By on March 27, 2015

Subaru Indiana - Picture courtesy mibz.com

The state of Indiana has just signed a new bill ostensibly designed to safeguard “religious freedom”. Those opposed to it claim that it will lead to discrimination against LGBT individuals. So what does this mean for Subaru?

Subaru’s entire U.S. manufacturing base is based in Lafayette, about 60 miles outside of Indianapolis. The Japanese auto maker is expanding their plant to help meet growing demand for their cars in the United States, as the car buying public grows increasingly receptive to the brand’s AWD-centric lineup of cars and SUVs.

But one of Subaru’s core constituencies has been the LGBT community. Jokes about their likelihood of owning a Subaru have become commonplace – and resulted in the downfall of our former EIC. Businesses like Salesforce.com have decided to boycott the state, while the NCAA, which hosts the Final Four in Indianapolis, has expressed its concerns over the bill.

I’ll be curious to see how Subaru responds to the bill. It’s reasonable to expect that a good portion of their customers beyond the LGBT community will be unhappy with it as well.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

439 Comments on “Question Of The Day: How Will Indiana’s “Religious Freedom” Bill Affect Subaru?...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I think if they’re smart they won’t say anything. Subaru has not been a very political company thus far, and in theory their Japanese ownership is conservative when it comes to becoming involved in such affairs. Rarely does it benefit a company to come out in favor or against a hot button, divisive issue.

    • 0 avatar
      EvilEdHarris

      True, it is likely that nothing will be mentioned. There may be a small press release by Subaru stating that Subaru (like 99% of large companies) does not discriminate against individuals for employee hiring and retention.

      The bill will likely only impact minorities who work for small companies/businesses.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        This isn’t a reply to anyone. This is a warning to readers: TURN BACK. ALL COMMENTS BELOW ARE SH1T AND HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO CARS.

    • 0 avatar

      Hot-button/divisive my arse.

      The only arseholes that want to discriminate are the right-wing super-racist anti-gay MORONS who make up a certain throwback core of an idiotic loser party.

      • 0 avatar
        darkwing

        That must be some of that #NOH8 I’ve heard so much about.

      • 0 avatar
        izzy

        Take a chill pill, or take your comments somewhere else.

      • 0 avatar
        Beckola

        Tell us how you really feel. Ha.. just kidding I agree with you 100%. How any elected official can be allowed to create a law on their own which has zero chance of helping his state’s economy but a very high chance of doing great harm to it is beyond comprehension.

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        @SexCpotatoes

        Discrimination against those who discriminate is discrimination. If you don’t like discrimination, lead by example and don’t fight fire with fire.

        Your comments about the Democratic party are spot on though.

        • 0 avatar

          @Mandalorian, preventing people from discriminating isn’t discrimination. That’s like saying my freedom of speech is discriminated against because I can’t put a muzzle on you.

          It is not a hot-button issue at all, except for a frothy-mouthed minority who wants to control what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your own home/bedroom and with your body, and whether or not you can even say the words “climate change” or “global warming.” The number of people who support same sex marriage is well over 51% in this country and is on an upward trend.

          For what will not be the last time, I find myself having to say: “Other people having the same freedoms YOU have is NOT an infringement on YOUR freedom.”

          • 0 avatar
            Kendahl

            “Other people having the same freedoms YOU have is NOT an infringement on YOUR freedom.” That’s almost a libertarian position, but not quite. It leaves room for, “A freedom denied to me should be denied to you, also.” That morphs into, “A freedom I don’t personally want should be denied to everyone else.” Although there are many examples, one relevant to this forum is the self-righteous Prius owner who believes no one should be allowed to drive a Hellcat.

      • 0 avatar
        mr.cranky

        @SexCpotatoes- You got that damn right. The AM radio/Fox News mega trolls are now the face of the GOP. This means that your crazy ‘ol uncle is now a politician, espousing his “philosopiddy” of how teh gheys and atheists should be shot.

        Don’t be offended, folks. It’s the reality in front of your eyes. Feel free to point at “the other guy” but nothing will replicate the sheer lunacy that is the right wing in the United States.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          mr. cranky you got that right, or should I say, correct. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. Sad to see that what should be a reinforced concrete wall separating church and state is rapidly crumbling. Now, making it legal to discriminated in the name of religion is the name of the game. Kind of shoots some holes in the “we are all created in God’s image” that was drilled into my head as a kid. The only way to kill this is with money. Every business that is portable enough to move their operations elsewhere should do so immediately. If there’s one thing righty tighties like even better than discrimination, its MONEY.

      • 0 avatar
        Kendahl

        There is left-wing discrimination, too. Both left and right believe they are entitled to force their views on others.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      There’s nothing for Subaru to say. It’s not Subaru’s law/policy/edict, it’s Indiana’s, but I will say that it won’t help Indiana to attract new business. Indiana just shot themselves in the economic foot. I have a new state motto for them

      “Indiana, the North’s Mississippi”

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Subaru might go so far as to demand that no Subaru *dealers* act in the way now allowed.

        Not that any were likely to in the first place.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @CoreyDL – plenty of major companies have publicly voiced their support of, and indeed campaigned for marriage equality. 379 companies submitted a brief to the Supreme Court asking them to rule in favor of marriage equality this summer.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html

      ““Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships,” reads the brief, filed by global law firm Morgan Lewis. “Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law treatment.”

      Among the heavy hitters on the list:

      Coca-Cola
      Goldman Sachs
      Google
      Morgan Stanley
      Ben & Jerrys
      New England Patriots
      Aetna
      Amazon
      Alaska Airlines
      American Airlines
      American Express
      Apple
      AT&T
      Bank of America
      Barclays
      Cablevision
      Capitol One
      CBS
      Cigna
      Citi Group
      Comcast
      Con-Agra
      Cummins
      CVS
      Delta Airlines
      DirectTV
      Dupont
      Dow Chemical
      Ebay
      Electronic Arts
      Facebook
      GE
      General Mills
      Glaxosmith Kline
      Hewlett-Packard
      Hilton
      Intel
      Jetblue
      Johnson & Johnson
      JP Morgan & Chase
      Levi Strauss
      Marriott (run by an observant Mormon btw)
      Microsoft
      MillerCoors
      Nike
      Northrop Grumman
      Office Depot
      Pepsi
      Pfizer
      Proctor & Gamble
      Starbucks
      Tampa Bay Rays
      Target
      Staples
      Rockwell
      Twitter
      United Airlines
      Verizon
      Visa
      Disney
      Wells Fargo
      Xerox
      Wyndham

      • 0 avatar
        darkwing

        Yawn. Wake me when a bunch of government-dependent enterprises sign onto something *against* prevailing elite sentiment.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @darkwing – Whatever the companies’ reasons for taking that stance (I’m sure some are rational self interest and others are principled – Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, for example, has been outspoken in his support for marriage equality even if it means losing investors), the list is a rebuttal to Cory’s statement that ” Rarely does it benefit a company to come out in favor or against a hot button, divisive issue.”

          • 0 avatar
            darkwing

            “Hot button” and “divisive” are a matter of perspective, and that’s my point. They may be controversial among the population as a whole, but among the elites they’re actually sucking up to, they’re settled dogma.

            Now, if these companies were to come out against something like, say, overregulation or H1-B abuse, then it would be news.

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      Corey, who knows what will happen. You should have added this to your post.

      http://gaywheels.com/2015/03/subaru-remains-quiet-as-anti-lgbt-bill-becomes-law-in-indiana/

      Due to the new bigoted law in Indiana. Maybe that new S660 will be the leader of the LGBT community.

  • avatar
    210delray

    Boycotts by themselves don’t work. I can’t see many people refusing to buy a Subaru because of the backward state in which they are manufactured.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed. And the vast majority probably assume American Subarus are made in Japan, anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        snakebit

        It always surprised me that the buy American crowd had disdain for foreign intermediate cars like Accord, Legacy, Altima, Camry, yet loved their Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis, both of which were built in Ontario, and the ‘foreign’ intermediates were assembled in the actual US.

        No, I don’t think the governors reluctance(so far) to trash this ordinance/bill will affect sales of cars built at Subaru/Lafayette. But the NCAA basketball championships being pulled from Indiana will sting as much as forbidding Texas from hosting any Super Bowls. One thing I know, the NCAA won’t blink first, and neither will the table top gamers convention organizers and attendees. And the tens of millions of visitor dollars potentially lost if this redneck,knuckleheaded, discriminatory ordinance is signed into law by the governor will ripple through still more businesses. Indiana as a whole and the governor can’t afford to support this ordinance.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          Canada is American territory.

          They just don’t know it yet.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Sigivald- spoken like a typical Imperialist.

          • 0 avatar
            Jon Fage

            The darned thing is that the only thing that stops the Americans is that they’re too stupid to figure out metric. As soon as they get to the border and see a road sign in kilometres, well, let’s just say it makes them reach for their brown pants and, POW!, back to Peoria.

    • 0 avatar
      rblue

      Many of us here aren’t too excited about this turd of a bill. I live in Lafayette, and we are in the process of opening a GE jet turbine plant, just opened an aluminum plant, already are the home of ALCOA, and several other great industries. We weathered the economic downturn largely due to the success of Subaru throughout the ordeal. It’s really going to screw us, but rightfully so, unfortunately.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        How did Indiana attract all those new industrial jobs?

        • 0 avatar
          hgrunt

          Typically states attract industrial jobs like that by offering incentives and/or tax breaks, easier permitting, etc. Having a history of manufacturing in the area also shows that there’s a solid labor pool to draw upon.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            also, having access to cheaper energy costs helps a lot, especially with power hungry industries like aluminum.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I suppose its relevant as you argue but realistically a non-story. The Subaru plant is a billion dollar facility, they couldn’t just pick up and move for business reasons let alone political ones.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      salesforce.com is dropping it’s presence, and they’re not exactly small, and their stance is affecting others in the state.

      Mind you, they don’t have the kind of sunk costs Subaru does.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I predict null effect. Few Subaru buyers around the country will know or care.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Agree! No matter what the intent is, no one is going accept a $3 bill.

      Elevating a non-issue to make it relevant somehow, will not affect what people believe or how they will treat anyone intended to be helped by this bill.

      If I was in the market for a Subaru product, this bill would not affect my buying decision.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Thirded. The chance that the average buyer will ask where their car is assembled will be nil.

      I do question whether this would make Subaru less likely to stay in Indiana; certainly manufacturers move around all the time, and this will be a strike against Indiana the next time they think about relocating. But this alone isn’t going to cause them to pick up and spend hundreds of millions on a new facility elsewhere until their existing plant is obsolete.

    • 0 avatar
      rblue

      Ditto for the Toyota Camrys made in that plant as well.
      Edit: I hope, anyway

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Agreed.

      The average American is too dumb, too numb, too tired, and too disconnected to care.

      Ooooooooooooooooooo shiny!

      Ooooooooooooooooooo AWD! That means it is safer and I can drive fast in the snow.

      Ooooooooooooooooooo Bluetooth! I can tell everyone I have Bluetooth but never be able to figure out how to connect my phone so I’ll drive around just talking on my phone anyway.

      Does it come in marsala? I read on Buzzfeed, like marsala is the color of 2015, and I want that color.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “The average American is too dumb…”

        Ah, the Jonathan Gruber philosophy!

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I just learned marsala was a color. Shows how disconnected I am. I’ve been calling it fuchsia. Why didn’t someone tell me? I’ve been making an idiot out of myself.

      • 0 avatar
        brettc

        Is that seriously the the reason? I always wonder why I see idiots in new cars with their phones stuck to their head when I know they should be in handsfree mode.

        And yes, AWD means you can drive however you’d like in the winter with no consequences. Because physics don’t apply with fourah wheel drive (as they say in Maine).

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    We all buy Made-in-China products, but most people don’t fret about their laws, which are much more onerous than anything Indiana can cook up – on a variety of subjects.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      If it weren’t for the Made in China, Made in Mexico, Made in India, Made in Honduras, et al products, my living standard would be a lot lower than it is today.

      • 0 avatar
        wolfinator

        Yup. The average American’s standard of living has exploded since the 70’s, when offshoring began in earnest.

        Oh wait.

        Maybe saving $10 on a toaster while you get laid off doesn’t actually improve your standard of living.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Oh and that toaster will break in six months.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Yeah, but it is cheap enough to buy another brand new one to replace it. Did that with our Euro-Pro Toaster/Rotisserie/Convection Countertop Oven.

            Being in the real-estate rental business, that’s what we, and many others like us, have been doing when appliances fail.

            We go to Lowe’s or Home Depot to pick up and install a brand new one to replace it.

            Let me tell you, the crap appliances made in the USA are worse than ever. They rarely last beyond their warranty period.

            We don’t even register them anymore. Just jack up the rent to offset the anticipated replacement cost of the appliances.

            And…..we’ve been switching from Whirlpool, Maytag, and Frigidaire to Samsung, LG, Miele and Siemens.

            So far, so good.

          • 0 avatar
            Advance_92

            And it will have one of those notes attached to the cord saying handling it will give you lead poisoning.

          • 0 avatar
            Toad

            If you are chewing on the cord you will probably have other problems before the lead poisoning sets in.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          …Maybe saving $10 on a toaster while you get laid off doesn’t actually improve your standard of living…..

          Somebody gets it. And even if it was a trade-off, the waste of the throwaway mentality is bankrupt.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        HDC- offshoring jobs and manufacuring is a way of controlling inflation and has been referred as that ….offshoring inflation”

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Lou, in many cases, at least up to just recently, it also allowed businesses to make a greater profit for their shareholders or owners.

          Now that China has gotten Capitalist religion it turns out that making it in Mexico is cheaper than making it in China.

          • 0 avatar
            tuffjuff

            So HDC is a rental property owner, eh? That explains his large budget for huge SUVs. Thanks for clearing that up!

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            tuffjuff, I just repair, maintain and renovate the rentals. The wife’s family owns the business.

            I get my extra money by scraping it together doing odd jobs. There’s a lot of money to be made out there, if a person is willing to work for it.

  • avatar
    Skink

    I don’t think Subaru will take advantage of this law to discriminate against anyone.

    Since Subaru didn’t support this law, and since their plant long predated the bill, and since it’s prohibitively expensive to move production, and since Subaru has long been inclusive, I expect there won’t be any meaningful impact on Subaru.

  • avatar
    djsyndrome

    “But one of Subaru’s core constituencies has been the LGBT community.”

    I keep seeing this written, and have yet to see one shred of evidence supporting it. Not that any automaker would ever dare tabulate sales by customer sexual orientation.

    Is Subaru LGBT-friendly? Absolutely. Does that mean the majority (or even a solid percentage) of their sales are to LGBT folks? Who knows!

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      From my experience, one of Subaru’s core constituencies has been the mountain and four-season communities.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      U.S. geography happens to shake out in a way that many of the most LGBT-friendly places in the country are also places where people find Subarus useful. LGBT and non-LGBT people buy Subarus in the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest because they are great mountain and winter cars.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      You’d be amazed how many of them you see in Denver with the rainbow stickers. At a minimum those are people who are sensitive to the issue of gay rights.

      But as Subaru itself isn’t behind this stupid law, I doubt anyone would choose not to buy one of their cars over it.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “the rainbow stickers.”

        I wonder what motivates people to advertise their homosexuality? I do not have a sticker on my vehicles that proclaims, “Normie! I’m Straight!”

        Must be personal greeting, like someone in an F150 flipping me the stink-finger when they see me driving my Tundra 5.7 in Ford Country; NM, TX, AZ, OK.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          No different than any other divisive or political bumper sticker. I personally don’t put anything on a car because it can damage the paint and the as the color fades the paint looks newer when they sticker is removed.

          • 0 avatar

            I don’t think it’s necessarily political, just being proud of who you are. Of course, different countries and cultures, but here we see a lot of evangelical people putting “Jesus” and such on their cars. After a while, it has become rather common for Catholics to put a sticker of Our Lady on their cars. Yes, there is a political element, but I think it’s just people being proud of being in the camp they are.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Good point Marcelo.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            28-cars, I know what you mean. Military people were required until recently to have military registration stickers on their vehicles in order to get on military bases.

            After I bought my $1 Camry I scraped off the military registration stickers on the plastic bumper cover and the windshield.

            Now there is this black spot where the sticker used to be on the bumper cover while the rest of the bumper cover is faded to gray.

            Next project is to Armor-All the black trim items to hopefully make it all blend together.

            Taking a razor-blade to the glass to scrape off stickers and crud has done wonders for caked-on, baked-on grime.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @28:
            “I personally don’t put anything on a car because it can damage the paint and the as the color fades the paint looks newer when they sticker is removed.”

            Yeah, I wonder how the paint’s gonna look on my neighbor’s car when he finally peels off the McCain sticker off his trunk…six years after the election…much anger do I sense in that padawan.

            Only thing that’s on my car is my daughter’s high school logo and my Star Trek stick figures, all on the back window. One daughter is Uhura, the other is Nurse Chapel, and I’m the Klingon. I’d rather amuse my neighbors than hack them off.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Why do people advertise their religion with those silly fish emblems?

          At least a rainbow sticker might get you a date.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          A bi friend of mine said she got pressure from other people to put one of the equal-sign stickers on her car, “because otherwise you’re closeted” or something to that effect.

