GenCon threatens to leave Indiana

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
It's inevotoble that legislation will be introduced to amend the CRA to include sexual orientaion in an effort to shield homosexuals from discrimination as provided for by RFRAs, so its a viscious circle.
You still are not getting it.

The CRA does not exist to counter discrimination allowed by RFRAs. Rather, RFRAs (at least currently) exist to make sure the First Amendment trumps the CRA and other non-discrimination laws where executing those laws would violate the First Amendment.

I understand what you are saying....the RFRAs exist to protect First Amendment Rights. In response, its likely that the CRA will be amended to protect homosexuals from discrimination "sanctioned" by RFRA laws. Then the right wants more religious freedom to discrimimate , making the left want more protections, making the right want more freedom, left more protection, etc until the Courts decide how this all pans out constitutionally.

**Stonebeard**

Frazzled wrote:
So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the
So I'll ask the question again.
If people who don't agree with homosexual weddings are bigots, why aren't people who don't agree with child brides, or polygamous weddings bigots as well?

Because they (those who call indivuals who disagree with gay marriage bigots) do not happen to disagree those people.

**Manchu**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
People should not be able to discriminate against you for anything that you didn't choose.

I don't normally play Devil's Advocate, but do you think people choose their religion? If so, do you think it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion?

**whembly**

Here one summary on how this Pizza Joint evolved into a "thing"

Story About First Business to ‘Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’ Was Fabricated Out of Nothing

The Huffington Post headline screams:

Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First
Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings

Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?

Perhaps, you say, they brought this upon themselves, seeking out publicity for their strict biblical views.

Eh…no.

Some cursory internet forensics shows how it happened…or rather, how it was made to happen.

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

What we have here is — as we called in journalism school jargon — “no story.” Nothing happened. Nothing was about to happen.

If I were forced to mark out a story line, it would be this: A nice lady in a small town tries to be helpful and polite to a lovely young reporter from “the big city.”

In other words, Memories Pizza didn’t blast out a news release. They didn’t contact the media, nor make a stink on Twitter or Facebook. They didn’t even post a sign in the window rejecting gay-wedding catering jobs. They merely answered questions from a novice reporter who strolled into their restaurant one day – who was sent on a mission by an irresponsible news organization.

Next: ABC-57 anchor Brian Dorman leads the evening newscast dramatically with this:

Only on ABC-57 News tonight. We went into small towns looking for reaction to the Religious Freedom Act. We found one business, just 20 miles away from a welcoming South Bend…with a very different view.

Notice that his city of South Bend is “welcoming,” but that small-town business is not. It’s very different. That’s why ABC-57 “went into small towns,” as if embarking on a safari to aboriginal lands.

Not only did ABC-57 News create that story ex nihilo (out of nothing), but the next day, the station’s Rosie Woods reported on the social-media backlash against the Christian pizza shop owners.

“Our Facebook page has been blowing up with comments after we aired that story last night,” said Woods.

At this point, even my old Leftist journalism professors would be grinding their teeth and rending their garments.

You see, not only did ABC-57 manufacture the story with an ambush interview, it then doubled-down by making the reaction to the story into another story to give the sense of momentum, as if it were growing at its own impetus. Yet, everything about it is a fabrication.

Memories Pizza didn’t “publicly vow to reject gay weddings” as HuffPo says it. The O’Connors were just, quite literally, minding their own business.

Back in the ABC-57 studio, Rosie Woods read three negative social media comments attacking the pizza shop owners, and then said, “And that’s just one side of this debate that’s heating up as more people and business owners speak up about the law.”

She then quotes one (1) person, the owner of another business, who agreed with the O’Connors. Seems that “just one side of this debate” deserves more attention than the other.

The unnamed ABC-57 editor then sends another reporter door-to-door on Walkerton’s rather depressed-looking main drag, trying to get reactions from other business people about the pizza shop owners. And the story inexorably snowballs onward, with only man’s yearning for truth to propel it.

