• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Competitors wooing Indiana businesses over 'religious freedom' law

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,858
Reaction score
8,338
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Apparently there are places which see human rights as potentially beneficial to their economies

Competitors wooing Indiana businesses over 'religious freedom' law

Chicago and Virginia are recruiting Indiana businesses concerned about their home state's passage of the religious freedom act to relocate to their areas.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel have reached out to Indiana companies after last week's passage of the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which many fear could lead to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...

Both men are nominally Dems though not what I would call very liberal. Funny how two Democratic pols have jumped right into the controversy while Republicans remain silent. Could it be fear of their hard-core religious support?
 
Somerville said:
Apparently there are places which see human rights as potentially beneficial to their economies



Both men are nominally Dems though not what I would call very liberal. Funny how two Democratic pols have jumped right into the controversy while Republicans remain silent. Could it be fear of their hard-core religious support?
Click to expand...

Wow, governors and mayors trying to entice businesses to their states and cities. How ingenious. Never saw that before.

What Republican mayors or governors should be jumping into the theater?
 
Somerville said:
Apparently there are places which see human rights as potentially beneficial to their economies



Both men are nominally Dems though not what I would call very liberal. Funny how two Democratic pols have jumped right into the controversy while Republicans remain silent. Could it be fear of their hard-core religious support?
Click to expand...

IIRC Illinois has this law on their books already. BHO voted yes on it's passage.

Consider Illinois, our neighboring state that also has a RFRA.

Illinois' RFRA was approved in 1998. But Illinois also passed a same-sex marriage law in 2013 that codifies equal status and protection for couples and their families.

Illinois' Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act at the same time preserved religious rights by explicitly saying religious officials would not be required to solemnize any marriages that went against their beliefs, nor would religious facilities be required to hold such marriage ceremonies.

What the 'religious freedom' law really means for Indiana

Virginia has it also.
 
WCH said:
IIRC Illinois has this law on their books already. BHO voted yes on it's passage.

Consider Illinois, our neighboring state that also has a RFRA.

Illinois' RFRA was approved in 1998. But Illinois also passed a same-sex marriage law in 2013 that codifies equal status and protection for couples and their families.

Illinois' Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act at the same time preserved religious rights by explicitly saying religious officials would not be required to solemnize any marriages that went against their beliefs, nor would religious facilities be required to hold such marriage ceremonies.

What the 'religious freedom' law really means for Indiana

Virginia has it also.
Click to expand...

The RFRA laws in Virginia and Illinois are not the same as the one passed in Indiana -- might be why the governor is now asking for a new bill "clarifying" just what is allowed.
 
tres borrachos said:
Wow, governors and mayors trying to entice businesses to their states and cities. How ingenious. Never saw that before.

What Republican mayors or governors should be jumping into the theater?
Click to expand...

Have you seen a Republican pol asking a company to move to his state because it doesn't discriminate?
 
The Indiana one isn't really any different from the ones out there, the media and outrage lobby just got a a good PR racket going and all the people that need to feel they care to be worth something are in "outrage". It's all stupid nonsense.
 
Somerville said:
Have you seen a Republican pol asking a company to move to his state because it doesn't discriminate?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. If they want to entice b. usiness they will need tax breaks not sensationalism
 
WCH said:
IIRC Illinois has this law on their books already. BHO voted yes on it's passage.

Consider Illinois, our neighboring state that also has a RFRA.

Illinois' RFRA was approved in 1998. But Illinois also passed a same-sex marriage law in 2013 that codifies equal status and protection for couples and their families.

Illinois' Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act at the same time preserved religious rights by explicitly saying religious officials would not be required to solemnize any marriages that went against their beliefs, nor would religious facilities be required to hold such marriage ceremonies.

What the 'religious freedom' law really means for Indiana

Virginia has it also.
Click to expand...

And both those acts are different from the one that Indiana passed. What you are doing is akin to saying that a state with a speedd limit of 55 is the same as a state with a speed limit of 75 since they both have speed limits.
 
Why would a business leave a state that affords them more freedoms? Sure, they shouldn't practice those freedoms, but why would a business leave for a state that affords them less freedoms? That doesn't make much sense.
 
Somerville said:
Have you seen a Republican pol asking a company to move to his state because it doesn't discriminate?
Click to expand...

No. Do you think a lot of businesses are going to pick and move over this? Relocate hundreds of employees, sell their buildings, buy new buildings, assume relocation expenses, cancel contracts with vendors and renegotiate new ones in their new locations?

Besides, I thought businesses were in bed with the Republicans.
 