          It’s not that “gay people” are inherently motivated to advertise, but that a subset of the culture involved has LONG been hyper-political.

          Which is a shame, because sexuality ought not be politicized.

        • 0 avatar
          boxermojo

          I know, right? It’s not like straight people put stick figures of all their family members and pets on the back window of their vehicles or anyt—

          OH WAIT.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Well, HDC, I don’t know what motivates someone to put something like “Obama is a communist” on their car, but they do. Something about freedom of speech, I seem to recall.

          And since when does someone have to be gay to put a pro-gay rights sticker on their car?

      • 0 avatar
        slow kills

        I was just going to say that I can’t recall ever seeing a Baja without a rainbow sticker on the back.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        “But as Subaru itself isn’t behind this stupid law, I doubt anyone would choose not to buy one of their cars over it.”

        Well, since I’ve seen people call for cancelling giant pre-planned conventions there, because they’d … support local businesses who also didn’t support or promote that law.

        I’m sure at least one person will decide “Made in Indiana” means They Cannot Buy One, Because Sending Some Message!

        It’s irrational and ineffective, but it sends a signal of “caring about it”, so people do it.

        • 0 avatar
          golden2husky

          Organized dissent can be quite effective. Many years ago there was a push for restrictive abortion laws in Idaho. Woman’s rights groups jumped into action and since women back then did the vast majority of shopping, they began to set the groundwork for the boycotting of Idaho potatoes. The proposed law disappeared nearly overnight. Dissent is about the most patriotic thing you can do as an average citizen.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      (Subaru) is arguably the most high-profile and has waged the most sustained campaign for the pink dollar. Subaru was one of three charter sponsors when the gay-themed TV channel Logo launched in 2005, and the company has gained recognition for “gay-coded” ad campaigns, including one that featured custom license plates like “XENA-LVR,” “P-TOWN,” and “CAMP OUT.”

      …According to Subaru’s research, lesbians are “four times as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to own a Subaru.” But what kind of Subaru? NPR’s Car Talk found the Outback to be the No. 1 car among lesbians, with the Forester coming in second.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/01/02/lesbians_and_subarus_why_do_lesbians_love_outbacks_and_foresters.html

      ___________

      That being said, no one can presume from any of that that lesbians dominate Subaru’s customer base or that most lesbians buy Subarus. It would seem, however, that Subarus are overrepresented in lesbian driveways.

    • 0 avatar
      mike9o

      Self reported sexual orientation data is available to the vast majority of OEM’s that buy syndicated research data. An OEM can just have a database query run to see the orientation of their buyers. Its not a big deal and can be used to justify ad spending. Its extremely unlikely that the majority of Subaru sales are to LGBT but they could index much higher than other makes. If I could use mTab I could find out myself.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    As pathetic, stupid and bigoted as this bill is, it’s not Subaru’s fault it was enacted, so it wouldn’t make any difference to me, and I’m a strong supporter of gay rights. Subaru can’t help that Indiana has gone wacky-right since they built their plant there, after all.

    But it may have an impact on future decisions on the part of companies to do business in the state. You have to love this laser-like focus on jobs they have in Indiana right wing politics…

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Did you happen to read it?

      http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Yep. And it’s absolutely ridiculous.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          I wonder why people felt the bill was necessary.

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            It’s a losing, desperate attempt by bigots who know the general public has turned against them. Same thing as Arizona spurning MLK Day 30 years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “I wonder why people felt the bill was necessary.”

            Because now you have the government telling a small shop that makes wedding cakes that they can’t refuse service to someone asking for a cake with two dudes on top. A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, any time. It’s none of the government’s business.

          • 0 avatar

            Rolls eyes…

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Master Baiter, I remember that coverage on either PBS, Bloomberg or my local ABC news station, where this wedding-cake-maker refused to make their wedding cake because of his religious beliefs, opposing homosexuality.

            So that’s where this stems from.

            (HAH! Next we’ll see legislation re Global Warming dictating that we must all believe in Global Warming!!! “YOU MUST BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING OR WE’LL CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF!” Eco-terrorists, Muslim terrorists and now gay-rights terrorists. The new America for ya!)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, any time. It’s none of the government’s business.”

            You’re about fifty years behind the curve. Try typing “Greensboro lunch counter sit-in” into your favorite search engine.

          • 0 avatar

            What I can’t understand is, if you are a gay couple who wants a wedding cake, why would you want to compel someone who you strongly disagree with to take your money?

            I understand compelling it in the South where every restaurant was doing it. But these days, it’s hard to imagine that a gay couple can’t find someone else to make their cake – and that a bakery down the street from the one that won’t bake a cake won’t see it as an opportunity to hang a big “WE BAKE GAY WEDDING CAKES” banner outside and make money off of it.

            It seems like the kind of problem that could fix itself on it’s own.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Separate but equal is an oxymoron, hence the objection.

          • 0 avatar
            SC5door

            “gay-rights terrorists”

            Those words coming from an admitted tax dodger?

            Give me a break.

          • 0 avatar
            VW16v

            Why did people feel it was necessary? Because people enjoy controlling other people. They enjoy hiding behind religion so there bigoted behavior is excepted. The law also guarantees votes from a certain sector of voters. Votes = money.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            *their

            *accepted

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            VW16v, that is probably the most intelligent post on the human condition I’ve ever seen from you. I would just add one thing to “Votes = money” = power, because it’s all about the power

          • 0 avatar
            VW16v

            Lie2 …Hey, I enjoy making people think. But, there is no real thought in these pro Christian anti-LGBT laws. Like the USA is going backwards in time. I work with many LGBT physicians and nurses and they are mostly disgusted by these laws across the country. Take a look at
            http://gaywheels.com/2015/03/subaru-remains-quiet-as-anti-lgbt-bill-becomes-law-in-indiana/

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Difficult legal language to say the least and although I’m not a legal scholar I didn’t read anything explicitly discriminating against anyone. What I found particularly amusing was this:

          “A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

          I interpret this as gov’t *can* interfere with the “exercise of religion” if (1) the gov’t determines the burden is in its interest and (2) is the least restrictive means of further meeting that interest. So essentially gov’t can violate the law when they please (“is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;”) which nullifies the whole thing and proves its just a political move to placate elements of the populace. Evidently the some of the “opposition” leftists lack the skills to read and comprehend what actually happened while [some] MSM chimes right in on cue also without apparently investigating the facts of the bill.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            It’s a conservative war against the kind of public accommodation requirements that overturned Jim Crow laws. You are free to discriminate in your private life, but there is no protected right to discriminate when serving the public.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Playing devil’s advocate, who defines the “public accommodation requirements”?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for starters.

          • 0 avatar
            slance66

            Good grief the coverage on this is abysmal. The bill parrots the law as it exists today under the 1st Amendment jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Nothing more. Like it or not, religious liberty is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. So any law that burdens it must meet that same test stated in the Bill. It’s already the law in every state. Unfortunately, the average photographer or baker can’t afford to challenge the local government folks in court to uphold their rights. That’s what this is about.

            As for public accommodation, there is nothing in this bill that would allow a restaurant to refuse to serve gay couples or any store to refuse them. It would protect those who’s service requires them to participate in a ceremony or endorse something that is in conflict with their religious views. Similar bills already exist in several states.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            I don’t think that this kind of legislation is necessary.
            I view it as the typical pendulum swing.

            We see marginalized groups gain political power and legal equality but it tends to overshoot. Traditional religions then get forced into accepting things that are against their core beliefs.
            I do think that it is silly to refuse to make a wedding cake with 2 dudes on but it should be my right to refuse to be part of something my beliefs are against.
            I’ve seen this happen in hospitals where a person refused to be part of an abortion based on beliefs and it became a legal mess.
            Some groups see “tolerance” as discrimination because they believe acceptance is the only outcome. Tolerance works both ways especially if you don’t accept the opposing belief.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “You’re about fifty years behind the curve.”

            That’s right. I forgot we’re on the slow road to totalitarianism. Frogs being boiled one degree at a time by idiots like you.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “I forgot we’re on the slow road to totalitarianism”

            Ah, right-wing crocodile tears: “You’re infringing on my right to discriminate! Totalitarianism!”

            Tell me, if this was Sharia law, you’d be fighting it tooth and nail, wouldn’t you?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “if this was Sharia law” they’d chop your head off, you infidel!

          • 0 avatar
            Mr. Orange

            @lance66

            This bill was written in such a way to protect those individuals who are by law protected under the law. Since LGBT individuals are not formally a protected group under state law it makes them a group that anti-discrimination laws do not apply to.

            If someone feels as if their religious beliefs are being threated and the individual is gay that is the culprit. Since a gay person does not fall under any protected minority class according to Indiana law. The offended party can turn away the gay person because the law doesn’t mention them.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            ““if this was Sharia law” they’d chop your head off, you infidel!”

            Well, in all fairness, and per Judeo-Christian tradition, we should be stoning gays. For that matter, we should be stoning a lot of people.

            Good thing that we put limits on religion so that people can’t just do anything they want and claim a spiritual “get of of jail free” card.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            “For that matter, we should be stoning a lot of people.”

            That’s why I can’t understand why we in America haven’t progressed to the point yet where we recognize other deviants and perverts like NAMBLA, sodomists, or people who want to marry their horse, dog, sheep, chicken or snake.

            Lotta ‘love’ going on there too.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Ah, right-wing crocodile tears: ‘You’re infringing on my right to discriminate! Totalitarianism!’ ”

            They have also redefined “racist” as “those who dislike racism.”

          • 0 avatar
            Mr. Orange

            When ever that law in Levitticus is described by stoning or being stoned as the course of action. I see it as a religious rational or duty to move to Colorado or Amsterdam.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “we should be stoning a lot of people.”

            Sure are alot of people getting stoned today though ;)

            @Lou_BC

            Great post. MSM cites whatever happened at that bakery as some kind of battlecry but it really boils down to common sense. If I go to a Muslim baker and ask for a cake to celebrate the anniversary of the 1948 founding of Israel or a Jewish baker and ask for a cake to celebrate Ramadan (or the obscure anniversary of the the SS Das Reich division’s 1941 conquest of Belgrade for that matter), neither would probably be very impressed. But common sense isn’t allowed to enter into it, nor is the right of refusal apparently.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            @slance66: You’re right and you’re wrong. The bill parrots federal law set forth in the (federal) Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The RFRA was necessary, however, because the First Amendment explicitly does _not_ give you the right to disobey generally applicable laws. Take a gander through Employment Division v. Smith.

            And there is absolutely plenty in the bill that would allow you to refuse service to a gay couple. Specifically, the bill says that, if a store owner (say) sues the state saying that a nondiscrimination law offends their religious predilection to not serve gay couples, the government must prove that the law furthers a compelling government interest by the narrowest means possible. That’s (intentionally) a very, very hard standard to meet.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @HDC

            You should be able to marry your dog, as long as your dog wants to marry you. Not sure what constitutes consent with a dog though.

            Realistically, what impact does it have on you? Live and let live. I have religious friends who have some pretty darned weird practices to my mind, but it doesn’t bother me at all. I really truly could not possibly care less what anyone does in the bedroom, as long as all parties consent.

            I’m really of two minds about the whole thing with this law. On the one hand, I don’t like discrimination in any form. Being of mixed race, I have experienced it first hand on an unfortunate number of occasions in my life – especially having grown up in the whitest state in the nation. On the other hand, I also feel like if I run my own business, who I want to do business with should be entirely up to me. If I want to be an imbecile and turn away money, that should be my own business no matter what the rational – maybe I just don’t like you. I have “fired” clients who were more of a PITA than the revenue they generated was worth. A quandary.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            28-Cars-Later – thanks. It all boils down to respect. As a member of a civil society, it is my right to believe what ever I want but I must extend that right to others. It is highly hypocritical of any person to say “it is my right” if it violates your rights. Ethics is an interesting field and unfortunately has to be taught. We see that in the debate around freedom of speech. I have the right to say what I want but not if it hurts you.

          • 0 avatar
            Sigivald

            “If I go to a Muslim baker and ask for a cake to celebrate the anniversary of the 1948 founding of Israel or a Jewish baker and ask for a cake to celebrate Ramadan (or the obscure anniversary of the the SS Das Reich division’s 1941 conquest of Belgrade for that matter), neither would probably be very impressed. But common sense isn’t allowed to enter into it, nor is the right of refusal apparently.”

            Damn right.

            Hard cases make bad law, as they say.

            The same civil liberties that mean Nazis can march through Skokie mean that not only can Jewish printers refuse to print holocaust-denying fliers for them, but that religious bakers can refuse to make a cake with a two-guys topper or words on it saying “Happy Gay Marriage!”.

            Should they refuse? Maybe, maybe not; there are practical considerations and ways to subvert such a request that might make more sense.

            Can they refuse, under any decent conception of liberty? Yes.

            If liberty doesn’t *allow* outcomes we think are bad, *it ain’t enough liberty*.

            (And if the response is “buy gays aren’t Nazis!”, you’re *missing the point* [of COURSE they’re not the same!].

            Which is that law and civil society can’t have separate rules for “good guys” and “bad guys”, “good speech” and “bad speech”, “stuff I like” and “stuff I dislike”.

            If everyone has to serve everyone, that means the gay baker has to make cakes for the WBC that say “God Hates Fags”.

            Do we want that? I don’t.

            Alternatively, we can just let people choose not to participate in *speech* they find distasteful.)

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Lou and 28 I think what you say is common sense. I understand the reason for the law now. Adults private behavior is no business of mine, but I don’t buy the analogy to racism.

            No one should have right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them, or a certain photographer to record their wedding or a baker to bake the wedding cake. Declining to perform these services doesn’t violate anyone’s sexual freedoms. Some people (priests, pastors, bakers, florists) apparently feel that they cannot in good conscience participate in a same-sex ceremony. Forcing them to comply or go out of business is a “convert or die” situation and infringes on their freedom much more than someone having to choose another baker.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Sounds about right krhodes

          • 0 avatar
            SC5door

            “That’s why I can’t understand why we in America haven’t progressed to the point yet where we recognize other deviants and perverts like NAMBLA, sodomists, or people who want to marry their horse, dog, sheep, chicken or snake.”

            Your intelligence level shows right there. Can a horse, dog, sheep, chicken or snake enter into a legally binding contract? Can those animals enter into a courthouse, present themselves to the judge and say “I do”?

            Your point is void and archaic. Next time try something different like “It ruins MY marriage”. Oh and BTW someone who is gay doesn’t make them a “deviant”.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            krhodes1, I don’t care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own space as long as they do not infringe upon me or my rights.

            And what these fudgepackers do has no impact on my life as long as they don’t try to force me to accept that they have more rights than I do.

            If someone refuses me service because of my religious beliefs, I’ll go elsewhere. No need for me to make a federal case over it. I am respectful of the belief of others.

            Live and let live but leave me out of the circle jerk.

            Being of mixed race is not a limiting factor in America. America is the great melting pot of this planet. Being of mixed race, or being Jewish, can be a huge factor outs!de of America.

            My #1 son is currently still married to a Japanese lady who has some difficulty accepting mixed-race people (i.e. Japanese-American children out of a mixed race Air Force marriage) but that is due to her pure Japanese heritage and cultural beliefs.

            My #2 son is married a to girl of the 57 Heinz variety, as is my grandson in Fallbrook, CA. Some French, some Vietnamese, some Chinese, some American, All-Californian, all of it in both of them. Each is very pretty and they make beautiful mixed-race children.

            And my#3 son is married to a Mexican-born girl who was an illegal alien at age 11. She became a citizen when he got his Commission in the US Army, but the rest of her illegal alien family never did become American citizens — they still proudly carry their Green Cards received at the last amnesty.

            Hell, my dad was Portuguese, my mom German. Both s!des of my family don’t quite know how I fit in or how to treat me.

            The Portuguese-family of me s!de decided I could not wear the family-crest ring because I’m not 100% Portuguese, so now my cousin is “head of the family.”

            Such is life. It might be a big deal in Portugal to be head of a family, tribe or clan, but I’m OK with being a nobody in the family. Hey, I drive a Tundra and have cars. Most of them don’t even have a car! Can’t afford them.

            You’re right, it is one of the quandaries of life in these United States but I dare say, were I faced with that predicament, I would err on the s!de of the money. But that’s just me.

            As far as homosexuality in America is concerned? I’ve traveled all over the world and it is not an issue in Europe.

            But it is a major issue in other places where I have been, like Japan, Viet Nam, South Korea, Muslim Indonesia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Muslim Turkey.

            I’m certain that homosexuality exists in those countries but it is kept under wraps and not openly flaunted expressly to offend those who are asked to accept it as normal relationships.

            You don’t see all that flaunting and taunting in Muslim countries like Iran. They’d stone them in a public square. Reverse flaunting. Or chop their heads off, if living in the ISIL.

            Iran and Russia both claimed that homosexuality does not exist in those countries.

            BTW, if you want to see weird practices, try being a Scottish Rite Mason. I don’t know about the Prince Hall Masons or if their rituals differ.

