Canceling trip to HW this world summer

So it seems we're not the only ones faced with this dilemma.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-torn-between-boycotting-indian...ans,38332/

On a serious note, I think the reactionary hashtag boycott was clearly premature. Before noon, most of the state's biggest employers started telling the legislature they needed to reverse this silly thing immediately. Then at the local level, pretty much any small business with half a measure of common sense started to post signs in their windows saying that they'll serve anyone. This is precisely why I think it's really silly to stick it to Indiana businesses... they're already on your side.

Jeff,

I hear you, I really do. Hopefully in the end (which could be a very short time) your assessment will be the correct one. But we're not there yet. The Governor is determined that nothing is going to change. The rest of his party is shocked at the blowback (!), they had no idea people would be offended. However, the speed at which this thing has gone off the rails (for the Governor and his party) is almost unprecedented, and I honestly don't think that anyone saw that Indiana was going to get this much attention.

Yes, businesses and Business are resoundingly coming out (!) on the side against this law, and that's great. However, looking back at this topic, and almost all of the civil rights moments in the past, that wasn't always the case. In the past, announcing a boycott, (in whatever fashion), was perhaps the only way to get attention to one's cause.

Credit it to the power of the internet and social media, some prominent names, and a changing of the times. It's fair to say that a lot of that movement by businesses was exactly because so many people said what I said (that I'm not spending money in that State). The speed at which that flew across Facebook and Twitter was astounding. It wasn't the case when Prop 8 was on the horizon, or DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, nor back in the days of the lunch counter sit-ins, or the Montgomery bus strike. In fact, if you would have told me that Charles Barkley would be one of the first people, within 24 hours, to say that the NCAA should move the tournament, I wouldn't have believed it.

I agree that it's unfair to HW right now since they certainly went out on a limb against what this law stands for. (I sent them a note thanking them for their wonderful blog post). However, and I know I'm repeating myself, both of the State Legislators in their district voted for this thing. Those people need to hear it from HW that it's costing them business. (maybe not yet as the season isn't open, and certainly my family's dollars are totally insignificant to HW as a whole), but you get the idea. Maybe that's happening, who knows.

Do you honestly think that we'd STILL be talking about this on CB, 8 pages later, and with the nation talking about Indiana with such derision (SNL this past week), if people had said, "oh crap, that's such a bad law, but I'm going to go anyway", and then went on with their day? I don't think so.

Premature, but understandable. The hashtag boycott is a quick, easy way for people to express support. (I could get started on how the "instant satisfaction" that social media allows people ultimately cheapens what's being expressed.....)

Having watched this develop over the past few days, I agree with Jeff. Indiana businesses by and large recognize the responsible actions to take.

Going off on interesting tangents now:

This is the editorial that will run on the front page of Tuesday's Indianapolis Star newspaper -- front page editorials don't happen often these days.

I watched Governor Pence Sunday on This Week With The Clinton Guy Shocked By Blowjobs and was struck by two things. One, that Stephanopoulus was coming surprisingly close to actual journalism, a rare treat on the Sunday chat shows. Two, that Pence and his staff must have known that there was one question he'd be asked, and didn't work up an answer to that question, leaving the governor to recite talking points.

I can't possibly know how those state legislators in that district really think, but politics is just that. And their boy was hoping to head to the White House so a no vote may not have been in their best interest. Don't know, just sayin.

But there is such a blow back it's astounding, and the governor's position is clear. That interview with George Stephanopoulos was outrageous, embarrassing, and quite telling. Is it still his position that there will be no changes in this law? If so, it's stubborn ignorance.

Perhaps Mr. Barkley should have gotten his way. Then not only would you have the gays and their supporters storming the State Capitol, but every bar, store, and hotel owner as well. Signs in the windows are helpful, and it may lead to an inadvertent enlightenment amongst the Hoosiers. Perhaps for the first time people who never gave it a thought will look around and recognize that their society includes many types, and we all visit the same restaurants, drink at the same bars, and eat the same cake. And have all along.

By the way, my sign would say "We Serve EVERYone".

As a follow-up,

Lord knows I've been accused of being a HW fan boy. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that of the folks on CB, I've probably been going to HW (or Santa Claus Land as it was) longer than just about anybody (exceptions being those that live in Spencer County, wink wink). I've been a supporter of theirs, for years, well documented here on CB.

So, yeah I hate announcing to the world that I'm not going this year. Especially, as you point out, after how they've handled the issue. It probably hurts them tremendously to see this topic be the number one item on the CB list for several days now.

We see things differently on that point Jeff. Our histories are different. I respect your position.

RCMAC said:

I can't possibly know how those state legislators in that district really think, but politics is just that. And their boy was hoping to head to the White House so a no vote may not have been in their best interest. Don't know, just sayin.

and you know, after all these years, I'm finally tired of having my rights be the stepping stone for Republicans to get to the White House.

I'd be willing to bet that either the Governor of Indiana will "evolve" his position or will just flat out change his position and pretend that new position was the one he had all along, if only everyone had been savvy enough to catch on.

I've certainly no sense of the nitty-gritty of Indiana politics; can't help but wonder if the state legislators for HW's district saw it as an easy vote in support of the Governor with little downside or an actual expression of their beliefs.

WOW WOW WOW.