All of the blog traffic and social media activity led to about 36,000 Facebook shares at ABC57.com on the original Alyssa Marino story less than 24 hours after it aired.

BuzzFeed posted its own inaccurate headline, with the kicker: ”The Internet has unleashed its wrath.”

All of those eyeballs benefit the TV station, which sells advertising on its website. It also helps several young, minor-market reporters who hustled and stumbled their way into the national spotlight. But don’t blame them. Blame the editor.

Meanwhile, over at Yelp.com, more than a thousand “reviews” of Memories Pizza rapidly accumulated, quickly overwhelming the positive comments from actual customers who like the pizza, the hospitality and the small-town charm. Folks who never heard of Walkerton attacked Crystal O’Connor’s business, her morality and her Lord. Many of the remarks included racially charged descriptions of genitalia and sex acts. “Reviewers” also posted pictures of naked men, of Adolf Hitler shouting “Ich habe ein pizza” (I have a pizza), and of Jesus gesturing with his middle finger. Over on Facebook, the restaurant’s 5-star average rating rapidly plunged to one star, as non-customers slammed away at Crystal’s little business.

In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manifesto of political power, Rule No. 12 says, in part:

Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

he Left doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as they get what they want. They’re willing — no, they’re eager — to sacrifice a small-town business, and it’s owners.

Lest you think I’m being too dramatic. Late Wednesday, word comes that Jess Dooley, a female coach at Concord High School 45 minutes away in Elkhart, has been suspended after tweeting:

Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?

Wo... gofundme for that pizza joint is now at $210k. o.O

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Nope, you tarred yourself. Too late now, Weeeee!
You know, this is a real concern. It is socially acceptable in the USA and apparently to some extent in Canada and Europe to try to ruin someone's life if enough people agree with your righteous anger regarding whatever political topic, regardless of what that person actually said or believes about the matter.

You're talking about the perils of a "Conformist Society".

Which, forgive my language, is fething anti-American.

EDIT: I really should say anti-freedom.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
In response, its likely that the CRA will be amended to protect homosexuals from discrimination "sanctioned" by RFRA laws.

No that is not likely. This is because adding sexual orientation as a protected category would have no effect on any RFRA. In other words, a court reviewing a case based on the strict scrutiny standard required by a RFRA could still find that application of the CRA to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in a particular circumstances would be unconstitutional.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Which, forgive my language, is fething anti-American.

I totally agree because I believe the most American thing about America is the Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights exists in large part to protect people from the tyranny of prevailing convention.

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
No that is not likely. This is because adding sexual orientation as a protected category would have no effect on any RFRA. In other words, a court reviewing a case based on the strict scrutiny standard required by a RFRA could still find that application of the CRA to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in a particular circumstances would be unconstitutional.

It is certainly possible. This RFRA issue will play into the next election, and it's a losing issue for Republicans on a national level. It has highlighted the fact that homosexuals are not a federally protected class in the CRA, surely an unintended consequence , and has shown that there is a vocal minority that is interested in discriminating against homosexuals, anoher probably unintended consequence.

So if Clinton gets elected, which lets face it is all but inevitable, and the Democrats take back control of Congress, an amendment to the CRA is not out of the question.

But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.

**Frazzled**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You're just jealous because we tarred all your tax guys. Why are you holding such a long grudge? Don't be a hata!

If I don't hold onto my hate, what else do I have?

If anyone can respect that. I can respect that.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.

Now you're getting it. It doesn't matter whether the CRA is amended to include sexual orientation. Applying the CRA could still be unconstitutional in some cases.

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.
Now you're getting it. It doesn't matter whether the CRA is amended to include sexual orientation. Applying the CRA could still be unconstitutional in some cases.

Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law

**Brennonjw**

I have two stands on this:

1) denying service to gays is just dumb, and a dick move
2) HOWEVER, the bill puts it to the Individuals choice.