            I believe that most Americans can be very tolerant as long as their faces are not rubbed in it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            The “compelling government interest” is equal civil rights, 28. This law overrides that with religious outrage. Sorry, no sale.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Precisely the point, its a law with no teeth which the gov’t can freely violate with a built in get-out-of-jail-free card and only exists to placate political elements in the state. Nobody bothered to look at the facts, of the law in question. MSM played you all for fools. Now ask yourself, why?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @sigivald:
            “The same civil liberties that mean Nazis can march through Skokie mean that not only can Jewish printers refuse to print holocaust-denying fliers for them, but that religious bakers can refuse to make a cake with a two-guys topper or words on it saying “Happy Gay Marriage!”

            The difference being:
            1) Just about everyone is equally outraged by Nazism.

            2) There’s a big difference between rejecting Nazism, which is utterly, absolutely, unarguably wrong, and discriminating against patrons in your business because you don’t like what they do in bed.

            The only sexual activity I know of that puts conservative Christians’ panties in a wad is gay sex. However, there are PLENTY of other sinful sexual practices that various Christian (and non-Christian) sects have proscribed. We can start with masturbation, which is verboten in Catholicism. What this means, of course, is that since masturbation is offensive to Catholic faith, a business owner can kick out masturbators. Now, of course, that means kicking about 99% of his customers out, so there’s that, but isn’t the real point that what we all do in bed is none of a shopkeeper’s f**king business?

            And that’s the real problem with this type of law: it’s discriminatory on its face…unless, of course, Christian shopkeepers intend to make moral judgments about the sexual activities of their STRAIGHT customers too.

            Let me know when that happens, and I’ll support their right to turn anyone away because of their sex life. Until then, it’s obvious and plain discrimination.

            In the end this isn’t about gay rights. It’s about the rights of ALL American citizens to patronize businesses without being judged on the perfectly legal things they do in bed.

          • 0 avatar
            N8iveVA

            @highdesertcat – How dare gays flaunt their homosexuality the way straights flaunt their sexuality? And seriously, “fudgepackers”? What are you, 17 years old? Thanks for making it clear you’re a bigot.

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      So if a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a black couple, you all would be fine with that as well? Pathetic. And I don’t even think that wedding cake thing happened in Indiana, either, seems like it was Colorado.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        @LectroByte, +1

        How soon people forget that in the 1800s (pre 1865) their was much ink spilled and fiery preaching from many a Christian pulpit to try to justify slavery from a Christian religious standpoint. That it was a God given right, no a DUTY even to enslave inferior people.

        Heck, it wasn’t until 1967 that my own marriage was legal nationwide. A white man marrying a member of the Navajo tribe – the HORROR.

        • 0 avatar

          PrincipalDan, and at least as much ink was spilled and words were preached by Christians opposed to slavery. It was Christians like William Wilberforce, the author of Amazing Grace, who put an end to slavery. The abolitionist and civil rights movements had important religious components. Heck, Jesse Jackson even cooked up some kind of divinity degree because he wanted a leadership role and so many of the civil rights movements leaders like Rev. King and Rev. Abernathy were, well, reverends.

          Considering the role of Muslims and African animists in the slave trade I’m not about to condemn Christianity because a few southern preachers hung their racism on biblical passages.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            I’m not trying to condemn Christianity wholesale – heck I was raised Catholic and still attend service 3 to 4 times a month.

            What I’m condemning is using religion as a justification for anything. That is the flimsiest of justifications regardless of your belief system.

            Hypocrisy is what gets my ire up.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @Lectrobyte

        Would I be fine with that – no, not at all. That business would not get a penny of my money ever, or that of as many people as I have any influence over. And that goes for them discriminating against any “class” of people, just because they don’t like that “type” of person. Black, white, gay, straight, male, female, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, whatever. Not serving an individual because they are an @sshole is a different matter entirely.

        But on the other hand, I respect that they should have the ability to run their business as they please, even if I don’t like it – I don’t have to do business with them afterall. If you want to believe in the magic man in the sky and He tells you to hate homosexuals, I think you are an idiot and I don’t want a thing to do with you, but I do respect your right to those beliefs.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Right on krhodes1. The idea in general would be that other patrons would basically shun that establishment out of existence, upon hearing how clientele is treated. If the bakery that doesn’t cater to gay marriages, fine. The customers will be the jury on that one. If enough are unhappy, the business will fail. If not many mind, so be it. Of course one gets on the slippery slope of if the Civil Rights Act were never enacted, there would be plenty of restaurants in isolated communities that would to this day not serve black patrons. I’m not exactly sure where that leaves us. I do generally prescribe to the notion that you can’t legislate morality, in either direction. I don’t believe in laws banning gay marriage, nor do I believe in laws that enshrine marriage of the ‘regular’ heterosexual sort in a legal sense. If you want to be in a civil union and pay taxes together, etc, fine. It can be anyone with anyone, not even a sexual relationship. Along with that, I don’t believe in the government telling businesses or people how to treat other people, besides the basic ‘don’t kill/hurt people.’

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            This is why I am very conflicted about it. Where do you draw the line between and individuals rights to their beliefs and the wrong that is discrimination? It really IS a slippery slope. But on the other hand, bigotry does seem to be slowly going away. It is not the social norm that it was 50 years ago.

            For CERTAIN the government shouldn’t get to discriminate. In marriage or anything else. My parents could not have gotten married in many states – they married here in Maine prior to Loving v. Virginia. I see absolutely no difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            It does become tough to draw the line as to what is acceptable morality. Like I said earlier, if the exercising of my rights impinge on your rights then there has to be an ethical resolution. Substituting black for gay is an interesting twist. If my right as a business owner is to refuse service to whom I chose but doing so shows hate and/ or intolerance or subjects that person to hate then it becomes clear as to which right is of greater value.
            Most orthodox religions believe that same sex coupling go against their beliefs but I don’t know any mainstream orthodox religions that express that in a hateful way.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Lectrobyte, now that you mention it, I, too, believe it was in Colorado. Denver to be exact.

        Where’s Denver Mike when we need him?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverInfidel

        What’s pathetic is affluent white homosexuals running around suburban Denver pretending they are victims. Hijacking what blacks went through because some guy disagrees with you is a whole new form of pathetic. The whole episode just proves that being declared a victim is the highest form of achievement for progressives. You have no civil right to a wedding cake – find a new baker. If someone offends you that much why would you willingly associate with them?

        Just curious, why didn’t these two daisy pullers seek out a Muslim or Arab or Jewish baker? Of all the cake bakers in all of Denver these clowns just happen to find some white Christian dude in a tiny bakery in non-descript strip mall? Why haven’t they gone after a black Baptist preacher for refusing to perform the ceremony? Poor poor victims, that took some incredible bravery there, like a modern day Selma.

        I don’t care what you do in your bedroom, you shouldn’t care what that baker does in his bakery.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          My guess would be that this bakery thing was a set-up. Carefully orchestrated to get national attention.

          Expressly aimed at rubbing the noses of the tolerant people in it.

        • 0 avatar
          italianstallion

          What is pathetic is that bigots like DenverInfidel, highdesertcat and Master Baiter feel so threatened by those seeking basic human dignity and equal treatment under the law. Something that all three are afforded but clearly take for granted.

          These recent RFRA laws in Indiana and elsewhere enshrine and protect this kind of discrimination, hate and ignorance. Shame on elected officials for catering to the sentiments and fears of the lowest common denominator instead of protecting all of us from them.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Well, I’ll tell ya what, “infidel”: the day that a gay owned business turns away a bunch of customers wearing “Jesus saves” t-shirts, and the folks in the t-shirts don’t get outraged and make a call to the media, then your point makes sense. After all, don’t gay people get to discriminate against customers who outrage them morally too?

          I’ll wait for that day. And I’ll be waiting for a long time because…it’s not gay people doing the discriminating, is it?

          And by the way…what does affluence have to with not being able to enjoy the same rights your fellow citizens enjoy? Should they just say, “oh, well, I’m well off so I’ll just leave well enough alone”? Weak.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I’m always surprised at how few Subarus I see on the roads of Indianapolis, relatively speaking. The ones I do see are mostly very new, latest generation Outbacks and Foresters, which makes sense given the ‘mainstream’ acceptance of Subarus in the past few years.

    Like Corey said, if they’re smart they’ll stay mum, or pay nominal lip service and say that they as a company are all inclusive and support LGBT rights without making any sort of stand against the new law.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      My unsolicited advice to Subaru would be to stay quiet.

      It’s a non-issue, the motivation behind it is not clear no matter what mumbo-jumbo its proponents want to baffle Americans with.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        The bill IS an issue, but not from Subaru’s standpoint. They already provide benefits to their GLBTQ staff. What the plant CAN do is not do business with contractors that discriminate.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I think you have highlighted the intent of the article and I, for one, did not know that Subaru is currently doing business with contractors that discriminate.

          Actually, if true, that is pretty stupid on the part of the contractors since their entire reason for existing is to make money.

          They do not have to accept any $3 bills, but they should accept all other legal tender so that they can be viable and profitable.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            We see lots of examples in the news of businesspersons who care enough about not serving gay people that they will sacrifice money to avoid it.

            I have a bit of sympathy for the point of view that a sole proprietor should not be subject to antidiscrimination requirements, for the same reason that the legal system won’t enforce a “specific performance” remedy against an employee. It’s hard to make an individual take a task seriously that he or she doesn’t want to.

            But when it comes to a place of public accommodation – a business that has a storefront and multiple employees — there is no difference between this discrimination and Jim Crow, and outlawing it is a no-brainer.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            dal20402, but discrimination exists, in America and on the rest of the planet.

            If this is the result of the bakery incident, the owner felt strongly enough about it to close his shop and business over it.

            Personally, I thought it was stupid to refuse the business.

            He could have jacked up the price for his cake and service to where he would have priced himself out of that market and the guys would have looked for another bakery.

            This is done in the real-estate rental business all the time.

            That’s how come I’m living where I’m living now in town because we priced the future rent out of the renter’s reach, they moved out, we moved in.

            All in anticipation of the minimum wage increases.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    …jokes about their likelihood of owning a Subaru have become commonplace – and resulted in the downfall of our former EIC…

    Wait. What?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Sarc or serious?

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        No serious. I thought former EIC transitioned to Derek and that was always the plan of record when the Bertel issue blew up. That Jack was going to be in the role short term (relatively speaking) and a new EIC would be picked. Whether that was current EIC or a TBD wasn’t revealed or considered at that point.

        I did not know the former EIC was removed for his errrrr…views.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Yes it was quite a scandal. Without too much of a rehash, it started out about a Subaru article in which he made a brash reference to homosexuals. He then followed it up with more lewd themed articles and a personal attack article on Steve Lynch which references sex toys. He went way off the map, real quick, with everyone and was dismissed.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Subaru won’t abandon a nine-figure capital asset, but I do hope for the sake of their LGBT employees, and for the sake of their own ability to recruit and retain LGBT talent, that they state their opposition to the bill.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      I’m not sure stating their opposition to the bill will do much good either. Current and future potential LGBT talent have to consider whether they want to live in a community where the state has provided cover for business to discriminate. Same applies to non-LGBT talent that does not want to live in such an environment. Subaru might be tolerant, but what about every business they have to interact with outside of work?

      I agree with others saying the best bet is to stay quiet and see how it goes. Hopefully businesses that use this law as cover for discrimination are a tiny to non-existent minority, and there is little impact everywhere, not just for Subaru.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        “Subaru might be tolerant, but what about every business they have to interact with outside of work?”

        Pretty much all of them aren’t going to do a damned thing.

        As you hope, there’s basically no chance that anti-gay discrimination in Indiana will “go mainstream”.

        (I mean, before this law, *any business* could already discriminate against gay people … just not by saying “get out, gay person!”.

        Any number of horrible people have treated perceived-gay customers rudely or given then poor service without simply telling them to leave.

        Since it can be hard to be sure it’s anti-gay bias rather than just-being-an-asshole, it’s hard to manage a suit or prove it, so it … just continues.)

  • avatar
    SC5door

    The bill has no bearing on Subaru’s manufacturing in Indiana.

    Subaru has long said they are GLBTQ friendly, and provide benefits to same sex couples. The only NON GLBTQ friendly companies are now Hyundai/KIA and that doesn’t stop the GLBTQ community from buying those cars either.

    Of my gay friends not one owns a Subaru. BMW’s (3), Mercedes (1), Camaro, Challenger, Regal, Verano, Jetta, Silverado’s (including HD) Hyundai’s, and Foci make up the mix. Please provide data before generalizing a group of people.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Is Hyundai/KIA anti-queer?

      (I ask seriously; I don’t follow such things in any detail, though I know enough people that I tend to see echoes of such things if they go around.

      I’ve never seen anyone mention the idea.

      I’d love to know the basis of it, and the degree.)

      Or, alternatively, are they just not-affirmatively-friendly?

      • 0 avatar
        LectroByte

        > Is Hyundai/KIA anti-queer?

        I can’t answer that, but they don’t have an anti-gay discrimination policy like most of the other manufacturers, GM, Ford, etc.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I doubt nearly any for profit business is against any one subset of a population which buys its products.

          “but they don’t have an anti-gay discrimination policy like most of the other manufacturers”

          So… there needs to be corporate policies in effect else ABC Corp could be construed as anti-red, anti-blue, or anti-green?

          • 0 avatar
            darkwing

            From a company that probably had a team of 20 drafting their sexual harassment policy, it seems improbable that they wouldn’t have one.

            It’s not enough, though, to just draft some boilerplate HR-ese. A few high six/lower seven-figure “donations” are of course required.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Shakedowns, er “donations”, seem to be commonplace in these sort of political situations.

          • 0 avatar
            SC5door

            There should be at minimum a policy in place that doesn’t tolerate discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identification…ect. Especially since KIA and Hyundai has plants in the deep south.

            According to how it’s classified:

            ” To be considered gay-friendly, an automakers must, at a minimum, have a policy that prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      I don’t really understand it either. But, the LGBT community does support, or did support Subaru.

      http://gaywheels.com/2015/03/subaru-remains-quiet-as-anti-lgbt-bill-becomes-law-in-indiana/

  • avatar
    philipwitak

    i, for one, refuse to ever visit indiana – whether or not i am in the market for a new subaru. and neither will my wife – so that’s two! how do you do?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I for one will also never visit Indiana nor my….

      BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Who am I kidding. I had no intent of visiting Indiana in the first place.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Hey! We have nice…. corn and soy fields.. oh and there’s Gary!

        The southern part of the state at least has some hills and other geographical features, but central and up… forget it. I want to gouge my eyes out every time I make the drive from Indy to Ft Wayne, it’s just so featureless. I have to make monthly hiking/camping/canoeing excursions down to Brown County just to stay sane.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          And good fireworks.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Oh lordy it’s boring between Cincinnati and Indianapolis as well. Not a thing to see on 74. Save for the GIGANTIC Honda plant. At least it’s only an hour and a half. When you’re out of Indy, up 69 to Ft. Wayne, it all turns even more flat, and grey.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        We have an uncle in Bloomington and liked visiting him there, but we will have to meet up elsewhere.

        I wouldn’t hold this against Subaru.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          Bloomington and the surrounding area is indeed very beautiful, I escape there from Indianapolis on any free weekend I have in the spring/summer/fall, be it on my Suzuki Bandit with some sport bike buddies of mine or with my gf in my 4Runner with a canoe strapped to the roof. Some fantastic twisty roads down that way, a real life roller coaster when ridden on a sport bike!

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        “Who am I kidding. I had no intent of visiting Indiana in the first place.”

        Lol, I love boycotting stuff I had no intention of ever using, makes me feel all righteous inside

  • avatar
    SoCalMikester

    did subaru sponsor the bill? did they contribute money to backers of the bill? this is a non-issue, just like the “subprime car loan” thing.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    As a Subaru owner (2010 Impreza Outback Sport with manual), I used to get periodic questionaires from Subuaru about potential new vehicles and promotional plans.

    One time, they asked me if I’d be interested in a gathering of owners at the Indiana factory that would focus on gourmet food in addition to the cars. I told them the gathering sounded like a nice idea but that I didn’t go to Indiana anymore – not even for the Indy 500. There just wasn’t much there that interested me.

    I don’t mean to flame any Hoosier State residents. Like everywhere else, they run the gamut from smart to stupid, from liberal to conservative and everything in between. My point is that I don’t think Subaru – or almost any other firm in Indiana – is going lose any business over this. Most didn’t ask for the law.

    But the state, regrettably, didn’t have the greatest reputation to begin with and this legislation isn’t going to help it when other companies think about places to locate their facilities.

  • avatar
    Andy

    How could this possibly affect Subaru? The law doesn’t REQUIRE anyone to discriminate against anyone.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Subaru has LGBT employees at its facility who may now be subject to discrimination based on their LGBT status, without any recourse, in their day-to-day lives.

  • avatar
    AdventureSteve

    Too bad I’m not allowed to buy or drive any of the European or Japanese vehicles I want over here in the “Land of the Free.” Also I couldn’t afford to “vote with my dollars” anyway. Only in the US are basic human rights and the idea we should act decently towards one another considered hot-button issues.

  • avatar
    rdclark

    Subaru can (and may well) issue statement condemning the bill and restating its commitment to equality and non-discrimination.