MrVicchio said:
The Indiana one isn't really any different from the ones out there, the media and outrage lobby just got a a good PR racket going and all the people that need to feel they care to be worth something are in "outrage". It's all stupid nonsense.
Click to expand...

Maybe they'll all move to Canada with all of those Hollywood clowns and George Soros who dramatically declared their intent to relocate if Bush won re-election. Yet they're all still here.

This all makes for nice theater, and it gives guys like Dannel Malloy, Terry McAuliffe and others a chance to thump their chests.
 
Hey business, my state offers you less freedom. Don't you want to leave your state that offers you more freedoms and come to my state that offers you less? I mean really, don't you want to be less free?
 
Henrin said:
Why would a business leave a state that affords them more freedoms? Sure, they shouldn't practice those freedoms, but why would a business leave for a state that affords them less freedoms? That doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

Because they see supporting gay rights measures as good public relations which translates to more customers and higher profits. And I'm the socialist, aren't the libertarians supposed to know more about economics and how markets work?
 
Somerville said:
Because they see supporting gay rights measures as good public relations which translates to more customers and higher profits. And I'm the socialist, aren't the libertarians supposed to know more about economics and how markets work?
Click to expand...

The possible short term effects of the law on business hardly warrants spending the money necessary to move operations to another state.
 
disneydude said:
Yeah...corporate welfare is usually a bigger enticement than ethics and morals.
Click to expand...

For the most part they just aren't idiots cast about by the emotional idiocy of the left wing nut jobs.
 
Somerville said:
Because they see supporting gay rights measures as good public relations which translates to more customers and higher profits. And I'm the socialist, aren't the libertarians supposed to know more about economics and how markets work?
Click to expand...

It's easy to shoot your mouth off on social media but, spending huge amounts of money to move a business for the sake of so few people, ain't gonna happen.
 
WCH said:
It's easy to shoot your mouth off on social media but, spending huge amounts of money to move a business for the sake of so few people, ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Refusing to spend "huge amounts of money" in a locale where the corporate types don't approve of the new law ain't so difficult. Angie's List - stopping plans for $40 million expansion. Cummins Diesel, based in Indiana, had a few words about the subject: "Cummins believes it's bad for business and bad for Indiana and sends the message that the state is unwelcoming."
Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff also tweeted on Thursday about the decision in a series of comments that went viral and said the company would be forced to dramatically reduce its spending in the state. Salesforce bought Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget in 2013.
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman "unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination by businesses against our employees, or consumers at large."
The organizers of Gen Con, a gaming conference that is among the marquee events of the year in the city, sent a letter to Gov. Pence this week stating that it might move in future years if he signed the bill. Oh wow!, gamer nerds! Yeah, Gen Con puts $50 million dollars into Indiana every year.

The following shows that at least some people are thinking about the future for Indiana.
Timothy Slaper, who directs the Indiana Business Research Center at Indiana University, said while critics point to convention dollars lost from events like Super Bowls, the real threat is to the future growth of Indiana's economy. It is still dominated by traditional industries, including agriculture and auto manufacturing.

"I'm more concerned about the longer-term cultural implications in terms of the magnetism of the state to attract the young creative class," Slaper said. "The engineers or artists you want to have in your city and state to cultivate the ecosystem for entrepreneurs. It's the location decisions of companies like Salesforce and attracting this brain power for the next several decades."
Click to expand...

quotes from a CNBC article
 
WCH said:
IIRC Illinois has this law on their books already. BHO voted yes on it's passage.
Click to expand...
But Illinois also has a statewide law forbidding discrimination against anyone because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Indiana and Arkansas have no such statewide LGBT civil rights protections.
 
Redress said:
And both those acts are different from the one that Indiana passed. What you are doing is akin to saying that a state with a speedd limit of 55 is the same as a state with a speed limit of 75 since they both have speed limits.
Click to expand...

Probably would be closer to saying they both have a speed limit of 55, but Indiana lets you go 60 under very rare instances.
 
Rational businesses see the law for what it really is. The law is not about increasing freedom, but limiting protections to a share of customers. Most rational and reasonably enlightened businesses believe it is a fundamental right of consumers to buy their products and services so long as those customers are willing and able to do so (the demand curve). Preventing such customers from doing so is an infringement on those customers’ freedom.

That limitation of protection for consumer freedom has business consequences. A share of customers will look elsewhere translating into lower revenue and profits than would otherwise be the case. In other words, the demand curve would shift to the left and, holding supply constant, prices would be lower, revenue would be lower, and profits lower.