In my opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and as a business owner, you do have the right to deny service to whoever you choose. Both sides are in the wrong in the argument over the bill, the LGBT community for wanting to force actions onto others, and the business owners who want to deny service based on sexuality. Business owners should technically speaking have the right to deny service because they invested the money into the business. You do not sacrifice the freedoms of others to improve your own freedoms.

In regards to Gencon, this is a dumb way to protest, Instead of moving, make your point by denying businesses that would discriminate. this does a better job than moving.

Ready for any possible rage.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law

Is this supposed to be an argument for or against something?

**Co'tor Shas**

Manchu wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
People should not be able to discriminate against you for anything that you didn't choose.
I don't normally play Devil's Advocate, but do you think people choose their religion? If so, do you think it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion?

It really depends. Lots of people don't really "choose" their religion, it's given to them when they are kids, and often drilled into them to the point where they can't just leave. But leaving that aside, my statement was not one of restriction. Just because I believe that people should not be able to discriminate against something that is not chosen, doesn't mean I don't think that you can discriminate against people for things they did choose.

**Stonebeard**

skyth wrote:
Stonebeard wrote:
skyth wrote:
Stonebeard wrote:
skyth wrote:
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.

The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?

Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.

Then, by that same logic, nether would the business owner be imposing their beliefs on the homosexual couple. The business owner is not preventing them from being married, nor is the business owner stating that they shouldn't be married. The business owner is simply refusing to participate in or assist with a ritual that the business owners' religion prevents them from participating in or assisting with.

Nope. By acting not as a public accomodation, they are trying to keep someone else from not following the tenets of their religion. There is an ecpectation that a business not discriminate as far as customers are concerned.

This doesn't mean they have to serve people who want something out of the usual. If you only provide something a certain way (as in, you only provide sandwhiches with ham in them, a customer has no right to expect a turkey samdwhich). As a business, you have a right as to what to sell, but not who to sell to. I would put an ecception for rude customers or customers who wamt to harm someone. However, these can't be based on who the person is. A homosexual holding their partner's hand is not rude.

At no point does the act of refusing to break with ones faith in order to accomodation somone elses constitute an act of suppression of said others ability to express their beliefs in any way they are legally capable. Additionally, it is not the customer who is being discriminated against, but the ritual itself. A business owner does not cease to be a person when they start their buisness, nor do they lose their religious freedoms. If said buisness owners religion mandates that its adherents not participate in or otherwise facilitate in the holding of certain types of ceremonies, or rituals, then forcing said buisness owner to do so would constitute a violation of their religious freedoms. The same cannot be said for those who are demanding the buisness owner provide for said ceremony or ritual, as they're ability to hold said ritual is in no significant way being infringed.

**skyth**

Frazzled wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

hardly. He declared anyone not supportive of gay marriage to be bigots. I merely extended his argument to other situations.

So you compared homosexuality to paedophilia then? Nice. Well done with that. I'm glad we got round to the admitting it part.

Because you were either doing that, or you were arguing with your own strawman which no-one else had put forth.

Nope. As much as you'd like to tar me with that brush, that dog won't hunt.

So I'll ask the question again.
If people who don't agree with homosexual weddings are bigots, why aren't people who don't agree with child brides, or polygamous weddings bigots as well?

And I'll answer again...child brides do not involve informed consent.

Polygamous weddings involve a choice, not something that someone is. I would look down on someone against real polygamous marriges (as opposed to non-willing arranged marriages)

**jasper76**

Brennonjw wrote:
and as a business owner, you do have the right to deny service to whoever you choose.

This assumption is incorrect. We ha've the CRA which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, and national origin. These forms of discrimination are illegal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law
Is this supposed to be an argument for or against something?

No, it's just a tangent. Did you go to Charm School?

**Brennonjw**

Brennonjw wrote:
and as a business owner, you do have the right to deny service to whoever you choose.

jasper76 wrote:
This assumption is incorrect. We ha've the CRA which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, and national origin. These forms of discrimination are illegal.

so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others? In other words others rights > a persons right to run their own business? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gay, but I feel that this is the wrong way to handle the situation. Personal freedoms shouldn't be limited, and yes, there are those out there who would deny service due to sexuality or religion and that number has been on the fall, but there is a larger percentage of the population who would serve anyone just fine. I just think that it i not okay to trample others to get what you want, and this goes both ways.

**Manchu**

jasper76 wrote:
Did you go to Charm School?

No I went to law school instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?

Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.

**Brennonjw**

Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Did you go to Charm School?
No I went to law school instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.

It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.

**Stonebeard**

Brennonjw wrote:
Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Did you go to Charm School?
No I went to law school instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.

It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.

Unless an individual can successfully argue in front of a court that proving services to a particular population solely on the grounds of their identity constitutes a significant infringement of said individuals religious rights, no, businesses more than likely wont ban people from their establishments.

**jasper76**

Brennonjw wrote:
Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Did you go to Charm School?
No I went to law school instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.

It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over businesses failing because they choose to discriminate against a broadly-defined customer population. It's just bad business, to begin with, and the right of consumers to decide not to patronize businesses due to their policies was never in question.

**skyth**

Stonebeard wrote:
Brennonjw wrote:
Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Did you go to Charm School?
No I went to law school instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.

It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.

Unless an individual can successfully argue in front of a court that proving services to a particular population solely on the grounds of their identity constitutes a significant infringement of said individuals religious rights, no, businesses more than likely wont ban people from their establishments.

The thing is, that is exactly what is being argued with the gay cake argument. It wasn't that it was for a wedding or even a non-Religious wedding, but rather the argument was solely against the identity of who was getting married.

**agnosto**

One question I have for the religious-minded of the Christian persuasion.

Wouldn't refusing to provide services to people simply because you believe they are sinning in itself constitute a sin?

The bible says a lot of stuff but the gist of the New Testament is pretty much summed up by Bill and Ted, "Be excellent to each other." Matthew 7:12 (KJV)

I particularly like the stuff about not judging others because there's really only one real judge and he might not like what you come up with. Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV)

Personally, if I were going to go around tooting my religion horn about something, I think that I'd be darned sure that it was actually a part of the religion that I say that I follow. The issue that I have is with all the people these days who profess to be Christian denouncing homosexuality while forgetting the basic teachings of the bible.

James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment (criticism or condemnation) or partiality (prejudice or discrimination):

You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)

So, for me as a Christian, I wish that people would stop hiding behind my religion to perform ill works towards our neighbors. It is fine to disagree with their choices, it's fine to converse with them about sin and invite them to worship but that's really it. It's hard to not be angry about stuff like this.

If a Pastor truly, in his/her heart, believes that gay marriage is wrong and doesn't want to perform a civil union, he/she should counsel the couple and try to convince them to change...if nothing else, that will convince them to go elsewhere if they don't agree with that church's teachings.

**jasper76**

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/01/news/salesforce-benioff-indiana-religious-freedom-law/index.html

Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is helping employees who are uncomfortable with Indiana's controversial religious freedom law to transfer out of the state.
Benioff told CNN's Poppy Harlow on Wednesday that several employees have asked for transfers -- and he has agreed, even supplying relocation packages.

"I just got an email on the way to studio from another employee who said, 'look I don't feel comfortable living in this state anymore, you have to move me out,' and I gave him a $50,000 relocation package and said, 'great, you're clear to go.' "

Benioff acknowledged that Salesforce (CRM, Tech30) won't be able to completely pull out of Indiana, given the size of the company's operations there. But the company is helping individual employees who feel oppressed to leave.

The move is in response to a law signed last week by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence that allows businesses to refuse service to gay, lesbian and transgender people on religious grounds.