    The purpose of a boycott, however, is to pressure the state to overturn the bill. An effective boycott would in fact target just such companies as Subaru, which are heavily invested and incapable of moving elsewhere, in an effort to induce them to actively pressure the Indiana legislature to recant.

    Would such efforts be successful? It’s hard to say. This sort of thing happens behind the scenes, in back rooms, where the effect of their state and its industries being constant sources of jokes, ridicule, and contempt are discussed by people with real power. Or when the candidacies of the legislators who backed this bill are opposed by others who are backed by big business that want Indiana to be known for something — anything — else.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      I would expect that these businesses already tried to apply pressure to the legislature to not sign the bill in the first place. Maybe they did; I don’t know. They clearly didn’t apply enough pressure.

      It sounds like Indianapolis and its metro area want no part of this bill. It’s amazing to me that a state passes a bill against the wishes of its most populous city and capital. The bill also has an obvious negative economic impact, yet they signed it anyway. Most amazingly, it sounds like they structured it in a way that prohibits local municipalities from creating exemptions.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Indianapolis wants no part, but gets overridden because the other 90% of the state always votes red, with Indy being a blue dot in the middle (and some blue around the part that votes with Chicago).

        https://blogs.libraries.iub.edu/et2/files/2012/10/IndianaVoting2008.jpg

        Example: 2008 presidential election

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “It’s amazing to me that a state passes a bill against the wishes of its most populous city and capital”

        Gerrymandering: It’s a great way to ensure you don’t have to listen to people you don’t agree with.

        In all seriousness, this kind of thing happened because the Republican party has thrown it’s lot in with the religious right. It seemed like a good idea (because fundamentalists are easy to mobilize) but I don’t think they expected to have to pass ideological purity tests to get elected. Gerrymandering is the only way they can stay safe, because otherwise this kind of extremism would be thankfully drowned out by urban liberalism.

        Zealotry was a beast they intended to ride into power; they didn’t really expect to have to bargain with the beast.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Psarhjinian- interesting point but that tactic has become political suicide since the rural population base has shrunk and education has improved.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Lou:

            Thus, the voting supression efforts. Take a look at how many black voters live in Indianapolis and you have your answer as to how this is being done.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          This IS the political divide. Urban enclaves vs. outer suburbs and rural areas. However, psarhjinian, I would argue that geographic density is the source of Democrat party weakness. People who vote for Democrats are packed together in dense geographic areas where Republicans can’t win and Democrats can’t lose. In the absence of gerrymandering to split the urban core among separate legislative districts, the urban core sends a small number of representatives from the extreme left side of the political spectrum and those representatives have almost zero impact on actual laws. For example, name one bill that originated from Congressional Black Caucus members.

          So how do we move forward? I would argue that most tax and spend government function needs to move down to the local level so we can agree to disagree.

  • avatar
    dwford

    This bill doesn’t reflect the desire on the part of 99% of businesses in Indiana to refuse service to the gay community. I think it is an overreaction to a couple cases where businesses refused service than the customers – apparently intent on forcing their money upon those businesses, sued them. Personally, if I tried to buy a product somewhere and they refused me service, I would gladly take my business elsewhere and not literally make a federal case out of it.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “Personally, if I tried to buy a product somewhere and they refused me service, I would gladly take my business elsewhere and not literally make a federal case out of it.”

      That’s really all there is to it in this day and age. SJWs need work too, though.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      dwford, it’s all about attention-getting and about rubbing it in that homosexuals in America are more equal than normies.

      • 0 avatar
        italianstallion

        More equal? Normies?

        What drugs are you on?

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “it’s all about attention-getting and about rubbing it in that homosexuals in America are more equal than normies.”

        Oh, pity the poor straight folk, they have it just so hard. So very, very, hard. It’s such a travesty having to give things like benefits and equal access to other people, just like they’ve always had. Why can’t they just be happy with the rights they’ve got and stop trying to get the same rights as good, honest, straight folk.

        Next it’ll be these uppity black people. They want to just sit _anywhere_ on the bus they like. How dare they try to be more equal!

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won’t STFU.

        • 0 avatar
          marc

          i guess Jews and blacks and women should STFU also, huh. Don’t want to speak up too loudly against the white christian straight man.

          Gays will STFU when they start having EQUAL rights; stop getting beaten, killed or sent to psychotherapy; stop losing their jobs and families.

          And this will really piss you off. Until equality happens, LGBTQ won’t STFU until there are legal protections in place to ensure protections. Even if you call protections special rights and gay agenda. Call it what you will. I’ll just say STFU.

        • 0 avatar
          italianstallion

          Nice.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          Brilliant!

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          Fudge packers? Daisy pullers? Jeez, your knuckles must be raw from the pavement-dragging you subject them to. Did you guys ever leave the high school locker room?

          I always found highdesertcat knowledgeable if a little tiresome. Sad to learn he’s just a garden-variety bigot.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Not a bigot, pete. Don’t care about what anyone does in their own private space. I’ve been known to get kinky with Kitty.

            But I am riled when people tell me what I MUST believe, like that I MUST believe in Global Warming, or I MUST believe that people who oppose homosexuality are somehow wrong.

            Tolerance is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        So when was the last time you were discriminated against for being a heterosexual?

        When was the last case of a heterosexual person losing their job because of the fact that they’re straight?

        When was the last case of a heterosexual person getting beat to a bloody mess because they were straight?

        When was the last time a heterosexual person wasn’t allowed to see their dying spouse in a hospital room because they were not “family”?

        But yea it’s about “rubbing it in”, and “being MORE equal”. How about enjoying the same tax benefits (of which you admit that you avoid taxes at all cost by using undocumented labor), hospital visitation rights, death benefits.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          SC5door, a power of attorney will do the job as will a civil union contract.

          In fact, we’re using a general power of attorney right now to wind down my father-in-law’s business, since he moved back to Germany.

          But there is no need to make a big deal over religious freedom because that takes away the rights and freedoms of the members of that religion.

          Like telling a Hindu, you must eat beef. Or telling Muslims, you must eat pork. How about a Dog Taco in Mexico? Or Korean BBQ Dog Ribs? I wouldn’t eat those.

          Telling a person opposed to open homosexual behavior, you must bake a cake or cater to a same-sex marriage. Doesn’t go over well.

          You are arguing with your emotions because you do not respect the other person’s beliefs.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I buy your argument the day that someone with a “I oppose gay rights” shirt walks into a gay-owned business, is told to leave, and doesn’t report his outrage forthwith to the media.

        You troll poorly.

  • avatar
    fozone

    If this really blows up, one thing that Subaru could do is remove the “Made in Indiana” stickers that are on all their car’s windows.

    It is likely the only reason that the majority of their customers knows or cares where the cars were built.

    The gay panic in the middle of this country has really gotta stop, it makes us look embarrassingly backwards to the rest of the world.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Subaru does not sell cars to people, they sell to dealers, so they would not be able to discriminate, ever, even if they wanted to, which they clearly don’t.
    A few dealers in Indiana might choose not to sell a Subaru to a same sex couple but that would be just plain dumb and frankly, business suicide.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      The day a car dealer refuses to sell a car to a willing buyer will never come.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        Unless they act in a rude, indifferent or condescending manner towards potential customers.

        I’m sure DeadWeight can offer his take on how Cadillac dealers can make buying/leasing an inferior product into an even worse experience.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Cadillac used to discriminate against blacks until GM changed its business practices during the Depression. (The brand was on the brink of failure, leaving GM with little choice in the matter.) Prior to that, black Cadillac buyers had to use straw purchasers in order to buy one.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          They’ve advanced from blatant bigotry against some towards lazy indifference aimed at everyone. I’d call that progress, wouldn’t you?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Makes you wonder how much these folks really “believe” in what they preach, doesn’t it, dwford?

    • 0 avatar
      fozone

      you’re missing the point — subaru’s core demographic is likely to be disgusted by this law, and up until now had no idea their cars were made in indiana (the sticker on the rear quarter window with a picture of indiana notwithstanding.)

      We’ve already seen major companies threaten to stop expansion (salesforce.com) or pull out of the state entirely, and business execs like Apple’s CEO come out forcefully with statements of disgust, I’m certain Subaru execs are watching this nervously.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    When I have to listen to all this crap the only sticker I want to put on a vehicle is: http://tinyurl.com/oekv9jy

    Live and let live. If gay marriage threatens your straight marriage you’ve got bigger problems than two guys kissing.

  • avatar
    Delta88

    Subaru has an outsized presence in LGBT media, events, charities, etc. It is obvious to me they go out of their way to advertise to my small slice of the population. It’s pretty ironic that they find themselves in this situation (or I should say this state).

  • avatar
    mmmach1

    The author could do a little research before he quotes “those opposed” to the bill. I’m not anti LGBT. I’m just anti lazy BS reporting.

    Also those wanting to avoid coming to Indiana might need to move to a different country while their at it. It basically mimics a federal law already in affect:

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (Dem-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by Dem. President Bill Clinton

    Twenty two other states have passed the same law and eight more are in the process. Its not quite what those opposed say it is.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      How dare you introduce facts into the argument!!

      • 0 avatar
        mmmach1

        Facts are no fun for some. Its only news because Indiana has a Republican Gov.

        Here’s a list of some of the states that have passed the same law.
        Alabama (state constitution amendment)
        Connecticut
        Florida
        Idaho
        Illinois
        Kansas
        Kentucky
        Louisiana
        Mississippi
        Missouri
        New Mexico
        Oklahoma
        Pennsylvania
        Rhode Island
        South Carolina
        Tennessee
        Texas
        Virginia
        plus a few others.

        • 0 avatar
          marc

          Those states have not enacted laws protecting businesses who discriminate and use religion as their defense. The merits of the government RFRAs are worthy of critique, but they do not come close to what Arizona tried to do, what Indiana just did, and what Arkansas is in process of doing.

    • 0 avatar
      italianstallion

      You conveniently leave out the context of these RFRA acts then vs. now.

      20 years ago, these were about protecting the practice of religious rituals such as the use of peyote by some Native Americans.

      Today, these laws are being invoked as a direct reaction to marriage equality gains. The practice of discriminating against LGBT Americans does not warrant protection, no matter how many defend this discrimination by claiming religious convictions or calling it “freedom”.

      This most certainly is an anti-LGBT bill.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Care to cite evidence?

      • 0 avatar
        mmmach1

        Gosh I’m sorry I thought laws that protected religion protected all religions not just one libs like you think are cool.
        This law like the original law requires proof. If I got busted for smoking peyote and claimed I was a native American it wouldn’t wash if I couldn’t prove it. If I refused to make a cake for a gay wedding because of religious my belief and I would be sued I would have to supply proof of my religious beliefs. So it wouldn’t work for skinheads/KKK members etc. Also if you never go to church I imagine it would be a hard sell. This is more of an anti frivolous lawsuit law than a free pass to discriminate law. Don’t worry though you will be happy to know it just doesn’t cover mean old Christians. It covers other cooler religions too. If I was a Muslim baker and I was sued for not making a cake with a picture of Mohammad on it I would be protected.

        • 0 avatar
          italianstallion

          So that’s a real problem? LGBT Americans “forcing” religious individuals doing business with the public to treat them fairly, like everyone else under the law.

          The idea that religious freedom is being threatened by a weakly protected minority of Americans is LAUGHABLE. It is precisely the opposite. Tax exempt religious organizations have repeatedly mounted massive campaigns to limit and strip the civil rights of LGBT Americans, all across the country.

          How about some freedom FROM religion? Jesus protect me from your followers.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Nice attempt to cite evidence from your previous assertions. Keep up the unsubstantiated vague rhetoric as it only weakens your views.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You could just spend a minute using Google to figure this out.

            The RFRA was Congress’ response to the Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which upheld Oregon’s right to deny unemployment benefits to two Native Americans who were fired from their jobs for their use of peyote in religious ceremonies. It was not intended to promote discrimination.

  • avatar
    Toad

    It is a shame that ever single thing has to become a political issue. Are we getting to the point that every state, province, city, or county that passes legislation a person finds objectionable should be boycotted? Pro choice people won’t visit states that have abortion restrictions? Pro gun people won’t visit cities with any gun control laws? Should conservatives never visit San Francisco or New York? Should liberals never visit rural towns that are populated by religious conservatives? Should we all just interact with people we agree with?

    Some of us have strongly held political views, which is fine. But turning every issue into the opportunity to become a Social Justice Warrior determined to bend the world to your views just creates more division and produces nothing but self satisfaction.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Yes. In 2015 merely HEARING an opinion different than your own causes many people to become very distressed. So many people are fragile flowers these days I don’t know how they make it through the day.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      “Should conservatives never visit San Francisco or New York?”

      Nobody should ever visit New York.

      Nothing to do with politics, though.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “Some of us have strongly held political views, which is fine. But turning every issue into the opportunity to become a Social Justice Warrior determined to bend the world to your views just creates more division and produces nothing but self satisfaction.”

      Too damn bad.

      I’m sorry, but if you can’t stand up to people shining a light on your outmoded ideals, too damn bad. I’m sorry you can’t be left to be bigoted in peace.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @Toad – there is a difference here. This isn’t just a debate over principle. it has practical implications. Why would I travel somewhere where I risk being asked to leave a restaurant, denied a hotel room, refused a cab ride, or other basic services just because the owner doesn’t approve of me having a boyfriend?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        In the bizarro world of the American right, those who oppose intolerance are the problem, while those who are intolerant are supposed to be protected.

        Orwell would not be impressed that American conservatives have embraced “1984” as some sort of training manual.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Toad- human nature does tend to predispose us to hangIng out with only those who agree with us. Living in the big human zoo causes all sorts of stress we aren’t wired to cope with.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Love your neighbor as yourself.

    He who is without sin cast the first stone.

    Man the long haired hippie who spouted that bleeding heart liberal clap trap sure got what he deserved!

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    With all due respect to posters here from Indiana, I hope the economic consequences are swift and harsh, not because I wish you ill will, but because it’s only a sustained outcry from your state’s business community that will change this hateful law. While those business that are nimble and able to relocate will hopefully make changes, I don’t see Subaru being able to do much other than protest. As others have noted, an automotive plant is not something you can easily pick up and move. Does Subaru have corporate offices there? That is something I could see being moved to another location, especially since the one area I see this affecting Subaru is recruiting. Subaru can be as LGBTQ friendly as they want, but if prospective employees are concerned about discrimination outside of work potentially making daily life, as well as potential difficulties their spouses and children will face (if they have a family), then they will hesitate to move to (or stay) in Indiana. This will get even more challenging when the Supreme Court likely rules in favor of nationwide marriage equality. In a state like Indiana, a couple will be in the awkward position of having a legal in that state marriage that they can be discriminated against for housing and basic services. If a spouse is working for a non LGBTQ friendly company, they could potentially face a situation where they have to hid the fact that they’re married at all since they could legally be fired for that.

    • 0 avatar
      mmmach1

      Jeez…. I feel the need to post this again after that comment. If you want to avoid coming to Indiana might need to move to a different country while their at it. It basically mimics a federal law already in affect:

      The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (Dem-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes[1] and was signed into law by Dem. President Bill Clinton

      Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Bill Clinton (Democrat) real right wing haters all right.

      Twenty two other states have passed the same law and eight more are in the process.
      Hope you don’t live in any of these states. They passed the same law.

      Alabama (state constitution amendment)
      Connecticut
      Florida
      Idaho
      Illinois
      Kansas
      Kentucky
      Louisiana
      Mississippi
      Missouri
      New Mexico
      Oklahoma
      Pennsylvania
      Rhode Island
      South Carolina
      Tennessee
      Texas
      Virginia
      plus a few others.

      Don’t let facts get in the way of your self-righteousness. :)

      • 0 avatar
        marc

        and then again i will need to remind you that none of those state laws are anything like what is going on now.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @marc – you are correct in that it is not the same. I am not a legal expert on the laws on the books in all those states @mmmach1 listed, but I know that New Mexico is one in which a judge did not support a business owners right to refuse service to a same sex couple, so something must be different at least there. The judge said it was the same as refusing to serve an interracial couple, which would be prohibited.

          • 0 avatar
            mmmach1

            tjh8402, exactly what will happen in Indiana also. This law doesn’t automatically protect the baker for refusing service. Its up to the courts to decide. This just gives the judge guidance in his decision. If the judge feels that the bakers decision to deny service is not based on his “deeply held” (as the law states) religious belief he will deny the protection. The baker loses. Its totally up to the courts. The gay couple can still sue and should if they feel the baker is just being a jerk. I don’t know why is so hard to understand for so many.

      • 0 avatar
        Jimal

        I would make the same suggestion to you. From Pch101’s earlier post:

        “The RFRA was Congress’ response to the Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which upheld Oregon’s right to deny unemployment benefits to two Native Americans who were fired from their jobs for their use of peyote in religious ceremonies. It was not intended to promote discrimination.”

    • 0 avatar
      Carl Kolchak

      Try working for one of these overtly “Gay Friendly” companies when you are a Christian Conservative. Believe it is same thing but in reverse.

      • 0 avatar
        italianstallion

        Really? How so?

        Was your partner denied benfits by your company? Or the right to inherit without adverse tax implications? Do you have to pay more taxes than gay couples, and file state and federal returns differently? Did you have to pay a lawyer to get medical power of attorney for your spouse or children? If your spouse was from a foreign country, were they denied citizenship or the ability to stay in this country?

