Salesforce Cancels Indiana Programs In Wake Of Discrimination Bill Passage

[Webster]

...congrats to them for being the first of hopefully many businesses and other groups to tell the Hoosier State to go pound sand:

(LGBTQ Nation) Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has made good on a threat tweeted Wednesday evening, warning that the $4 billion company would “dramatically reduce” its investment in Indiana in response to a religious freedom law that critics say is a “license to discriminate” against LGBT individuals. On Thursday, just hours after Gov. Mike Pence signed the legislation, Benioff announced his firm was “canceling all programs” that require its customers or employees to travel to Indiana, saying he would not subject them to discrimination.

Indiana is the first state to enact such a change this year among about a dozen where such proposals have been introduced. The measure would prohibit state and local laws that “substantially burden” the ability of people — including businesses and associations — to refuse services to individuals based on their religious beliefs.

Benioff says that goal puts Indiana law at odds with Salesforce philosophy. “We are forced to dramatically reduce our investment in Indiana based on our employee’s and customer’s outrage over the Religious Freedom Bill,” he tweeted. He is also calling on other technology company CEO’s to take similar action.

Salesforce is a 16-year-old cloud computing company headquartered in San Francisco. It was among a number of businesses, including the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and local employers including Alcoa, Cummins, and Eli Lilly & Co., that spoke out against the bill.

...religious freedom laws are nothing more than covers to discriminate and should be treated as much...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I don't mind that the company wants to stop doing business there. That is fine and good for him. What I have a problem with is this company is trying to influence a political vote so other businesses can't freely decide on how they want to run there company even if we might find it revolting.

 

[Webster]

I don't mind that the company wants to stop doing business there. That is fine and good for him. What I have a problem with is this company is trying to influence a political vote so other businesses can't freely decide on how they want to run there company even if we might find it revolting.

So, let me get this straight, Liberty: you agree w/his decision but you also believe he shouldn't use the soapbox he has as a business leader to influence other businesses?

Sure...and unicorns also exist, huh?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I don't mind that the company wants to stop doing business there. That is fine and good for him. What I have a problem with is this company is trying to influence a political vote so other businesses can't freely decide on how they want to run there company even if we might find it revolting.

So, let me get this straight, Liberty: you agree w/his decision but you also believe he shouldn't use the soapbox he has as a business leader to influence other businesses?

Sure...and unicorns also exist, huh?

How can write this to make my point clear? I agree with him using the soap box because it is his right. What I don't like is that he is trying to pressure government with the power of money to take away other peoples rights to run there business as they see fit. I completely agree with him in principle no one should be turned away from say having a cake done for a gay wedding. I would never do business with them ever but would march in the streets for that person I so strongly disagree with to have the right to do that with his business. So I do believe personally this guy is doing a kind of cronyism with government to get his way is the best way I can describe it. I want total freedom even if it might be ugly at times.

 

[Bluezone777]

I find it interesting that people against this law that was signed to protect people's rights to not do business with someone based on religious beliefs respond to it by discriminating against the entire state by refusing to do business in said state over their beliefs. I just figured a better response to this law was refusing to discriminate instead of encouraging discrimination which is what they accuse the law of doing. It's just a thought I had.

 

[DrLeftover]

I am finding it equally interesting in some of the hypocrisy on parade.

Such as:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...untries-that-execute-gays/?PageSpeed=noscript

 

[Webster]

I am finding it equally interesting in some of the hypocrisy on parade.

Such as:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...untries-that-execute-gays/?PageSpeed=noscript

Oh, I forgot: we can't criticize one without criticizing the other...gee, thanks for reminding us, Doc.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

I will just repeat this again.

Geez this is federal law already there is no discrimination here against anyone.

If a person bakes cakes and won't sell any of his standard made cakes to a specific type of person then that is "discrimination". If that same person who makes cakes is asked to make a specific kind of cake and that he does not want to make it should be a persons right not to.

If a painter makes paintings and will not sell a painting to a specific kind of person then that is "discrimination". If that same person is asked to make a kind of painting he or she finds offensive then that is the persons right not to.

And in this whole thing is such a double standard as this video shows. You will never see this video on the leftist t.v. shows. But I think these gay bakeries should also have the same right not to make the product they do not want to also but will they get the same treatment as Christians are getting? I think not!!!!