Indiana Adopts Gay Discrimination Law - Salesforce.com Says It will Drastically Reduce Its Investment in Indiana

  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 26, 2015 3:49 PM GMT
    Indiana's governor signed the gay discrimination act yesterday, and the CEO of Salesforce.com, a $43 Billion software firm, which recently acquired one of Indiana's largest businesses, tweeted out that his company would not require any employees to travel to Indiana, and "We are forced to dramatically reduce our investment in IN based on our employee's & customer's outrage.

    We can only hope that he moves the entire company out of Indiana as soon as possible.

    Thank you Marc Benioff.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-address-letter-to-pence-urging-him-to-veto-religious-freedom-bill/70466808/

    I guess Indiana is the new Alabama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2015 5:04 PM GMT
    I believe that this law will be struck down as violating at least the US Constitution if not IN's as well.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 26, 2015 5:14 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidI believe that this law will be struck down as violating at least the US Constitution if not IN's as well.


    Can you cite any legal authority why this law, based on the first amendment's freedom of religion clause, would be unconstitutional? There is certainly no present right under the US constitution not to be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

    As to Indiana - who knows what's in Indiana's constitution, or what Indiana's interpretation of it is?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2015 5:55 PM GMT
    Suetonius said
    MGINSD saidI believe that this law will be struck down as violating at least the US Constitution if not IN's as well.


    Can you cite any legal authority why this law, based on the first amendment's freedom of religion clause, would be unconstitutional? There is certainly no present right under the US constitution not to be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

    As to Indiana - who knows what's in Indiana's constitution, or what Indiana's interpretation of it is?


    As a native Hoosier, who went to college, regularly visits, and still has lots of family and friends active in government there, a member of one of its federal courts' bars, and as someone who's actually read IN's constitution and knows the legal principles involved in interpreting constitutions, I know not only "what's in IN's constitution," but how it might be interpreted by its state courts, which are actually quite progressive in the true meaning of that word, not the dumbed-down definition of it as Socialist Lite; its courts have a reputation as leaders in workman's comp law, for example. See IN Const., Art. I, Secs. 1-10, in particular.*

    Analogizing to the absence of a "present right under the US constitution not to be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation," is not the issue; SCOTUS' decision in Hobby Lobby comes closer, but not as the Court decided in that case. Rather, provision of services like those addressed in IN's flawed statute is more directly addressed by the early civil rights cases like Kress and others that tossed out laws that segregated the races at lunch counters, bus terminals (and yes, I believe an interstate commerce argument can be raised here as well), and elsewhere. AZ Governor Jan Brewer got it right when she vetoed similar legislation last year, as only having the potential to create needless divisions among Arizonans.
    _____
    *http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html#sec-1
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Mar 26, 2015 6:18 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Suetonius said
    MGINSD saidI believe that this law will be struck down as violating at least the US Constitution if not IN's as well.


    Can you cite any legal authority why this law, based on the first amendment's freedom of religion clause, would be unconstitutional? There is certainly no present right under the US constitution not to be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

    As to Indiana - who knows what's in Indiana's constitution, or what Indiana's interpretation of it is?


    As a native Hoosier, who went to college, regularly visits, and still has lots of family and friends active in government there, a member of one of its federal courts' bars, and as someone who's actually read IN's constitution and knows the legal principles involved in interpreting constitutions, I know not only "what's in IN's constitution," but how it might be interpreted by its state courts, which are actually quite progressive in the true meaning of that word, not the dumbed-down definition of it as Socialist Lite; its courts have a reputation as leaders in workman's comp law, for example. See IN Const., Art. I, Secs. 1-10, in particular.*

    Analogizing to the absence of a "present right under the US constitution not to be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation," is not the issue; SCOTUS' decision in Hobby Lobby comes closer, but not as the Court decided in that case. Rather, provision of services like those addressed in IN's flawed statute is more directly addressed by the early civil rights cases like Kress and others that tossed out laws that segregated the races at lunch counters, bus terminals (and yes, I believe an interstate commerce argument can be raised here as well), and elsewhere. AZ Governor Jan Brewer got it right when she vetoed similar legislation last year, as only having the potential to create needless divisions among Arizonans.
    _____
    *http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html#sec-1

    I'll grant that you know a lot more about Indiana law than I do (which is basically nothing). Time will tell.

    As to US constitutional law, yes, arguments can be made as to employment discrimination. None have succeeded to date. I think it would take a few more liberals on the court for a favorable decision (if it even granted cert). Some of the ultra conservative members of the court are quite young, as justices go.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Mar 27, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    This is what happens when you elect Republicans.
    They are the bigots of America.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2015 1:30 PM GMT
    So, if I establish a religion that has a core belief that I must not treat with people who think you can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation - I can legally refuse service to someone who does it?