        I can only imagine the discrimination you face as a straight Christian. My heart bleeds for you.

        • 0 avatar
          Carl Kolchak

          Nice job Christophobe. It’s far more subtle than that. Company comes out with little snippets about the CEO speaking to gay group. don’t see him speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention. Actually do not have a problem with Civil unions but in your eyes, it’s conform or else. Bigot

          • 0 avatar
            MPAVictoria

            It is projection all the way down with you people…

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            With all due respect, Mr. Kolchak, immediately labeling everyone else as Christophobe, bigot, etc. is not a good way to promote open discourse. Take a few breaths, count to ten, approach the situation with peacefulness.

          • 0 avatar
            Jimal

            Here’s where the real discrimination comes in. Your company isn’t discriminating against you as much as the CEO is doing. His speaking to a group you hate doesn’t materially affect your employment status or the benefits you enjoy/earn.

            And if you decide that you just can’t take this philosophical difference anymore, you can change jobs without fear of not getting a job because of something that has nothing to do with your job performance and your spouse won’t be denied your employer’s healthcare benefits. An LBGT person cannot say the same things.

            I think we all know who the real bigot is…

        • 0 avatar

          Right now, Christians are probably the most persecuted religious group on the planet, well, if you don’t include the Muslims getting killed by other Muslims.

          Also, the use of the term “my heart bleeds for you” to mock a Christian would be regarded as a micro or even macro aggression were an analogous appropriation of an Islamic phrase used to mock Islam.

          • 0 avatar
            italianstallion

            Delusional.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Ronnie Schreiber – there are many that would find that statement hard to believe but it is true.
            In the context of the West we have seen the pendulum swing from the right side dominated by conservative Caucasian Christians to the liberal/libertarian left. It has become politically correct to deride or put down the Christian side. Things like creationism, anti- LGBT, and anti-birth control make Christians easy prey for the intelligentsia and cultural elites.
            Slavery, mistreatment of First Nations (Aboriginals/ Indians(sic)), women’s rights etc. all seem to get blamed on Christianity. Some of it is their fault but there will always be those that use what ever means necessary to sway the masses and maintain power. Imperialism and the belief of one’s race as being superior pre-dates Christianity. The Jews after all were slaves of the Egyptians and Jesus Christ was a Jew.

            It has become politically correct to put down Christianity but with that being said, I do not think that we need laws such as this.

  • avatar
    cartunez

    This is making a lot of noise about nothing. Whoever you wanna sex just do it. I don’t understand this entire movement of you have to accepted to enjoy your life. Sexual freedom is the least of the things the power of the state robs you of.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I don’t really think it’s about sex, I think homosexuals want the same rights the US government extends to heterosexual married couples…

      But I’m not an expert on this debate.

    • 0 avatar
      italianstallion

      No, you clearly don’t understand.

      Sodomy laws were on the books in MANY states as recently as 2003. This is not about the practice of sexuality, though.

      The “movement” is about civil rights. It is about the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law – whether than means marriage, inheritance rights, taxation, immigration status or the ability to walk into a business that is open to the public and be served like anyone else.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The issue is that homosexuals don’t have the same rights, not that the government criminalizes their lifestyle.

      We’re past the point that gays aren’t criminalized for their behaviour—in that sense, we’re not Uganda or India—but they don’t have the same rights and privileges that straight people do.

      It’s like the situation for blacks in the 1960s: they weren’t slaves anymore, but they sure as hell weren’t equal to whites.

  • avatar
    Carl Kolchak

    I am going to “Out” myself. I am a Bible-Believing socially very conservative Christian (with Jewish roots). I totally support this law. on this. I do not feel one needs to leave their beliefs and the front door of a store. This only affects a small group of businesses, who in other states, have been harassed by the government.
    Subaru should just be neutral on this. Companies need to remember, Social conservatives, or whatever group you can think of, have money too. The purchasing of a vehicle, has ZERO to do with one’s religious beliefs. But if companies want to take sides, the Christian Community may just wake up (see our support for Brother Phil Robertson) and boycott you.
    If someone refuses to deliver you a Pizza, or sell you a washing machine,due to your sexual preference, I can understand the outrage. But you ask me to do something, such as rent a wedding hall, that would indicate my support for something that I feel, in my faith, is wrong. this law is needed. This does not mean I should not treat you with kindness and respect but My religious beliefs do not get tossed aside because you want a wedding cake.

    • 0 avatar
      italianstallion

      Nobody is asking you to give up whatever you choose to believe in. You are simply not entitled to discriminate against other because of your beliefs.

      Rather ironic that you call yourself a Christian, BTW.

      • 0 avatar
        Carl Kolchak

        1. Jesus did not endorse Homosexuality. ANY sex outside of Heterosexual marriage is considered adultery
        2. Why can’t my rights/views be protected. My rights don’t end when I open a business
        3. I’m not the only cake baker, photographer in the state
        4. Just because I do not agree with your sexual preference, does not mean I hate you. It means I disagree with you. Guess what type of couple I spent Christmas with. You ask for Tolerance but give none back

        • 0 avatar
          SC5door

          So then people should be given a 20 question survey before being able to get services rendered?

          Unwed pregnant mother? Leave my store!
          Divorced father? Leave my store!

          How far does this go?

          BTW the bible has no bearing on civil law. Separation of Church and State….something Pence totally ignored.

          And spare me the “I know gay people” crap, it’s been overused.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      For me it comes back to why would a gay person want to give money to a business that expresses a disapproval of their lifestyle? I would think, upon hearing that they can’t get their cake baked there, that the gay person would thank the person for being up front about their narrow mindedness, and leave, making sure that all their friends knew not to patronize that establishment.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @dwford – principals aside, it’s not that we want to, but sometimes we have no choice. I’m not as worried about photographers and cake decorators as I am mechanics, tradesman/handymen, lodging, restaurants, pharmacies, gas stations, cab drivers, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        “why would a gay person want to give money to a business that expresses a disapproval of their lifestyle?”

        They wouldn’t. This is an invented case to enable the bringing of a lawsuit to further the gay rights agenda, plain and simple. They probably had to search far and wide to actually find a baker to refuse this service. Hell, the baker itself may be a creation of the DNC made to make the right look like bigots.

    • 0 avatar
      MPAVictoria

      Because if Jesus stood for anything it was discriminating against your fellow citizens.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      I suppose I can “out” myself too: As a Confessional Lutheran, I’m part of the conservative 45% of Lutheranism that generally says “no” to anything involving non-heterosexual relationships. Looking closely at the Bible, we can see it condemns all sexual activity outside of marriage, regardless of who it’s between. So why exactly must Christian marriage be only between a man and a woman? I must admit that I am not theologically intelligent enough to give anyone an answer beyond the fact that whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it only uses “man and woman” as examples. If that’s not satisfactory, then I’m sorry; you won’t find satisfaction in anything I say.

      Still reading? Thank you.

      This would probably get me in trouble with my church’s official teachings, but here goes: Outside the bounds of the Church, I have absolutely no problem with someone who identifies as homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, whatever. I don’t even care if they are allowed to enter into a legal, state-sanctioned marriage–because within the bounds of my religion, that would not count as a marriage, but that’s irrelevant, since those wishing to be married don’t follow my religion. I do not expect anyone who is not a Christian to have to follow the rules of Christianity. I’d be uncomfortable seeing PDA, but I’m uncomfortable seeing that from anybody, regardless of orientation. (I also seem to be one of the only conservative Christians who 1. doesn’t want America to “return to its values” (AKA become a theocracy), and 2. doesn’t think we’re on a moral decline into ruin just because we try to treat everyone with basic human decency now.)

      What does any of this have to do with the “religious freedom” law? Even as a conservative Christian, I could not and would not have supported this law, because all it does is allow continued discrimination not just of LGBT, but potentially other groups in the public, nonreligious sphere. Last time I checked, all people in the US are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      Those of you who are quick to slam Christians for being discriminatory: Matthew 10:34-39.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @Carl kolchak – at what point to do these accommodations for religious beliefs end? Should a Fundamentalist Muslim business owner be able to refuse service to women who don’t cover their head or have a male relative as an escort? Can a racist wedding cake maker refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple? Could a Protestant refuse service to a Catholic?

      • 0 avatar

        They don’t even have to begin. A business is a business. It operates on a license. The license means they operate under the law.

        That’s the beauty of a principle. Even if on an individual level someone suffers, the collectivity is benefited.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    Oh how times change. In 2006, Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport became the subject of a national outcry when it became known that they were refusing to transport passengers who had dogs or alcohol with them, because a fatwa issued by a cleric stated that transporting dogs or alcohol in a cab was offensive to Islam. Support for the cab drivers from the Mike Pences of the world was less than nil: if anything, there was a particularly vociferous protest at the indignity of all this on conservative corners of the internet. See e.g. http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/mbecker908/2007/jan/05/assimilation_lets_check_out_rep_ellisons_home_town or http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1717452/posts or

    Now, gay couples are getting married, and all of a sudden people are scared to death that they’ll be forced to cater to a gay couple at some point in their lives in the public sphere. This is terribly offensive to people’s closely held religious beliefs, you see.

    Of course, this must simply be an example of people evolving on the issue and beginning to see how vitally important religious beliefs can be, even in the marketplace, right?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/12/blind-man-files-complaint-after-he-says-muslim-cabbies-repeatedly-refused-service-to-him-and-his-guide-dog/

    Whoops.

  • avatar
    willbodine

    I don’t get the idea that religious rights trump civil rights. How would the defenders of this bill react if a business refused service to blacks for “religious” reasons? Which they did in the south before 1965.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Religious rights and civil rights can conflict and often do. In cases of conflict the focus should be inalienable human rights. As a human being we have rights that can be violated by both religion and civil law.
      I should be free do do what ever I want and believe what ever I want as long as I don’t impinge upon another’s right to do the same. I should also be able to do that without fear.

      In the context of religious belief shouldn’t we leave judgement of those whom do not share our beliefs to God?
      There are over 200 Christian denominations. Not all Muslims belong to ISIL and not all Jews are Orthodox. All three trace their roots to monotheistic Abraham. Same God but multiple interpretations of his plan for us.

      In a western pluralistic society trying to find balance between conflicting beliefs/rights then the only simple way to find balance is through the approach I have mentioned.

  • avatar
    MPAVictoria

    Personally I am all for the culture war. Some of you right wing bigots have pretty awful values.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      *facepalm*

      Can’t we all just get along?

      • 0 avatar
        MPAVictoria

        Apparently not. It is nice to know I am on the winning side. Politicians like Mike Pence and people like highsdesertcat are going to be the villains of history in 30 years. Personally I can’t wait.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Do you really think I care what these fudgepackers do?

          I don’t. It has zero effect on me.

          What I object to is anyone being more equal than the others.

          But if it is a question of money, I’m always on the s!de of money because money talks, BS walks.

          • 0 avatar
            bomberpete

            So you really think them there fudgackers are becoming more equal than others,even as we go back and forth?

            HDC, by name -calling alone you demonstrate just how bigoted and frightened you are of gay acceptance.

          • 0 avatar
            Mr. Orange

            Honestly, all those “fudgepackers” have to do is wait. Folks of your persuasion will be gone soon enough.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            bomberpete, I’m not frightened. I’m just pushing buttons. I was living and working in Europe from ’72-’80 where homosexuals were accepted openly in society and it was a non-issue.

            But they didn’t take every opportunity to draw attention to themselves and set themselves apart from normal society the way they do in America.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Live and let live is dead.

    • 0 avatar
      mmmach1

      Lets see you don’t know any of these posters personally but because they disagree with you they are bigots? That’s exactly why the law is needed.

      • 0 avatar
        MPAVictoria

        Man if you won’t sell a guy a wedding cake because he is gay you ARE a bigot by definition.

        • 0 avatar
          mmmach1

          1. I’m not a baker
          2. If I was I wouldn’t have a problem making the cake.
          3. As said in my original post. I’m not against gay marriage. I’m was just trying to explain why this law is needed, because of lawsuit happy lawyers and misinformed left wing haters like you.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      How are you gonna fight in the culture war, anti-gun girly man? :p

      BTW I simply assumed you were anti-gun given the “right wing bigots” comment.

  • avatar

    Jokes aside, we’re going to find that although every orientantionally challenged man drives a Subaru (if he drives anything at all), not every Subaru driver is orientationally challenged. A coordinated campaign of hate by the liberal fascists could make a greater impact, bet even so, not going to do much. Subaru has too much riding on this and they cannot simply offer a head of their CEO as a sacrificial token to the LGBT Molokh like Whole Foods did. So they’ll have no choice but to ride it out.

  • avatar

    I’m an embroiderer and one of my specialties is Judaica and I’ve done work related to weddings. I’ve done chuppahs, Jewish wedding canopies, custom embroidered yarmulkes for the grooms, and gifts for families hosting out of town guests for wedding.

    Should I be compelled to create embroidery for a religious ceremony that violates Jewish law? It doesn’t necessarily have to be a same sex marriage. There are all sorts of marriages that violate Jewish law. For example, someone of priestly, kohanic, descent, cannot marry a widow or divorcee.

    Just how far will equal accommodations go? I’m old enough to remember the debate in 1964 – those clauses undoubtedly run up against property rights and some other constitutional rights. We decided as a society then that we didn’t want people sleeping in their cars or eating in the kitchen or not being able to buy food at all. I’m not sure that having to go to a different bakery to get your wedding cake is in the same moral universe as being refused a hotel room because of the color of your skin or your national origin.

    The truth is that the people who want to extend the equal accommodations sections of the ’64 Civil Rights Act to include groups never intended to be covered by that legislation have no real interest in equality. They will never try to compel a Muslim butcher to supply pork or a gay printer to work for the Westboro Baptist loonies.

    Whoever said any of this was about consistency? It’s about power, about forcing traditionally religious people (well, of certain religions, sharia will get a pass) to bow their knee and bend their neck to express fealty to their new cultural masters.

    • 0 avatar
      Kevin Jaeger

      Certainly in Canada they immediately started booking their wedding receptions in openly Catholic institutions like Knights of Columbus halls – primarily so that they could then lodge a Human Rights complaint. There have been human rights cases against halls for wedding receptions, bakers, print shops and ministers.

      All of the individuals and businesses targeted were Christian and mostly Catholic. There’s never been a case of them challenging a Muslim proprietor or Islamic institution that I’m aware of.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Kevin Jaeger

        In the context of Canada and the Roman Catholic church one must remember that at one time they where more powerful and influential than government. In the Francophone community they were all powerful. During that time we saw huge families and most were rural in nature. You needed a big family to carry out all of the tasks that ensured your family’s survival. It was always encouraged to try to get at least one of your children (preferably male) into a religious order. Having a priest in the family would be comparable to having judge, senator or even rock star in the family.
        That huge influence has collapsed. Francophones have one of the highest rates of common law marriage in Canada. Churches have also closed all over Canada especially in rural and smaller areas.

    • 0 avatar
      Carl Kolchak

      Ronnie, I really appreciate your post (oh and have a blessed Passover). I hate being the Heavy here defending this law, but I really feel i must. This is a law that will come in play very rarely. It frankly scares me that so many people as saying I must conform or else be ostracized.
      I have gay and former gay (yes they exist) friends. i lived in a building that was approx 50% gay and I really miss my old neighbors. Do you who disagree with me have only associate with those who agree with you? I guess I need to take a break from this site for a bit.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Excellent comment Ronnie. Tolerance and respect work both ways.

      • 0 avatar
        marc

        Paradoxically, tolerance of those who are intolerant (bigots) is a dilemma, a circular argument. Morally and ethically, the only ones who expect people to be intolerant of bigots are bigots.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          What the right wingnuts don’t grasp is that ideas are protected but actions are not.

          If you want to passionately hate black Jewish gay Muslim vegetarians and pray that they are all deported to Tel Aviv, Mecca or Kenya, then that’s your business. You are absolutely free to avoid being friends with them, avoid their mosque-temples, and not have gay sex with them. You may dislike their Talmudic Koranic Castro-district lifestyles as much as your black (non-African-American) heart desires.

          But when you refuse to do business with them as the operator of a retail business or hire them, then you have crossed the line into the public sphere and we now have a problem. You cannot turn your hate into a public problem.

          I realize that some folks are nostalgic for the good old days when we could have separate bus seats for the mud people and cross-burning was a cherished form of weekend entertainment, but those days are over. If some among you can’t accept the new rules, then you can kindly stick it up your homophobic backsides.

          • 0 avatar

            “refuse to do business with them as the operator of a retail business or hire them, then you have crossed the line into the public sphere”

            Key words that everybody keeps forgetting. Businesses are not people. They are not entitled to an opinion. They need licenses to operate. A license, similar to your driver’s license, is an understanding that you are interfering and the public realm and thusly subject to all public laws.

            It’s not really this complicated.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “They are not entitled to an opinion. They need licenses to operate.”

            I need a license to drive a car too. So now my driving should be considered a public activity, and the government should be free to compel me to ferry a black lesbian handicapped woman to work every day because, you know, it’s the right thing to do, if I don’t want to be called a bigot.

