Gen Con to Possibly Leave Indiana [politics]

[Evansheer]

Since Pence seems so determined to paint himself as the victim of mischaracterization:

Yeah, no agenda to discriminate at all there...

[Evansheer]

So, if Gen Con knew they were locked in a contract until 2020 and were not going to leave, then why make the empty threat? What else was motivating them?

They never threatened to just up and leave. They said they would bail in the future after the contract was done.

[Bren]

They exist as people saying things.  Seriously, Connecticut has the exact same law on the books, has for decades.

Except even if we ignore the different context to the legislation and the difference in the other laws in both states it's not the exact same law. Even a cursory reading (Indiana vs. Connecticut) makes this obvious. Just to take one example, the Connecticut law applies to persons without any unusual interpretations of what constitutes a person. The Indiana law specifically says the law applies to for profit corporations and joint stock companies and other non-human persons.

It seems pretty naïve or disingenuous to claim that the Indiana law included all those extra words and definitions by accident if their intent was to get the "exact same law on the books" as the much shorter Connecticut law that has been on the books for decades.

[gattsuru]

Connecticut jurisprudence follows federal on the question, both allowing a corporate person to bring RFRA claims.

The biggest difference in the law is that the CT version only requires a burden, not a substantial burden.

Please, try a little harder.

[Bren]

Connecticut jurisprudence follows federal on the question, both allowing a corporate person to bring RFRA claims.

The biggest difference in the law is that the CT version only requires a burden, not a substantial burden.

Please, try a little harder.

Given that under the Indiana law the corporation doesn't even have to prove that it has been substantially burdened or only burdened, only that it is "likely to be substantially burdened" which seems like a pretty low bar. to meet.

Are you honestly trying to say that Indiana enacted this considerably wordier legislation with the aim of making it more difficult for a business to choose not to serve gays in Indiana than the law allows in Connecticut? Really?

As for the differences, I'll let a lawyer respond or for a lay comparison see the Hartford Courant.

[Brad]

Indiana fucked up in terms of Rational Self Interest to the tune of many millions of dollars - more than 50 million annually - all to pander to a political minority. That's just bad for business.

You seriously think that's what's going to happen? This is all a dog and pony show. After Mike Pence's conference this morning, it was pretty obvious the press was just bored and looking for a sensationalist axe to grind. Arkansas passed something far harsher, to the sound of absolutely fucking nothing.

Nothing to see, folks.

[Simlasa]

Arkansas passed something far harsher, to the sound of absolutely fucking nothing.

Well, I think sensible folks have been avoiding Arkansas for decades. Indiana was a bit more of a surprise.

[Bren]

Well, I think sensible folks have been avoiding Arkansas for decades. Indiana was a bit more of a surprise.

I don't find it too surprising. Indiana is currently pretty solidly Republican with a Republican governor and Republican supermajorities in both chambers. And a lot of democrats, especially in southern Indiana are social conservatives many of whom may favor the law.

[gattsuru]

Given that under the Indiana law the corporation doesn't even have to prove that it has been substantially burdened or only burdened, only that it is "likely to be substantially burdened" which seems like a pretty low bar. to meet.

As opposed to Connecticut, where the presumption is against the government?

Are you honestly trying to say that Indiana enacted this considerably wordier legislation with the aim of making it more difficult for a business to choose not to serve gays in Indiana than the law allows in Connecticut? Really?

No.  They did enact considerably wordier legislation for a reason.  The reason is that they didn't fucking trust the courts.  The original RFRA was meant to cover civil actions where the government was not a prosecutor, too -- more than one of the lawsuits that encouraged it had such facts -- and courts without obvious jurisprudence otherwise have been twisting the law heavily over the last decade to try to shy away from that.

You're right, in that it could make it easier to bring a defense against discrimination laws.  On the other hand, this has been the standard for two decades in several circuits (DC, 2nd, 8th, 9th) for two decades : slightly easier of impossible is still impossible.  The first person to use this lawsuit to try to legally discriminate against their customers is going to lose.

As for the differences, I'll let a lawyer respond or for a lay comparison see the Hartford Courant.

If your lawyer can't manage to remember that the Second Circuit allows RFRA to be used as a defense in private suits and that local courts have used the federal reading -- the case since 1996! -- you need a new expert.

[Spinachcat]

Indiana will pay for this blunder, as will the other states with similar legislation. It will become a leverage point in negotiations by non-RFRA states when they deal with companies, and they will make it part of their state's sales pitch.

This will echo in tech companies especially and their involvement in conferences. IndyBigData just lost Amazon and EMC, and not in a theoretical way, they have bailed out of the 2015 conference.

In a tight economy, every bit of leverage is important.

[Teazia]

Pulling Gencon out of a state because there are people who don't believe or think like you is narrow minded, hateful, and bigoted.  Just as a business who says "we serve only (fill in people group) is narrow minded, hateful, and bigoted.

This is the double edged sword of the whole thing.  Too bad statesmen are few and far between these days in the US of A.

It should move back to Lake GENeva, WI!

[crkrueger]

Well everyone can thank George Stephanopoulos, for making Mike Spence look like a complete and total idiot on Sunday.

Gov. Spence is having the bill rewritten specifically to protect from discrimination leading to denial of services.

It's not adding LGBT specifically as a protected class, however.

[Teazia]

Well everyone can thank George Stephanopoulos, for making Mike Spence look like a complete and total idiot on Sunday.

Gov. Spence is having the bill rewritten specifically to protect Gays and Lesbians from discrimination leading to denial of services.

Why should they have special privileges? Certain lesbians seem to enjoy suing Mom and Pops into the ground:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577

[crkrueger]

Why should they have special privileges? Certain lesbians seem to enjoy suing Mom and Pops into the ground:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577

I clarified, Spence doesn't intend to add specific LGBT protections, but apparently they are going to adjust the law so that you can't deny someone services based on the bill.

[Teazia]

To all magic market believers:

Guys, remember when it took market 45 years to decide communism wasn't working, and it still took Ronnie Reagan simply throwing billions of dollars into military spending so that USSR'd finally realise it can't keep up? And communism was pretty much screwed from day 1 of First Five Year Plan.

Reagan didn't kill the USSR with military spending, it was due to the cheap price of oil.  This broke the USSR and may do the same to Putin today.