I clicked that link. It doesn't get much more clear than this. The words "FIX THIS NOW" in all caps, white on black background, covering the enter area above the fold.

Unprecedented.

Thanks Slither for the link. It formats beautifully as a share on FB too.

Someone at the Star must be pisssssssssed.

The Indianapolis Star's editorial board is extremely conservative. For them to come out with this shows you just how bad the business community in Indiana is feeling this.

From the Indy Star editorial:

"Governor, Indiana is in a state of crisis. It is worse than you seem to understand."

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.

Like I said, the business owners has the right to refuse service to anyone. It's funny that all of you want to job on the boycott indiana because of your persceptions of this being an anti-gay law. It's not a free pass IT's a shield for those who don't want to do business with gays and lesbians. The business owner has the right to do that regardless if you like it or not.

I read an interesting blog post by Josh Blackman, a law professor at Indiana and a supporter of the LGBT community, who supports this law. According to him, this law allows for the use of religious freedom as a defense, but the judge/jury/judicial authority may still rule against that party in said dispute.

The link is www.joshblackman.com. He has several posts on it, and it's some interesting food for thought.

Dear Screamlord, I think you took the wrong turn off back there. You should have taken the far right turn to get to the park you wanted... If it looks like bigotry and it smells like bigotry and it sounds like bigotry, guess what?

You might like to take a trip to Tilted Acres this summer too, I'm sure you'd love it!

No, I didn't. You all have. Similar laws has passed in 19 states. Are you all not going to go to the states that has these laws. IF you do then your choices for amusement parks are drying up. The fact is that you have shown that you yourselves are the ones who are bigotted by not accepting and allowing other points of views and laws that you dislike. The fact is that it's not anti-gay but protects those who don't want to do business with those who goes against thier religious beliefs. here's a link of the states that have similar laws so that you all can boycott to you your little hearts content http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/283057-21-problems-national-outcry-...w-one-map/

Clinton was the first to sign this into federal law and the states took it up to do the same. Where was the uproar about it then. IT wasn't since it was a demoncrat president that signed it and now that it's a republican governor, all hell is breaking loose. Talking about a double standard.

As I said, bigotry. You can dress it up however you like but it is what it is. I would have way more respect and time for you if you were honest enough to call a spade a spade.

Don't forget to visit our Flaming Cross attraction, where you can purchase all sorts of marshmallows (except those pesky pink ones!) for a tasty, toasty snackiefest.

I'm off to do some shopping now in a land where I know I won't be refused service. Thanks to all the other 'buzzers who have done a sterling job of keeping this issue at the fore, I salute you!

Hey Screamlord, my religion says I shouldn't have to serve people of a different race if I don't want to. Should Indiana protect me from being forced to serve minorities?

CreditWh0re said:

Do you honestly think that we'd STILL be talking about this on CB, 8 pages later, and with the nation talking about Indiana with such derision (SNL this past week), if people had said, "oh crap, that's such a bad law, but I'm going to go anyway", and then went on with their day? I don't think so.

Yes, I do think so. You made the point yourself... times have changed. Our culture has turned a corner and won't stand for this kind of thing anymore.

Screamlord said:

It's funny that all of you want to job on the boycott indiana because of your persceptions of this being an anti-gay law. It's not a free pass IT's a shield for those who don't want to do business with gays and lesbians.

Oh. It's not anti-gay, it's just a shield for people who are anti-gay, and it's only our "persception" that it's anti-gay. Got it.

Screamlord, there are key differences between Indiana's law and the others; to suggest that they are all the same is simply not correct. Saying Clinton signed one or Obama voted for one or nobody's boycotting those other states suggests an equivalency that does not exist.

By way of silly example: imagine we had five governors sign laws saying shoplifting is a crime punishable by jail time, and one who signs a law shoplifting is a crime punishable by execution. Screamlord would be along to tell us all six governors signed an anti-shoplifting law and we shouldn't single out governor #6.

Indiana expands the RFRA to cover businesses, as well as individuals and expands the scope of the law beyond just suits between indivduals and the government. In those expansions lies the potential for discrimination against gays and lesbians.

There's no double standard here.

It's also more than a tad disingenuous to say that what happened 20 years ago is "the same" as what's happening *right now*. Even if a bill had the EXACT same wording (and they don't), it would be read differently. These bills are worded differently because folks like ALEC want "model legislation" but know that it needs to adhere to local customs as well.

Lawyers and judges are not immune to societal shifts - that's a main reason why "the Founders' Intent" is such a silly concept. The Consititution and Bill of Rights are vague in large part *because* those guys knew that stuff would happen they could not foresee. Even Lincoln famously said "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." (wink)

Attitudes have changed, people in general are more accepting. Homosexuality is something people in general are more comfortable with, as opposed to how feelings are shifting about religious extremism (that applies to Christiamsn and Muslims).

Jeff said:

Yes, I do think so. You made the point yourself... times have changed. Our culture has turned a corner and won't stand for this kind of thing anymore.

People like Screamlord are proof that plenty of people are 100% fine with this law as it stands.

People saying "Well, you can't shop at this bakery because you're gay, so go to the one next door instead." sounds suspiciously to me like "You can't drink from this water fountain because you're black, so use the one right next to it instead."

I thought we'd settled the "separate but equal" debate decades ago.