          • 0 avatar

            “I need a license to drive a car too. So now my driving should be considered a public activity”

            And it is. When you are on the road you are interfering in the public space and are subject to the laws that govern that public space. BTW, I did liken the business operating license to the driver’s license as that is similar in this fashion.

            As to the rest of your post, it’s gibberish. Then again, not. There are carpool lanes for instance. Or laws impeding trucks going into certain areas at various times. So the idiot scenario you point out could conceivably come to pass because, like, the public sphere is the government’s, not yours.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            “So the idiot scenario you point out could conceivably come to pass because, like, the public sphere is the government’s, not yours.”

            And that’s where we differ. I’m a libertarian; you’re a totalitarian.

          • 0 avatar

            As if. How can you be in so much denial about the world you live in? The conquest of the democratic state is something to be proud of and the most peaceful way of resolving conflicts. The people cede the public sphere to the givernment trusting that it ultimately benefits them. But ultimately it belongs to the people through the state. If the state betrays that trust by imposing onerous burdens like you mention it gets corrected rather quickly. Try to resolve conflicts in the public sphere without state force and we quickly devolve into the rule of the strong.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Strictly speaking, the issue isn’t with whether a business license is required but whether a business does business with the public.

            The concept of public accommodation is that a business that opens its doors to the public is obliged to avoid discriminating against protected classes.

            If bigotry is of greater importance to you than doing business, then you need to get out of retail or whatever it is that you do and go do something else for a living — you are free to think like a bigot and to act like one in other contexts, but not there.

            At this point, gay people have limited legal protections in the US, but the trend is moving toward more protections. Some of those who post here have inadvertently proven why such protections are necessary.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            It’s funny that some commenters are just now noticing personal, demeaning, offensive and mean-spirited comments and attemting to redefine the 1st Amendment’s free speech protections. I guess it depends on who you agree with.

    • 0 avatar
      marc

      @ Ronnie

      First off, I’m not at all surprised at your opinions on this matter. Not only are you the resident right wing propagandist on this site, but you were the vociferous defender of Bertel’s rants the last time a Subaru article got so many comments.

      But as to your specific argument, you are wrong. If you make a business out of embroidery, you should not have right to turn requests for your service down. That’s the price of doing business in a society with supposed equality. There truly is not legal basis for “we have the right to refuse service to anyone.”

      As for the Civil Rights Act, you are correct that it does not offer protections against LGBTQ. That is the fundamental problem, allowing nonsense like this Indiana law to be enacted. That’s why these laws are so insidious in their attack on LGBTQ, because in the absence of other protections (local laws), we have no recourse when discriminated against. But I guess that’s okay with you.

      Marginalized groups, which gays still are in numerous ways are not the cultural masters you are so afraid of. We want equality and protection.

      BTW, that red herring Muslim butcher wouldn’t have pork in his inventory.

      • 0 avatar

        You forgot lackey running dog of the capitalist pigs. Power to the People! Right On!

        “If you make a business out of embroidery, you should not have right to turn requests for your service down.”

        And if the request is for a shirt that says “Gays Are Perverted”?

        • 0 avatar
          marc

          “You forgot lackey running dog of the capitalist pigs.”
          You said it, not me.

          “And if the request is for a shirt that says “Gays Are Perverted”?”
          I knew you’d respond with something like that. The argument doesn’t work though. Because the intolerant jerk making the request is not being denied service. He can buy a shirt. His specific request however cannot be granted. It’s a difference too subtle for many bigots to understand.

          Let me explain. The bakery cannot discriminate against making a wedding cake, because that is what they do, they bake wedding cakes. Do they have to sell little plastic figurines of a man embracing another man. Nope. And they don’t have to write anything on the cake. But they still have to sell the cake. The shirt maker has to make and sell shirts, but the requirement of putting any message on it is not protected.

          Again the only people who don’t get this are the ones who want to discriminate against people.

          The Courts and maybe even legislative bodies will rule on the side of justice one day, smarter heads will prevail, like Jan brewer in Arizona, and you may have to sell your embroidery to Muslims. But you won’t have to embroider “Jews killed Christ.”

      • 0 avatar

        “If you make a business out of embroidery, you should not have right to turn requests for your service down.”

        What if it just offends my sense of aesthetics?

        Should a fine artist be compelled to airbrush a howling wolf on a van?

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      The particularly funny thing is you say “sharia will get a pass” (and Kevin Jaeger posts something similar) four posts after I listed specific examples of conservatives complaining when Muslims tried this – and, for what it’s worth, those Muslim taxi drivers lost their case in court, and were required to pick up all passengers, regardless of religious objections, or else face suspension of their licenses.

      Never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, I suppose, particularly when you’ve already got it formed in your head.

      BTW, it’s still happening, now, in Canada: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/15/pearson-airport-rules-can-take-the-bark-out-of-your-trip-home. If these laws go into effect where you live, then good luck getting a cab home from the airport the next time you want to stop at duty free and pick up some Crown Royal before your flight.

      • 0 avatar

        I’d put livery services in the same category, in terms of public accommodations, as hotels and restaurants.

        Having to find a cooperative embroiderer or baker isn’t quite the same as getting stuck at the airport, having to sleep in your car, or having to buy food out of the back of a restaurant’s kitchen because they won’t serve you.

        I own an embroidery machine and some computers. That doesn’t make me anyone’s indentured servant or worse.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        And I suppose the Muslim cabbie is going to search all your belongings looking for the Crown Royal hidden in your bag. Try again.

  • avatar
    JohnnyFirebird

    As a gay dude here’s my perspective on Subaru:

    1 – I’d really love a WRX.
    2 – It doesn’t bug me that some Subarus are made in Indiana.
    3 – I’m probably going to get a Tacoma or Frontier 4×4 instead.
    4 – I’m curious if this law will result in any actual discrimination. I don’t think businesses would, for the most part, be that dumb as to, say, kick me and the boyfriend out for being out on a date together.
    5 – I don’t plan on going out on any dates in Indiana, but that’s a geographic thing.
    6 – I had a pride sticker in the 2000s because everyday visibility is an important thing. Wasn’t about getting a date. Although my poor Mustang GT did end up egged / paintballed / keyed. That could have been because I listened to Copacabana too loud that one time, though.
    7 – Basically I’d just like to be able to hang out around North America with my fella and not have people shout the (other) F-word at us. That’d be super cool. But otherwise I figure just being a good guy and a good neighbor and not being super obnoxious about stuff is the best way to advance things.
    8 – Mostly I’m here to talk about cars and not who I bang, except for that one time but that’s because I have a crush on Action Bronson.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    This gives Subaru and excuse to relocate their plant to Mexico besides lower labor costs. I bet Indiana and some of the other states that have passed similar legislation never thought of this.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Often, Americans look the proverbial gift-horse in the mouth, like the UAW trying to unionize transplants in the South against the employees’ wishes.

      So, if a manufacturer is not appreciated for the jobs they bring for Americans in America, why not leave and go to a NAFTA country where they are appreciated and where the unions work with the manufacturer rather than against them?

  • avatar
    udman

    This is exactly the type of political bulls*** that makes me very happy that I don’t live in the midwest, or the deep south. No wonder Indiana is called “Flyover Country”

    • 0 avatar
      fozone

      I’m afraid these problems are only going to get worse.

      As younger people flee these areas for cities (coastal and otherwise) where there are more opportunities, the depopulated regions in the middle are getting increasingly elderly, conservative, less educated, and less competitive.

      It is a recipe for disaster, and a serious politician who actually gives a cluck about his state’s economy wouldn’t have allowed this.

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Just don’t forget where this country’s food comes from :) And no your neighbor’s chic rooftop herb garden doesn’t pass muster.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        As a farmer (okay, farmer’s kid) in flyover country, I’d like to remind everyone that their fruits and vegetables probably come from farms on or near the coasts, and flyover country is the home of delicious meat as well as that nasty evil corn that will kill your dog and torch your house…

        …I don’t know exactly where I was going with this, but I am glad we raise something besides just boring corn and soybeans.

  • avatar
    SaulTigh

    It feels like 90%+ of the people in this country have become whining pu$$ys. I’ve decided just to hate everyone.

    I’ve also been to Lafayette, IN, and it sucked. At least they had White Castle.

  • avatar
    Nick 2012

    As a Hoosier, I’m looking to the bright side of this. I now worship at the alter of speed, and if I get a ticket I can force the prosecutor to show that speed limits are the least burdensome way to further a compelling interest. We could probably win that one.

    In seriousness a valued colleague and mentor may leave the state over this because her and her partner are tired of Pence’s crap. Mitch Daniels never would have allowed something like this. Today, pence admitted there were ZERO instances of an indiana business being forced to do something against their religious beliefs. The fact the governor signed this bill in secret, turned away the press, and refuses to list the attendees at the signing ceremony is pretty good evidence of the intent behind this bill. What a waste of time and energy that could have been spent addressing real issues.

  • avatar
    ktm

    How did this become solely about the LGBT community? They love to make themselves the center of attention, when in fact anyone can be discriminated against because of this law.

    Christian business owners do not have to do business with Jews, Muslims, LGBT, atheists, etc.

    Jewish business owners do not have to do business with Muslims, Christians, pork eaters, etc.

    LGBT owners do not have to do business with straights citing any religious reason.

    Atheists do not have to do business with anyone…..

    Point being, this is not just about sexual orientation. Stop making it such.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      It’s about sexual orientation because none of what you listed actually happens and discrimination against LGBT couples by businesses not only happens but was the entire reason behind the law.

    • 0 avatar
      boxermojo

      We would be more than happy to stop being the center of attention as soon as y’all stop making us the center of attention by using big government to tell private citizens who we can and can’t marry in an attempt to make church law the law of the land.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    So the prevailing opinion is that this law is garbage and that the rights of the LGBT individuals trump the religious convictions of the business owner.

    That’s cool, and I can live with that so long as we can agree that my rights to keep and bear arms also trump business owners opinions on the second amendment and those little crossed out gun signs have no legal bearing. Its all about tolerance and compromise right?

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      I’ve offered this compromise before: legalize gay marriage, legalize fully automatic guns, and heck throw the stoners a bone and legalize marijuana while we’re at it. Of course the real winners in this will be the machine gun toting, weed smoking gays. Not bad!

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        I bet I’d be safer if a shooter cane in with a full auto. After the first few shots he’d likely be blowing holes in the ceiling until he shortly there after ran out of rounds and/or melted the barrel. Doesn’t really work lime Stallone in Rambo.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I think the issue stems precisely from what you stated: Stallone or Schwarzenegger blasting guys from the hip with a belt-fed M60.

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @mkirk – I’m fine with that. The NRA didn’t ask me my sexual orientation before I joined. I think a CWP with “stand your ground” is the best anti hate crime legislation I could ask for. I consider myself a libertarian.

      I think gay couples should be able to get married, grow a marijuana farm free of burdensome EPA regulations, pass it on to their children without fear of estate taxes, and protect it and their family with an assault rifle.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Let’s be honest: Indiana doesn’t have a monopoly on crappy laws and crappy politics. The RFRA is a crappy law, but it is mostly symbolic. 99.9% of the businesses didn’t discriminate on basis of sexual preference before the bill, and they won’t after. On the other hand, Indiana’s “right to work” law, also crappy, is more than symbolic. It guts the ability of unions to represent their members by allowing free riders to undermine the health of the union.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Sooooo….how about that ATS gauge cluster.

    • 0 avatar
      Kevin Jaeger

      The designer of that ATS gauge cluster must have been gay. That’s why Cadillac is moving to Soho – to find a safe place for their LGBTQWERTY designers, well away from their homophobic Detroit rapper customers.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        Yeah, didn’t Eminem have some rather disparaging comments some time ago? Guess he won’t be voicing any Subaru ads.

        • 0 avatar
          Kevin Jaeger

          Eminem is pretty tame by rap standards. I was thinking more of Big Sean and his many fans in Detroit, but finding homophobic rap lyrics isn’t difficult.

        • 0 avatar
          Mr. Orange

          You didn’t see where he came out on The Interview.

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    I like Cadillacs and automatic transmissions.

  • avatar
    mmmach1

    This law doesn’t automatically protect the baker for refusing service. Its up to the courts to decide. This just gives the judge guidance in his decision. If the judge feels that the bakers decision to deny service is not based on his “deeply held” (as the law states) religious belief he will deny the protection. The baker loses. Its totally up to the courts. The gay couple can still sue and should if they feel the baker is just being a jerk. I don’t know why is so hard to understand for so many.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Kinda like the Ellen Pao case where she claimed sex discrimination. The jury found otherwise and Team Ellen lost big.

      But had she been a lesbian, she probably would have won her case.

  • avatar
    sketch447

    I think this law is ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. I am extremely encouraged and excited that it passed. Let’s not let these gay cultural terrorists destroy religious freedom.

    People will buy Subarus, or not buy Subarus, based on the cars themselves. Do you really think the average consumer (gay or straight) will look at a Forester and say, “Golly, this was made in Indiana, and Indiana allows discrimination against gays. I’m buying that snazzy Trabant next door instead!”

    Gimme a break. With that reasoning, no Jewish individual would ever buy a German car. And yet, who purchased all those VW Bugs in the 70s? Or all those Mercedes in the 80s? Progressive Jewish intellectuals…..and more power to them.

    Indiana stood up for religious freedom. Religious freedom trumps all. This country wasn’t founded by self-centered, posturing gays…. it was founded by deeply moral, religious, spiritual, and brave pioneers who cared about something bigger than themselves.

    Why does that matter?? Because let’s face it: at the end of the day, gays only care about themselves. And they demand that you care about them too. Well, you know what, gays? Some people do NOT want to bake you a wedding cake or photograph your gay wedding that will, in all likelihood, end in divorce within 3 yrs.

    You don’t like that? Go to a baker that will make your cake. There are plenty who will. No one is denying you your cake; we’re just denying you your cultural terrorism…..

    Indiana, you rock!!!

    • 0 avatar
      MPAVictoria

      Yep no bigotry here.

      • 0 avatar
        bomberpete

        Oy vey! And aren’t those proverbial bakers who refuse gay wedding jobs basically fudge packers themselves?

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      @ sketch447, even if I read your post with Yankee Doodle Dandy playing in the background it’s still has to be the most warped perspective on America, our founding fathers and Indiana’s moral compass I’ve ever read.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    Not being from Indiana, I’m not familiar with this station or show, but looking at the song playlist, I guess it’s a run of the mill pop music station, not one that is explicitly political. Anyway, they had a caller this morning claiming to be a restaurant owner who does not want gays in his restaurant. Apparently prior to the laws passage, he wanted to get rid of some customers he thought were gay, and actually made up a story about a mechanical breakdown in the kitchen just to get them to leave. Sub race for sexual orientation and this could be the 50s.

    http://radionowindy.com/1365999/kyle-rachel-local-business-owner-supports-bill-100-and-refused-service-to-a-gay-couple-audio/

    Here’s a question: does this religious freedom extend to employees? Let’s say the baker is LGBTQ friendly and agrees to make a gay couple a wedding cake. His cake decorator says his religion opposes same sex marriage and refuses to do it. Can he be fired? Does this extend to employees or only business owners?

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “Anyway, they had a caller this morning claiming to be a restaurant owner who does not want gays in his restaurant.”

      I’m calling BS on that one.

    • 0 avatar

      “Here’s a question: does this religious freedom extend to employees? Let’s say the baker is LGBTQ friendly and agrees to make a gay couple a wedding cake. His cake decorator says his religion opposes same sex marriage and refuses to do it. Can he be fired? Does this extend to employees or only business owners?”

      Can’t comment on the particular of American law, but as according to legal principles that may or may not be upheld by the various systems:

      – An employee has the right to refuse anything that is patently illegal, in which case he should refuse. Or, if he feels it could be illegal then he can question it. If he refuses to bake the cake he would be culpable of insubordination (as there is nothing illegal about a ‘gay’ cake) and his contract could be justifiably terminated.

      – An employee is not a business. Therefore, he has a right to an opinion and his beliefs. So, if he is an observant Jew for instance, no company could force him to work on Saturday. However, if he were an owner (and in the case of the observant Jew in my hypothesis) and the law stated businesses must open on Saturdays, tough luck to him. Now, in most legal systems exceptions are held for small businesses. But that is in the public interest of providing employment and facilitating life for small businesses, in which case religious objections may be observed. But as you see, that is in the public interest. Again, businesses can’t hold opinions and beliefs, they must follow the law. Private individuals, even employees can.

      • 0 avatar
        Master Baiter

        Instead of having to twist yourself in knots over every bizarre scenario you can imagine, you could just leave businesses alone and let individuals enter into private, voluntary contracts.

        Government’s role should be to enforce and protect private contracts, not dictate the terms or content of those contracts.

        • 0 avatar

          Not really the government can and should orient private contracts. Not everything that is agreed “freely” is actually conductive to freedom.

          • 0 avatar
            darkwing

            And that’s how you end up with a banana republic, where the private sector is subject to the whims of El Presidente and his/her corrupt hangers-on. Take a look around sometime…

          • 0 avatar

            Not really. I think you are the one who should take a look around. If by banana republic you are talking aboit Brasil go right ahead. does not bother me at all because if anything the last scandals are proving the institutions are solid and working. The state’s checks and balances are working as intended and scorez of pols are under investigation, indicted or jailed. Happily so are some of the businessmen involved including two billionaires which is something the justice system couldn’t or wouldn’t touch before.