Benioff had already pledged to reduce his company's investments in Indiana, calling the law "brutal," "unfair" and "unjust." The cloud computing CEO said he is working with state officials in hopes of changing the statute.

Moving employees out of the state is a new step, however, and one of the most aggressive corporate actions taken in response to the new law.

Big business has been at the forefront of the backlash against the Indiana law, and similar legislation pending in states around the U.S.

Apple (AAPL, Tech30), Yelp (YELP), the NCAA, Eli Lilly (LLY), NASCAR, General Electric (GE), Angie's List and PayPal are among the companies that have raised concerns. Leaders from some 39 tech companies and organizations have also condemned the legislation.

"This is a really important point that, you know, CEOs have a lot of power and control on investment in states and we want to invest in states where there is equality," Benioff said.

"One thing that you're seeing is that there is a third [political] party emerging in this country, which is the party of CEOs," he said.

**Brennonjw**

jasper76 wrote:
Brennonjw wrote:
Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Did you go to Charm School?
No I went to law school instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
so we are telling people who they can and cannot service, to protect the rights of others?
Yes. Are you ... surprised by this? Your rights not only have to balanced against those of everyone else but also against the good of society at large. Legal rights are not absolute.

It's not that I'm supprised, but I feel there needs to be a better balancing act when it comes to situations like these. Were the bill to pass, some business owners would ban people from their stores, in turn boycotts happen and the owners fail due to the fact that discrimination if widely frowned upon. I get why it's controversial, and I see both sides, I just think they are both going about this in the wrong way.

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over businesses failing because they choose to discriminate against a broadly-defined customer population. It's just bad business, to begin with, and the right of consumers to decide not to patronize businesses due to their policies was never in question.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, I was saying that that would be their punishment, not saying the bill shouldn't pass to prevent this.

**Manchu**

@agnosto -

You are confusing avoiding sin with sinning. Refusing to participate in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is not tantamount to "performing ill works." At least not necessarily ... conscience is case by case, after all.

jasper76 wrote:
Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana

How about:

CEO Sees Marketing Opportunity In Public Ignorance About RFRA

**jasper76**

Manchu wrote:
You are confusing avoiding sin with sinning. Refusing to participate in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is not tantamount to "performing ill works." At least not necessarily ... conscience is case by case, after all.
jasper76 wrote:
Salesforce CEO: We're helping employees move out of Indiana
How about:

CEO Sees Marketing Opportunity In Public Ignorance About RFRA

Did you take Mind Reading in lawschool. Maybe the guy is sincerely interested in the welfare and happiness of his employees???

The link does include a video interview.

**Hordini**

"One thing that you're seeing is that there is a third [political] party emerging in this country, which is the party of CEOs," he said.

Oh, goodie.

**jasper76**

Hordini wrote:

"One thing that you're seeing is that there is a third [political] party emerging in this country, which is the party of CEOs," he said.

Oh, goodie.

Hehe...that was my reaction as well.

**Prestor Jon**

jasper76 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
But perhaps, as you say it would have little to no effect on RFRA laws in the Courts.
Now you're getting it. It doesn't matter whether the CRA is amended to include sexual orientation. Applying the CRA could still be unconstitutional in some cases.

Could. Also could not. I've never heard of an application of the CRA being overturned due to unconstitutionality as yet, and after all, all his would be doing would be adding another class to an established law

The CRA protects native Americans under the national origin protected class but the reason we have a federal RFRA law is becuase native Americans were being fired for failing drug tests at work after ingesting peyote during religious rituals. The RFRA provides more individual protection than the CRA.

**jasper76**

Well, personally, I am more interested in the CRA and covering sexual orientation as a protected class as a matter of principal. If homosexuals are provided the same protections as other minorities, I will shut up and go away.

It would seem to me at least that the fate of RFRA laws and businesses that would use them as a tool to discriminate may very well be market-driven.