The pool of talent could also shrink as some prospective employees (whose consumer protections have been diminished) go elsewhere and some would-be business partners seek not to get involved with firms in a state that offers fewer protections. In turn, the reduction in the talent pool could have long-term adverse consequences as it relates to innovation, improvement, and productivity, all of which impact a company’s competitiveness and profitability.

Not surprisingly, the negative publicity has led to Indiana’s Governor’s seeking some changes. Even when the changes are made, there will likely be some residual fallout from what happened. The bad publicity and related consequences were fully avoidable had the State fully thought through what it was seeking to do.
 
Somerville said:
Refusing to spend "huge amounts of money" in a locale where the corporate types don't approve of the new law ain't so difficult. Angie's List - stopping plans for $40 million expansion. Cummins Diesel, based in Indiana, had a few words about the subject: "Cummins believes it's bad for business and bad for Indiana and sends the message that the state is unwelcoming."
Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff also tweeted on Thursday about the decision in a series of comments that went viral and said the company would be forced to dramatically reduce its spending in the state. Salesforce bought Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget in 2013.
Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman "unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination by businesses against our employees, or consumers at large."
The organizers of Gen Con, a gaming conference that is among the marquee events of the year in the city, sent a letter to Gov. Pence this week stating that it might move in future years if he signed the bill. Oh wow!, gamer nerds! Yeah, Gen Con puts $50 million dollars into Indiana every year.

The following shows that at least some people are thinking about the future for Indiana.


quotes from a CNBC article
Click to expand...

That's hardly of real consequence.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Rational businesses see the law for what it really is. The law is not about increasing freedom, but limiting protections to a share of customers. Most rational and reasonably enlightened businesses believe it is a fundamental right of consumers to buy their products and services so long as those customers are willing and able to do so (the demand curve). Preventing such customers from doing so is an infringement on those customers’ freedom.

That limitation of protection for consumer freedom has business consequences. A share of customers will look elsewhere translating into lower revenue and profits than would otherwise be the case. In other words, the demand curve would shift to the left and, holding supply constant, prices would be lower, revenue would be lower, and profits lower.

The pool of talent could also shrink as some prospective employees (whose consumer protections have been diminished) go elsewhere and some would-be business partners seek not to get involved with firms in a state that offers fewer protections. In turn, the reduction in the talent pool could have long-term adverse consequences as it relates to innovation, improvement, and productivity, all of which impact a company’s competitiveness and profitability.

Not surprisingly, the negative publicity has led to Indiana’s Governor’s seeking some changes. Even when the changes are made, there will likely be some residual fallout from what happened. The bad publicity and related consequences were fully avoidable had the State fully thought through what it was seeking to do.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we wait until after someone has actually suffered a loss of some sort before jumping to hysterical conclusions.

This is nothing more than speculation at this point.
 
WCH said:
Shouldn't we wait until after someone has actually suffered a loss of some sort before jumping to hysterical conclusions.

This is nothing more than speculation at this point.
Click to expand...

Companies differ in terms of missions, values, appetite for risk, etc. Some companies may wait until they have suffered actual harm. Others may act proactively to try to avoid suffering harm. Still others may seek to position themselves to capitalize on the possible fallout e.g., out-of-state competitors. Others may act to differentiate themselves by acting in a socially conscious fashion that they deem attractive to their existing and prospective stakeholders. One can't expect a one-size-fits-all response. The main point is that companies have a rational basis for responding to the law. I merely highlighted one such narrative. There are others, too.

For example, Apple CEO Tim Cook pointed to Apple's values of seeking to 'empower' and 'enrich' customers in opposing the law. In an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post, Cook explained, "At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair. That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation — wherever it emerges."

Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination
 
donsutherland1 said:
Companies differ in terms of missions, values, appetite for risk, etc. Some companies may wait until they have suffered actual harm. Others may act proactively to try to avoid suffering harm. Still others may seek to position themselves to capitalize on the possible fallout e.g., out-of-state competitors. Others may act to differentiate themselves by acting in a socially conscious fashion that they deem attractive to their existing and prospective stakeholders. One can't expect a one-size-fits-all response. The main point is that companies have a rational basis for responding to the law. I merely highlighted one such narrative. There are others, too.

For example, Apple CEO Tim Cook pointed to Apple's values of seeking to 'empower' and 'enrich' customers in opposing the law. In an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post, Cook explained, "At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair. That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation — wherever it emerges."

Tim Cook: Pro-discrimination
Click to expand...

Well since Apple builds their products in highly discriminatory China and sells many products in a highly discriminatory Middle East...he should know. 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom