Council urges ban on city-worker travel to Indiana

St. Patricks day parade.

Hurrumph!

What useful networking and knowledge will the City of Boston potentially be deprived of by passing these resolutions?

Say an important national conference in (name any government dicipline) is being held in Indiana or Arkansas. Should city workers in the applicable field be denied the right to attend these conferences just because we happen to disagree with another state's ideology?

I mean, I don't think he has that pull.

*face palm*

Michelle Wu told me that they will start pulling captions April 6th, and format them into a transcript.

Also, the disability commission has installed/ mounted 2 large TVs on the walls of the Ianella Chamber. WGBH provides captions.

Went to a hearing the other day, and everything worked beautifully.

http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny...

They didn't have actual people inquiring to be denied yet, but they are stating up front now.

Also, this type of bill was defeated in Florida, a few years back. Once a legislator proposed that businesses choosing to discriminate based on their religious beliefs be required to post who they wouldn't serve on the door, that was the end of that bill.

Even MA has a similar law protecting religious freedom.

Did you, by chance, bother to read what that MA law and the Indiana Law says?

MA law says that GOVERNMENT can't discriminate (e.g. a school can't deny the right of students to religious head coverings or wearing crucifixes, etc.)

IN law says that I can kick you out of my restaurant because my religion says that I can't serve or be in contact with black people, gay people, or even willfully stupid people.

update the drivers and/or if you have an Intel Wireless Card, uninstall the Intel Wireless Pro software (but leave the driver). I think City Hall uses Cisco Meraki hardware, and it doesn't like Intel Wireless Pro very much (or the software at least)

OR we need to show you how to use your phone as a hot spot!

You mean AR?

Never would have pegged you as a Clinton fan

Bill Clinton signed this law to prevent the government from interfering w/ American Indians who used small amounts of peyote, a controlled substance, in their religious ceremonies. It was originally crafted to only prevent the government from messing with people's free practice of religion, within reason.

It was never intended for corporations or people to use this law to claim that they have the right to deny service to people due to their religious beliefs. Once the law became used for this discriminatory purpose, other states that had passed this law explicitly outlawed discrimination by service providers, as did the federal government, by executive order. Except Indiana, which just passed their own right to religious freedom law.

So nice try. Context matters. Today is not the same environment as over 20 years ago, and neither is the intent of this law.

Pining for them good ol' days with the good ol' boys at the lunch counter, before those black agitators ruint everything!

Funny, I thought Republicans understood markets.

Harrasment would be a crime in Indiana regardless, and I think everyone is looking at this law the wrong way and it should work itself out. Once a court rules (and it should rule), that marraige isn't a religious institution, then the businesses in Indiana won't be able to refuse gay couples from services. There are also going to be exceptions and special cases that courts are going to have to look at on an individual basis.

The Massachusetts Law also has many exceptions. Before my time, there was a Hasidic or Conservative Jewish man who became a police officer. He had requested not to work on Saturdays because of his religion, and wear his hair and beard in a style contrary to the rules and regulations of the department. I don't remember the particulars, but he was not allowed to do either. I'm not sure if he fought it and lost, or if there was already case law across the country that had established the governments right to restrict certian religious freedoms. I do know the beard issue has been ruled in favor of departments (the government) over religious freedoms though.

I'm going to guess that this Indiana law will go forward, but people should still have the right to sue for damages if they feel their civil rights are violated. This will at least put businesses at the whim of a judge to decide. Since there will be so many special circumstances, I don't see how any other way is possible.

If they waited 6 months to act on this new law, the momentum for the boycott kind of will have passed. Therefore, immediate action is warranted (and this written by someone who doesn't agree with the action, but still.)

As for the Olympics, not a penny of public money has been spent (so far), so the government really has nothing to do with that until (1) Boston is selected or (2) they need money for someone. They can in fact wait until this fall or even the fall of 2016 to act on that.