differently) at the others, and have never had a problem.

My men aren't invited to Women in Leadership classes, and neither am I, but we don't complain or try to sue someone.

My gay workers, don't try to use the female bathroom or mens if they are opposite sex. They were raised with enough respect to know where and when to go with respect to others.

As for the "go down the street" I asked about the cake or wedding thing. They said all they do is call the business and ask them how they feel about it. If they say no, or yes they go with it.

Almost all transgender, gays, lesbians, whites, blacks, Hispanics, are great easy going hard working people that I have been around.

I think most people are still not understanding that this bill protects companies from the (less than 1%) that wants to raise a stink about things and stomp their feet when they feel they are "owed something" and then try to take a small business, church, etc down in a ball of fire.

I know it's not quite apples to oranges, but I have a dog. I call a hotel up, and ask them if dogs can stay there. They say no. I say thank you, and I call another hotel. Done. I don't got CURSE YOU I'm CALLING A LAWYER.

I think discriminate is hard word the media is throwing around right now where I think protection (from the .1%) should more be the focus. I do believe that once further clarification from this very open ended law comes about, we will all be on our merry way....enjoying the fun times at Holiday World.

Well, yes. Clearly, you don't get all this.

Finding a pet friendly hotel is nothing like being discriminated against.

a_hoffman50 said:

Finding a pet friendly hotel is nothing like being discriminated against.

Actually it is.

I have been refused service in Ohio establishments because I had kids under 2. I went down the street to eat.

I have been denied owning a condominium because in their laws it's states you can not have anyone under 21 living there. I couldn't buy it with my kids. I called around, and literally, I went down the street and bought one.

I didn't fight it, I didn't take them to cook. I was pissed yes, but I understand, it's their place of business. Do I tell other's not to go that place absolutely.

Again, just like finding a pet friendly hotel is like me finding a kid friendly place. Call it "friendly" all you want but it is being discriminated against. We can really take this down a long road and use some snow ball logic (which is exactly what the media and many groups are doing right now). But I know most will understand.

Same thing.

I find it odd sometimes that because I'm not gay or black that some people think I do not know what it feels like to be discriminated against. I have been to places with my wife that there are Many things she can't do or even say.

RollerCoasterGod said:

I just don't get all this.

Having read this post, I agree.

We have been talking about this. I do believe the media is blowing this a little out of proportion.

Somewhat. But mainstream media is also responding to more organic activity on this topic on social media, where individuals, well-informed or not, were expressing opinion.

My gay workers, don't try to use the female bathroom or mens if they are opposite sex. They were raised with enough respect to know where and when to go with respect to others.

Hard stop. What the hell are you talking about? I have never once even thought about using a women's restroom. Gays and lesbians just do not go about the country using opposite-gender bathrooms. What would using an opposite-gender bathroom even have to do with being straight or gay?

Seriously. Why would you go there? (Pun intended? Yes.)

As for the "go down the street" I asked about the cake or wedding thing. They said all they do is call the business and ask them how they feel about it. If they say no, or yes they go with it.

I shouldn't have to call a business and ask them to sell me the thing that they sell. Their religious beliefs shouldn't enter into the transaction.

I think most people are still not understanding that this bill protects companies from the (less than 1%) that wants to raise a stink about things and stomp their feet when they feel they are "owed something" and then try to take a small business, church, etc down in a ball of fire.

Oh, gays, why can't you sit at the back of the bakery and be quiet and polite? Are there frivolous lawsuits? Sure. Are they only filed by stomping mad gays raising stinks? No. Most lawsuits are to settle differences between parties. If a small business or church gets "taken down," it's because they were judged to be on the wrong side of the law, not because they were the victim of a vendetta.

...but I have a dog. I call a hotel up, and ask them if dogs can stay there. They say no. I say thank you, and I call another hotel. Done. I don't got CURSE YOU I'm CALLING A LAWYER.

This would only be comparable if you were calling a dog hotel. Also, kindly do not compare me to dogs going forward.

Hard stop. What the hell are you talking about? I have never once even thought about using a women's restroom. Gays and lesbians just do not go about the country using opposite-gender bathrooms. What would using an opposite-gender bathroom even have to do with being straight or gay?

That is one of the reason's this law came into being. I gay guy went to use a female bathroom. The small business owner refused. And got sued. Like I said...I'm sure you haven't had a thought or as many others as well...but this about the 1% that do like to raise hell.

The law does not say "refuse service to someone who wants to use the wrong bathroom." It says "refuse service to someone because of their sexual preference." You're conflating a whole bunch of unrelated things in order to try to make this issue about things it's not about.

Are there crazy gay people? Yes. Are there crazy straight people? Yes. Are gay people more crazy than straight people? No. Does it make sense to try to filter out crazy gay people by refusing service to all gays while not filtering out crazy straight people by refusing service to all straights? No.

a_hoffman50 said:

I do understand that this is more of a commentary about our inept government and not specifically about my friends and neighbors, but this discussion is really hitting close to home.

(I snipped out the best part of the post, but didn't want it to be overlooked. Well said).

However, I will add to this that both members of the state legislature (Indiana House and Indiana Senate) that include Santa Claus Indiana voted for their respective versions of the bill.

RollerCoasterGod said:

Again, just like finding a pet friendly hotel is like me finding a kid friendly place...

Same thing.

Sure, let's start making business Gay Friendly. Why stop there? Let's make them Black Friendly. "We gladly accept Black People!" "We will serve food to women!"