            As to El Presidente you are so behind the curve it’s funny. First it would be O Presidente or A Presidente in this case and she hardly has the power to shut anything down if not in the scope of the powers of her office.

            The system is in place. Far from perfect but workable. If people choose to pervert it they may face the consequences. Fortunately it appears they are. From the public or private sectors.

          • 0 avatar
            Mr. Orange

            @ Darkwing

            They speak Portuguese in Brazil.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            My understanding is Brazilians speak a variant of Portuguese (Brazilian Portuguese), not exact “European” Portuguese in the same Latin American Spanish is variant of “European” Spanish.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Portuguese

            http://spanish.about.com/cs/historyofspanish/f/varieties.htm

            @Marcelo

            What’s really going on with Rousseff? I recall reading there was some social upheaval due to a Petrobas scandal and I remember Campos was killed in August and being a little suspicious. Politics as usual or something more?

            http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/13/world/americas/brazil-plane-crash/

          • 0 avatar
            Mr. Orange

            All because the Portugease brought gifts, if I was to use a rational used in Fast Five to explain why don’t they speak Spanish.

          • 0 avatar
            darkwing

            Marcelo, you are, I think, in such a rush to respond — and I use the word “respond” here loosely — that you’re failing to take the time to read and understand.

            The jingoism was a nice added touch, though.

          • 0 avatar

            @darkwing

            Your post was so cryptic that anything could be read into it. And the jingoism waa spurred by banana republic. If you are going to loosely throw around a derogative expression don’t expect people to stay quiet.

          • 0 avatar
            darkwing

            Hardly — you just decided you’d prefer to grind your axe rather than waste half a second thinking first. Good thing that hasn’t been outlawed in the public interest, eh?

          • 0 avatar

            @28. We speak Portuguese the same Americans soeak English.

            The plane crash was not sabotage, it was just an accident.

            What is happening in Brazil is what has been happening firever. The need of the president to keep the congress placated. The easiest way to do that is with money. In the case of Petrobras, a state company, the ruling party “gave” some directories to their party and those parties that support them. And then those parties would award givernment contracts to companies that paid them kickbacks. But the companies are hardly innocent victims. They organized a “club” that negotiated and split the contracts among themselves. These are huge construction companies with a global presence. It benefited them immensely. Rousseff was the oresident of Petrobras’s board when these agreements were being set up so it seems likely, though yet unproven, that she knew. If she was there may or not be grounds for her impeachment depending on whether you choose to follow up the letter or spirit of the law.

            And there’s the political situation. The present regime is entering its thirteenth democratically elected year. The middle class mainly but not only is fed up with some of the programs. They feel overtaxed and underserved. They feel the government is buying poorer folk and ripping them off with their income transference programs. Some are fed up with what they consider this government’s activist role in promoting culture wars of our own by implementing policies that favor blacks, gays and other groups. Others are offended by the supposed support if this government to Cuba or Venezuela and think the ruling party wants to ultimately implement communism here (i doibt that very strongly). So what is happening is thst for the first time in Brazil in a long time the right is articulating itself. The right here has a dirty name becausr of our history of military coups and abject poverty.

            So I think there is a rather amorphous opposition to the ruling party that is apalled at the corruption and is protesting in the streets against it. Too bad there is no real right wing party in Brazil though that may come about as a result of this.

            What people forget though is that the institutions are working. Pols and businessmen are being investigated, indicted and jailed. It’s not like this party invented corruption or that society is not an active participant in that.

            I sae an interview the other day with multimillionaire businessman. He said that for the first time big business was afraid of government power to persecute them effectively. He said that was a good thing. I agree. It seems like a mess and it is, but I think it is a good one. Much political maturation and consolidation of institutions is happening and that is very good.

          • 0 avatar

            @darkwing

            I’m dumb. Please enlighten me as to what you were saying so that I can try to give you a satisfactory reaponse.

            And yes it is a very good thing. The amount of free speech Americans enjoy and mostly do a good job of defending is truly admirable.

      • 0 avatar

        Marcelo, In America many, perhaps most, small businesses are sole proprietorships. The lawyers here can correct me if I’m wrong, but those businesses are, for tax and legal purposes, identical to the owners.

        As long as I’m not breaking any laws or trespassing or harming the commons and I’m paying whatever taxes that I owe, I’m not sure that there’s any public interest in my business enterprises. I should be able to determine my own hours of business, not the state.

        If the state tells me when I must keep my business open, how it that not servitude? Are you going to compel licensed pharmacists to have 24hr service?

        Curt Flood was a wise man.

        • 0 avatar

          Hey Ronnie! Good points and if in America the person is the business then it’s very evident where some of this confusion comes from. And there are advantagez to such a system like tax collection but the disadvantages are quite obvious.

          And you know what? I tend to agree with you. It should not be the government’s business the hours I keep. Many would disagree for good reasons too. But you said it yourself. The public interest is I agree to follow the law when I have a business and if there is a law stating business hours then it is the public interest. The law can always be anulled if their is interest. And that is the political process that in the end regulates everything.

          And don’t confuse business with professions. As a lawyer I can refuse anyone (unless compelled into pro bono work by the law or my profession’s code). For a doctor for example this nt so clear. After all they have their oath.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    Nice mix of the thoughtful and open-minded with the narrow and mean-spirited here. thanks to everyone,even those I rabidly disagree with

  • avatar
    JayDub

    Will this galvanize the LGBT crew into completing their Honda CRV migration?

    j/k

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Wow, the triggering really intensified.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I really don’t consider this a threat to Subaru.

    If the gays and lesbians are opposed one would think they would challenge the State.

    I’m impressed at the mature conversation regarding this topic so far.

    Personally religion has no place in government and/or business.

    This goes for everything whether it’s right to lifers, flat earthers (Creationists), etc. Everyone has the right to believe in what they want.

    But it’s not their responsibility to change policy to affect others, ie, to tell another they can’t have an abortion. People with that view are the reason we have so many wars, ie, Middle East.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Don’t do business with a business that discriminates. The power of the purse has much more influence than a law. I honestly cannot see most businesses openly discriminating against someone based on there sexual preference. Subaru knows the demographics of their customers and most dealers who sell Subaru will not turn down a customer regardless–a sale is a sale. I agree with many who say that most do not believe in discrimination against gays but many of us don’t want a life style crammed down our throats whether it be gay, Quaker, religious right, Muslim or any other. Businesses to some degree have a right to not do business with someone and in many cases in can be hard to prove discrimination.

  • avatar
    discoholic

    Considering this is post # 302, nobody’s likely to read it, but let me try and summarize the various contributions from both sides and try to clarify a few things, but first (in the spirit of full disclosure) I’d like to mention two things:
    1. I’m gay
    2. I’ve never in my life driven a Subaru.

    Here’s the things that I’d like to comment on:
    1. You’re not tolerant, libertarian, or in fact a civilized human being if you keep referring to gays as “fudgepackers.”

    2. Citing all sorts of hypothetical, pulled-straight-out-of-your-arse situations like the Muslim butcher with a cab license denying his Jewish passenger a pork chop doesn’t change the fact that gays and lesbians still face legal and everyday discrimination. To wit: taxes, inheritance and adoption laws, bullying, etc. etc. (being called a fudgepacker qualifies, incidentally)

    3. Asking for the same rights that you have is not “flaunting my sexuality”. Kissing my partner is not “flaunting my sexuality”. Telling you that I’m not interested in tits is no more “flaunting my sexuality” than your locker room talk.

    4. White, straight, male Christians that keep whining about being discriminated against in the US are nothing short of ridiculous. You’re really under siege, man.

    5. When people tell you that your supposed right to basically be an a**hole with people you don’t like (because of the colour of their skin, or who they sleep with, or what they believe in) isn’t actually a right, that’s not discrimination against you.

    6. Allowing religious beliefs to become a legal basis for denying a service, offensive actions, discrimination or insults in the 21st century is nothing short of an insult to human intelligence, decency and true religion.
    If my firm religious belief in the Divine Green Spaghetti Monster compelled me to demand that all people with darker skin ought to be enslaved, mistreated, forced to live in inhumane conditions and denied any basic human rights (sound familiar?) people would rightly label my a nutbag and sue me.
    So where exactly is that Indiana piece of dreck that the Governor, in his radiant wisdom, felt authorized to sign into law any different?

    7. So, about that Cadillac instrument cluster: I agree. It looks crap.

    • 0 avatar
      marc

      Since it was written at 7:26am, you win for best comment of the (new) day!

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      The Constitution protects free speech, including and especially offensive speech, speech which you might say makes someone an a$$ hole.

      There would be no need to protect speech about rainbows and butterflies.

      In today’s society, problems of discrimination in service and employment are not acute enough to justify the government’s interference in private business. In point of fact, they never were. The free market would have sorted this out, perhaps not on the timetable desired by the totalitarian left, but it would have sorted itself out.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        Did someone threaten to jail people for offensive speech somewhere in this thread and I missed it?

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “Did someone threaten to jail people for offensive speech somewhere in this thread and I missed it?”

          Yes, you missed it. Here it is:

          discoholic: “If my firm religious belief in the Divine Green Spaghetti Monster compelled me to demand that all people with darker skin ought to be enslaved, mistreated, forced to live in inhumane conditions and denied any basic human rights (sound familiar?) people would rightly label my a nutbag and sue me.”

          He thinks it’s right to sue people who SPEAK nutty things (make nutty demands). That’s an abridgment of free speech.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Master Baiter – it appears that you don’t understand a fundamental responsibility that comes with free speech.
            I can speak freely but not in a manner that marginalizes, dehumanizes, or incites hatred or causes fear in others.

            Saying someone is a fudgepacker is an example and as discoholic has pointed out, one cannot hide behind free speech and religion and rattle off “freely” if there is any risk of harming another.

            We have the responsibility to ensure that when we exercise our freedom we do not impinge upon the freedom of others.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @Lou_BC – here’s where we’ll have to disagree. We can argue about whether serving someone in a business establishment constitutes free exercise of religion, but speech is speech and it is free. I am definitely offended by “fudgepacker” and wish it was not being used. I think those who use hate speech (Phil Robertson being a prime example) bear a degree of responsibility for the lives of the LGBTQ youth that are lost every year to bullying and rejection induced suicide, never mind the emotional scars left on the living. That being said, I absolutely support someone’s right to say it, especially in a free public forum like this. Indeed, I think it can benefit the side of the reasonable to have the unreasonable show their true nature.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            tjh8402 – you have indirectly proven my point.
            Freedom comes with responsibility.

            Calling someone a “fudgepacker” is irresponsible use of free speech.

            It derides and belittles gays. It dehumanizes a segment of the population.

            That crosses the line to where it impinges upon another person’s right to live without ridicule and fear.

            One has the right to say what they want but not if it impinges upon another’s rights.

            The First Amendment does guarantee free speech but the Ninth Amendment says that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            Just like I said, you have the right to free speech but not if it impinges upon another’s right to be free from hate, ridicule, and dehuminization.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @Lou_BC – geez this thread is getting hard to keep up with. In between when I start typing my reply and post it, another 10 responses are already up, and we end up talking past each other in two separate conversations on the thread. wonder if TTAC could change the comments to something more like reddit or (sorry to mention the competition)Jalopnik’s kinja so it’s clearer which sub threads are being addressed. Perhaps we’re disagreeing about semantics or arguing two different points here. Are you characterizing the comments as irresponsible, inconsiderate, and inappropriate? That I would agree with. That these comments need to be censored or are in some way not protected by first amendment rights is what I would take issue with. Their right to say them is as protected as our right to call them what they are. Put both out in the marketplace of ideas and I’m comfortable the reasoned side will ultimately triumph.

            To try to relate it to the Indiana law, although I’m not comfortable with a business owner discriminating against gays, I’d defend their right to put an anti-gay bible verse in his store window, anti marriage equality sign at the counter, or book by anti gay writer on their desk. That being said, if there are employees, there may be a risk of a harassment or hostile work environment complaint, but I’m not sure what the law says on that (any lawyers to opine?).

    • 0 avatar
      italianstallion

      discoholic,

      Ramen, brother.

  • avatar
    dougjp

    Stop it with the abbreviations! Sheesh, three of them in a short article! Lazy or what!

    What’s a LGBT, I can guess, but why do I have to? What’s an EIC? I KNOW EIC stands for Earned Income Credit, Google tells me so. NCAA? That’s probably very tall people with boom boxes for gun control, right?

    • 0 avatar
      marc

      EIC refers to Editor In Chief, the former one of TTAC having been canned due to the last mega-comment article about gays and Subarus. Google can help you out with NCAA.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        He raised a fair point — the use of abbreviations like that is too inside baseball.

        Most of the readers of the website are not regulars. The references to the “B&B” are one example of why one should remember this, as the average person would reasonably presume that a B&B is a bed-and-breakfast, not a group of website readers.

        Articles should be written with the assumption that the average reader will not know what these references mean until the author of the post defines the term within the article itself.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      @dougjp, LGBT pretty much covers everything that isn’t heterosexual or asexual

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @dougjp – LGBTQ = Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered Queer, which, as @lie2me said, covers pretty much everything that’s not straight or asexual.

  • avatar
    sketch447

    Agreed. Whoever used the disgraceful term “fudgepacker” should be sanctioned on this site.

    By the way, nowadays, a “white straight male Christian” has about as much chance of getting a job over a woman/minority as Wile E. Coyote does getting a job as a state-licensed demolitions expert and safety inspector….

  • avatar
    Jeff Waingrow

    Whew! I just finished reading all the comments. A few are noble, and many are reasonable. But many are also woeful and mean-spirited. I’m happy that I don’t know some of those folks. An unhappy lot, I’d say. What’s with this place?

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      +100

      Some bigoted scared people post on this site. I say some off color jokes that piss people off. But, not once did I mean anything behind a jokes. Some of these posts are deep seated and sad. Posting something to make people think and posting bigoted hate are two completely different things.

    • 0 avatar
      mmmach1

      This place? Its a normally interesting website about cars or it was until a lazy leftwing contributor posted a political hit piece on Indiana without doing any research because he wanted to seem “with it” That’s all.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        I don’t know about the lazy left-wing part you refer to, but I do agree that normally this is a very interesting site so long as we stick to cars, etc. But when Derek throws out a piece of red meat, what invariably follows is not especially pretty. I guess that’s what I meant about “this place”. Since people mostly post without giving their real names, there’s a freedom to express the most odious thoughts without any inhibitions.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Mr. Kreindler posed a question about Subaru’s business. Many of his posts are about the business of cars, Subaru has a history of marketing directly to the gay community, and numerous corporations have spoken out against the Indiana statute.

        The fact that TTAC’s resident knuckle draggers turned a fairly innocuous question into an opportunity to advertise their dumbness to the world is not his fault. Some folks can’t resist the chance to parade their dumb intolerances on the internet.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Pch101 – agreed. One can argue that this is click bate at its finest but as pointed out, Subaru has actively courted the lesbian/gay community. A law such as this could affect Subaru due to that association.

          If this law allows religious belief to trump the personal freedom of others then that could really hurt a company that has actively courted the gay/lesbian community.

          One thing that I love about this site is the fact that the Contributors/Editors et al allow threads to take on a life of their own.

          That is free speech at work.

          Some of the terms used were inappropriate and in terms of this debate has done way more harm to those in the conservative religious camp than to the gay/lesbian side .

          • 0 avatar
            VW16v

            Agreed free speech and this site go hand and hand. But, some still like to talk down and name call just so they can feel superior to another. I guess some people need that feeling of power to get through the day.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Pch101,
          I’ll give you credit when credit is due.

          That was probably the best contribution I’ve witnessed from you.

          You displayed you do have moral values and common sense, backed by sound logic.

          Can we be friends again?

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Considering the many dumb derogatory Gay comments you’ve made here on this site I highly doubt Pch101 was excluding you from the “knuckle draggers” with “dumb intolerances” that he was referring to

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Lie2me,
            I really hope that comment you’ve just made wasn’t directed at me.

            Find any homophobic comment from me, you will not. That is if you are aiming at me.

            I do believe I’m the only true liberally minded person who comments here.

            I believe in liberalisation to the point that I believe in free liberal markets, and public health and livable minimum wage.

            I’m not constrained. I’m a true liberal right wing person, not a redneck as some who comment on this site.

            I’m that liberal that I’m anti union as I don’t believe that an organization or institution should call my shots.

            Read up on what I believe in. My politics is based on freedom. The belief is called Economic Liberalisation. Best form of politics, non religious and supports anyone or anything that is positive and free of handouts and protection.

            I believe in freedom to the point where some who considers its their freedom to do as they wish affecting others is not true freedom

            Many who comment on many of these blogs are confused between freedom and selfishness.

            Nothing is free when your actions are affecting others.

            This thread is a great example of those who don’t know how to respect and only fear.

            Similar to the NRA/redneck/Tea Party types, who believe they require a gun to protect themselves from others with guns. Great logic. I do support hunting and the eradication of pests. But no need for assault weapons or any military weaponry in any home or civilian situation.