    Also, except for obvious cases, (Gay wedding cake, etc..)How do I know the client is gay? Can I ask? Do I just *guess*?

    I'd love to just *guess* that the bigots who wanted the law are all heavily repressed closet cases, so I don't want to serve them...under the guise of "religious freedom" of course....

    Doctor9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2015 2:55 PM GMT
    hate will always gets the votes out for the republicans.
    220px-Pink_triangle_up.svg.png
  • Sincityfan

    Posts: 409

    Mar 27, 2015 10:01 PM GMT
    Can't wait for "Whites Only" "No Jews" signs to pop up again.
    It is against my Religious beliefs to serve the Jews and the colored folk. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2015 8:48 AM GMT
    There is of course the free market. You take your business where you want and avoid giving your money to those you disagree with. But that is too American.
  • SilverRRCloud

    Posts: 874

    Mar 28, 2015 10:34 AM GMT
    Bravo for the Salesforce.com!

    Be backward and poor, if you want. Until the courts strike the nonsense that the Gov. has just signed into law.

    The message is clear enough. Big bucks are not gay friendly because they like gay guys. They are gay friendly because they know only too well that any discrimination harms their business. You cost me money because you are dumb? Good riddance!

    SC
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2015 4:13 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidHey, it's Indiana. We can't expect much from that state.

    The KKK was started in Indiana. I don't think anyone should be surprised.


    Wrong. The KKK was founded in Tennessee, NOT Indiana, although it had a strong presence there in the 1920s.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 28, 2015 4:24 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidThis is what happens when you elect Republicans.
    They are the bigots of America.
    Not all republicans condone this nonsense. Stop stereotyping all republicans as bigots. Hey the democrats sure have their fair share of bigots.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Mar 29, 2015 2:17 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    KissTheSky saidThis is what happens when you elect Republicans.
    They are the bigots of America.
    Not all republicans condone this nonsense. Stop stereotyping all republicans as bigots. Hey the democrats sure have their fair share of bigots.



    And what has happened as a result of people voting Democrat?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 29, 2015 2:48 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidThis is what happens when you elect Republicans.
    They are the bigots of America.


    I had to check your age. 41? If you think that the only bigots in America are Republicans you need to get out more. There are bigots all through the political spectrum and a great many of them are the first ones to yell RACIST every time someone say something they don't like.


    Bigot:a person who strongly, unfairly or irrationally dislikes other people, their ideas, beliefs etc. A person who hates or refuses to accept or tolerate members of a particular group.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 29, 2015 2:54 AM GMT
    Sincityfan saidCan't wait for "Whites Only" "No Jews" signs to pop up again.
    It is against my Religious beliefs to serve the Jews and the colored folk. icon_rolleyes.gif


    According to Ryerson University in Canada it's okay to put up signs saying "no white people allowed." That sure fucks up the idea of progressive socialism being all about equality, doesn't it?

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/minorities-now-want-safe-spaces-no-whites-allowed/
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 29, 2015 3:11 AM GMT
    pellaz saidhate will always gets the votes out for the republicans.
    220px-Pink_triangle_up.svg.png


    No. BOTH parties and everyone trying to make buck off race incite hate with lies rhetoric to get votes and you know it.

    They play people for fools and fools eat it up.

    BIDEN: "They's gonna put all o yall back in chains."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Q1I6PIIuY

    HILLARY:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1r7ZhlmMR4

    EBONY MAGAZINE EDITOR "Nothing Says ‘Let’s Go Kill Some Muslims’ Like Country Music"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mbYpnQmNys


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2015 3:13 AM GMT
    MGINSD -- What do you make of the arguments in this editorial:


    http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 29, 2015 3:16 AM GMT
    SilverRRCloud saidBravo for the Salesforce.com!

    Be backward and poor, if you want. Until the courts strike the nonsense that the Gov. has just signed into law.

    The message is clear enough. Big bucks are not gay friendly because they like gay guys. They are gay friendly because they know only too well that any discrimination harms their business. You cost me money because you are dumb? Good riddance!

    SC


    ALSO Angie's List has backed out of a deal with Indiana and has says they intend to oppose this "Religious Freedom" all the way.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/03/28/angies-list-cancels-indy-expansion-religious-freedom-law/70598270/

    Keep watching. There will be more kicking in on this.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Mar 29, 2015 3:22 AM GMT
    Some of you may not have seen this simple 10 question test to determine if someone's religious freedoms are at risk.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

    1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
    B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

    2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
    B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

    3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) I am being forced to use birth control.
    B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

    4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
    B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

    5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
    B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

    6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
    B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

    7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
    B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

    8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
    B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

    9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
    B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

    10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

    A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
    B) Public school science classes are teaching science.