            This thread, you sense the unease of some of the commentators. They are insecure and don’t trust their judgment, so they take the easy way. That is to classify or discriminate.

            They want what they consider their freedom to be irrespective if it impinges on others’ freedoms. Selfish people.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    I am a little tired of the media slamming me with gay friendly propaganda. Why did TTAC publish a gay article? The blog should fire the person who posted this. I would bet many readers find the gay lifestyle sickening and don’t want it mixed in with car reviews. Shame on TTAC.

    • 0 avatar
      discoholic

      First, a “gay article” and please fire someone? Might we be just a tad paranoid?

      Secondly, being gay is no more a “choice” or a “lifestyle” than being black is. If you think it’s a choice, then I’m going to assume that you have felt like sucking dick regularly but decided not to.

      (I’m sure your girlfriend will be fascinated.)

      I for one find the narrowminded-bigot lifestyle sickening and don’t want it mixed with car reviews. Or with anything else, for that matter. Oh, and that IS a choice, darling.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      jimmyy, since you are commenter 318 or so and I haven’t the energy or ambition to yell at every intolerant and sanctimonious post before you, I’ll just say this to you:

      If you don’t want to read an article with “gay” in it, don’t read the f-king article. Did anyone drag your eyes across every line on the screen? No? So you chose to read it and now you’re mad? Got it.

      If you find the gay lifestyle sickening, then don’t have sex with other men. Don’t think about sex with other men. We all know people who we’d rather not think are sleeping together, but it’s none of our damn business, now is it?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @jimmyy – I used to question the gay lifestyle and to some degree found it offensive. Religion just happened to be a convenient crutch which helped me avoid asking myself “WHY?”
      Soul searching made me come to the conclusion that “gays” made me feel insecure. Having another man find me attractive sexually bothered me and did make me question my masculinity. I had never really been around many gays so it was also convenient to hide behind ignorance.
      I worked with a gay fellow for the last 2 years and it was no different than working and socializing with heterosexual men or women.

      Interestingly enough my sons (11 and 13) have a friend who has turned out to be gay. We found that out a few years ago. We had a discussion with them that if that was their preference then that was fine with us and we would support them as best we could. Both of my sons stated that they weren’t gay. So that lead to then next part of out discussion.
      We talked about being careful as to what they said and to whom because of bullying and gay bashing. It turned out that the boy’s mom knew but not the dad. The dad was the penultimate redneck.

      I should have my boys read this thread.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @Lou_BC (for the second time in a row; here’s what happens when I step away from my email and try to address each comment as I come to them) – Thanks for how you and your wife are raising your kids. Here’s a personal story you’re welcome to share in part or in whole with them if you’re showing them this thread (good idea btw).

        I’m 31, started coming out in my early 20s. I did not have it as bad as many, but I was nonetheless surrounded by mostly homophobic peers up till that point, and in some ways I’m still recovering from that. A huge part of that has been not just gay friends, but very supportive straight allies who made it clear that we were welcome in the respective social and professional communities. The difference in attitude I’ve seen in guys 5 and 10 years younger than I am vs how my peers were at those ages is amazing. What your sons’ friend is going through with his father is now and will continue to be hard on him, never mind the loss of a safe place he should but won’t have if things get rough at school, on a sports team, or at his place of worship. Knowing that he has people that support him will be a huge boost. Your kids have such a great opportunity to make a meaningful difference in not just this boy’s life, but the lives of any other LGTBQ kids who see them being friends with and sticking up for him. Considering the suicide rate among LGTBQ youth, I’m not exaggerating when I say they have the potential to save lives.

        Even today, it gives me great peace of mind and a sense of security to know that, however unlikely, if anyone at the fire department was to really come after me for being gay, my straight friends there would probably be on them before I had a chance to react. Two of them have already had people tease them for being friends with me, and had it implied that we’re more than friends (despite both being married with kids). Both stood up for our relationship and consider it stupid that straight guys can’t be good friends with a gay guy without it being a big deal to people.

        Ultimately, they are the future, and the reason the future (on this issue) is brighter. Studies have shown that a person’s attitude towards homosexuality is strongly correlated with how many gay people they know and interact with in their lives. As more and more of us come out, it will help the rest of the population get to know us and see this as a normal variation in how people are, that welcoming attitude will in turn help more people feel safe coming out, and the cycle will continue for the better.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        @Lou_BC So, do guys hit on you a lot? I’m glad to see you’re recovering from your sexual insecurities and your imaginary irresistiblity to Gay men

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        ….. friend who has turned out to be gay. We found that out a few years ago. We had a discussion with them that if that was their preference…..

        Preference? Don’t know about you, but my orientation was baked in from day one. In the old days “Dad” would, upon finding out his son might have “gay tendencies”, take him out to the woodshed and “butch” him up with a good beating. Think of the horror to that kid. The very people he looked up to all those years rejecting him and beating the “gay” out of him. I’m not even gay and the thought of this hangs heavy in my mind and heart. I remember how hard it was as a kid with the jocks getting to pick the teams and the rejection of being the last one picked for what seemed like forever. This makes that kind of rejection pale in comparison. At least now I get the satisfaction of being far fitter and being in great shape whereas the jocks of old are (mostly) rolling their paunch around with a wheelbarrow and have the joy of living on blood thinners for the rest of their life.

        You do not get to chose how you feel sexually. You are not made gay by exposure to gay people, though such exposure might make you understand that we are all humans and should be treated as such. Some of the open hostility here is so sad.

        • 0 avatar
          tjh8402

          @golden2husky – good catch on the use of “preference”. definitely the wrong word to use. preference is whether you want your steak rare, medium, or well done. who you love is something way more intrinsic.

        • 0 avatar
          Dan

          “You do not get to chose how you feel sexually. You are not made gay by exposure to gay people, though such exposure might make you understand that we are all humans and should be treated as such. ”

          That sounds pleasant and non judgmental but it just isn’t true.

          Exposure to the Jerry Sanduskys of the world strongly and consistently correlates with the victims of that exposure going homosexual – and often enough, molester too – themselves later in life. Homosexual men are 1.5% of the population yet 30% of reported pre-adolescent rape is committed against boys.

          That cycle of sexual abuse is the raging bull elephant in the room that, as usual, we’re supposed to pretend doesn’t exist.

    • 0 avatar
      VW16v

      Jimmyy. you have made one of the most entertaining posts on the page. The sad thing is that you probably do not think it is entertainment. Thanks for the laugh. I hope.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Derek, this article doesn’t belong on TTAC. I like to read about cool cars, and forget about politics.

    Good click-bait for the ad dollars, though!

  • avatar
    mcs

    I live in a part of the country where we welcome members of the LGBT community. Laws like the Indiana law will result in regions like mine gaining the skills, talent, brain-power, and economic force that the LGBT possesses. Indiana’s loss will be our gain.

  • avatar
    marc

    I know this devolved quickly. That was a given. Thanks especially to Ronnie who always helps articles like this devolve. So though it pains me, as I truly appreciate the relationship between politics, economics, and this wonderful car culture that we truly love here at TTAC, but can I request a RULE CHANGE?…..

    NO MORE ARTICLES ABOUT SUBARUS/GAYS. Articles about Subies like the BR-Z? Great. Articles breaking down demographics as it relates to car purchases and ownership-wholly relevant. Put the 2 together…Danger Will Robinson!

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks for the personal attack. There were over 200 comments in this thread and people were throwing around words like “bigot” and “hater” before I posted anything.

      I understand your pain. It all started when he hit you back. There, there.

      • 0 avatar
        marc

        @Ronnie, the reason I get more upset with your posts is because you are one of the faces of TTAC, not some anonymous poster. Plus, as one of the most vocal on that last infamous Subaru thread, I remember clearly your rantings there as well. I expect the knuckleheads that I have been reading the last 24 hours, but I guess I just expect more from you…..

        • 0 avatar
          marc

          And by the way, I have been “Hit,” beaten for being gay. So yes I take things like discrimination against the gays quite seriously.

        • 0 avatar

          I won’t apologize for being a consistent advocate for free speech or for saying that you social justice warriors are totalitarian in mindset.

          It’s not so much what’s said, though that is a factor. It’s who can take advantage, who can be attacked.

          I can, however, empathize with you being the victim of violence. I’ve been the victim of violence inspired by hate as well. I just don’t see the perps as more guilty because of that hate. The motive isn’t the crime.

          I’ve also experienced the level of compassion your fellow travelers have so you’ll just have to excuse me if I’ll treat your concern about expecting more from me as disingenuous. About 80% of what I write here is history and I can’t recall you ever commenting on any of those posts, either positively or negatively.

          “just expect more from you”

          I’m a parent. I know how to play the “you’re better than that” routine. I also know the “can’t you come up with a better lie than that?” routine.

          The SJWs have gotten their pound of flesh from me but scars heal and chicks dig them.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil200

    Subaru can respond by issuing a strongly worded document condemning this action, and following it up with a large donation to an organization who is fighting it.

  • avatar
    AH-1WSuperCobra

    Really the problem is respect it’s supposed to be a two way street. Instead everyone believes that they are morally and intellectually correct 100% of the time no matter what. All you have to do is look at any story like this on the net and within the first few comments words like bigot and socialist are thrown around so much they have no meaning. We complain Washington is a gridlock yet the people who vote those clowns in are apparently incapable of having an adult conversation. But who says we don’t manufacturer anything in this country anymore. We seem to manufacture a lot of phony outrage and righteous indignation.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    I have several gay and lesbian friends in Louisville and hope to see a couple the next time I visit. I try to be respectful of their plight by doing what I can, like not introducing those that look macho, but when they open their mouths, the purses fall out to any of my old friends that look like, and are fans of Duck Dysentery. After the Chick fil a hoo ha a couple of years ago, there were boycotts. Since then I must admit I’ve had at least 4 vanilla shakes from there because I wanted one and it is a good vanilla shake. But I wouldn’t suggest eating there, since there are so many alternatives, to any gay friends. Last year I started laughing when a ‘mo, his term, was eating from a Chick wrapper. He said, “They may hate me, but they still have the best GD chicken sandwich.”

    • 0 avatar
      tjh8402

      @cargogh – lol @ your friend. It is really good food. I justified/rationalized (depending on your perspective) continuing to eat at Chick Fil A because we do share a common goal of promoting healthier living and fast food. Not only does the food taste good, but if you order right, you’ve got one of the best selections of fresh whole nutritious foods you’ll find at any restaurant. Combating the obestity epidemic in this country is another cause I feel passionately about, and I would consider them an ally there. Also, if I take off the gay hat and put on the firefighter/EMT/first responder hat, they take good care of us and are quite generous when we’re on duty. Customer service is also generally really good there. One time I went to Starbucks, got a coffee, and then went to CFA for chicken. I posted a picture of the starbucks coffee and CFA lunch on facebook with the caption “culture war confusion”. Ultimately, though, if I walk in holding hands with my boyfriend, I don’t expect they will kick us out. There’s a big difference between political support for an issue (that is the losing side at this point anyway) and outright discrimination and refusal of service. Also lets keep in mind that CFA’s are franchised, so who knows what the political views are of the owner of that particular location. They may or may not be the views of CFA corporate.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    I have several gay and lesbian friends in Louisville and hope to see a couple the next time I visit. I try to be respectful of their plight by doing what I can, like not introducing those that look macho, but when they open their mouths, the purses fall out to any of my friends that look like, and are fans of Duck Dysentery. After the Chick fil a hoo ha a couple of years ago, there were boycotts. Since then I must admit I’ve had at least 4 vanilla shakes from there because I wanted one and it is a good vanilla shake. But I wouldn’t suggest eating there, since there are so many alternatives, to any gay friends. Last year I started laughing when a ‘mo, his term, was eating from a Chick wrapper. He said, “They may hate me, but they still have the best GD chicken sandwich.”
    I think this will be the case with Subaru.

  • avatar
    George B

    I predict that this state law in Indiana will have very little impact on Subaru. This is a minor skirmish in the Cold Civil War that only gained attention because Indiana is in a politically contested part of the country. When Mississippi passed a similar law this year, nobody asked how it would impact Nissan and Toyota.

    Indiana is now one of 20 states that have state laws or state constitutional amendments that extend the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act to state law. These laws are a reaction to a 1997 Supreme Court case that ruled that the RFRA could not be applied to state law. The actual impact of the RFRA is less than its opponents fear.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/01/where-in-the-u-s-are-there-heightened-protections-for-religious-freedom/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

    • 0 avatar
      jerseydevil200

      WHatever its origins, it is a thinly disguised attempt to discriminate against GLBT people. Everyone knows that, thats why theres such a strong reaction to it. I think Indiana shot itself in the foot, and this should serve as a warning to other states who intend to try this foolishness.

      It might affect corporations who intend to sell their wares to the public, who will now be aware of their corporate reaction to this outrage. In the case of Subaru, insulting their base constituency would be shortsighted, indeed.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    My last thoughts on this and its closed. You know what doesn’t care who/what you are?

    Leukemia.
    Cancer.
    AIDS.
    Diabetes.
    Heart Disease.
    Liver Disease.

    One of these things will probably affect all of you one day.

    Perspective people, have some perspective.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Last post baby for the WIN!

  • avatar
    mikey

    I come to TTAC for entertainment … This was certainly entertertaining

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      LOL! And I love to push those buttons. Play them like a cheap violin.

      • 0 avatar
        frozenman

        highdesertcat you remind me of some of the older folks I converse with when I’m down in Yuma, initially they display great comment and wit but if you hang around too long any excuse for an exit will do. Checking the first lines of your posts usually has me looking for said exit, happy trolling!

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        LOL! And I love to push those buttons. Play them like a cheap violin

        I call BS on that. There is a consistency to what you write and what you chose to post about and how it is written. I find it hard to believe that what you write is not exactly how you feel. You would have to have a superb memory to have such consistency in content and delivery if it were made up. Yeah, you will occasionally add an extra barb (like the anti-climate change comment in this thread) that is outside the scope of the topic but, no, you write what you live and feel.

        • 0 avatar
          bomberpete

          Every HDC post keeps setting off my BS meter. He says he doesn’t care what people do it private, then reveals his paranoia and full homosexual panic by railings against the fudge packers. yet he still claims not to be a bigot, just a guy who calls ’em as he sees them.

          Message to highdesertcat: Archie Bunker was a parody!

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t think any corporations will be bothered by this law they will just ignore it and treat all customers the same regardless of sexual preference. Subaru is not going to care if you are heterosexual or gay but that you are a customer. Most businesses will not use religious beliefs as a basis to serve a customer and will not ask or care what your sexual preference is which is the way it should be. A more effective way is for anyone who does not like the practices of a business is to not buy anything from them and if you feel that is not enough then boycott their business. Just like the civil rights movements of the past that would boycott businesses in the past with discriminatory practices it would be better to boycott that business openly and by a large group. Hit them in the pocketbook where it hurts the most.

  • avatar
    Eyeflyistheeye

    In a case like this, the best thing to do is arm both parties, throw them into a locked room and let the victor decide public policy.

    Seriously, there are so many theoretical scenarios that it’s hard to go over each and every one. Personally, I think if the only pharmacist in town doesn’t want to serve gay people, then that’s a big problem. On the other hand, if one restaurant out of many doesn’t want to serve gay people, let the owner hoist themselves on their own petard.

    This is a crappy situation between a rock and a hard place. My real question to Gov. Pence is what situations in Indiana could have possibly necessitated such a law to be passed and why it had to be signed in private. Why did Mitch Daniels (whom I liked as a governor and would have loved to see run) not think it was necessary?

    I’ve never judged an entire state or even nation of people because of its government and I won’t start now. Just as Jan Brewer or Evan Mecham isn’t Arizona, Mike Pence isn’t Indiana, and nor is the equally hysterical Indiana State Legislator Vanessa Summers, who accused her GOP colleague’s 18 month child of being racist. Both are pandering to the lowest common denominator, people who think they’re being discriminated against just because they don’t think their butts are being sufficiently kissed to their liking.

    I’m religious and active in my church. However, what Pence is doing doesn’t appeal to me at all. I would have left the GOP over this had I not already over the ridiculous letter to Iran and Boehner’s sophomoric taunting of Jewish Democratic Congressmembers who didn’t want to attend his stunt with Netanyahu.

    If Pence is trying to get his name out there for 2016 either as a backup candidate in case everyone else in the GOP implodes (that’s a severe possibility, seeing how donors inexplicably thought people would want another Bush over Romney for the mainstream GOP candidate and instead are pissing off liberals, conservatives and moderates), then he’ll join Michael Dukakis and Thomas Dewey on the shoulda-woulda-coulda train. This isn’t 2004 or 2008, doubling down on social issues on a national level isn’t going to change the results McCain and Romney achieved in the last two elections.


Recent Comments

  • stuki: Subpar infrastructure has always been a problem in third world countries.
  • SCE to AUX: “Anyone with a Tesla who cheers when the Blue Angels do a fly-by at a sports game should have to...
  • Hydromatic: Iraq proved the U.S. can knock around small armies with almost laughable ease, but chokes when faced with...
  • ToolGuy: OK, but when TVA was formed they put hands in a lot of pockets, and much more. Growing up, the dad next door...
  • eggsalad: Abysmal mileage for a 1.6 liter anything

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States