At the Corner Wine Bar and Wellington Pub in Broad Ripple, the menu board outside proclaimed “service for everyone.” It’s a slogan that began popping up across Indiana Thursday, in doorways, on windows and other spots, in response to Gov. Mike Pence signing of Indiana’s hot-button religious freedom law.

The Broad Ripple restaurant and pub also posted the slogan in Facebook posts that were quickly “greeted with multiple ‘likes,’” its general manager Ashley Daubenspeck said.

The slogan’s meaning, she explained: “We don’t discriminate and we are happy to serve anybody.”

Hours after Pence signed the measure, dozens of calls by reporters to Central Indiana businesses couldn’t find one willing to admit it planned to use the new law to discriminate against some customers for religious reasons. That was the fear expressed most often by opponents of the measure, including gay rights groups and others.

Most businesses contacted Thursday insisted they had no desire to discriminate against any of their customers. For many, the law brought a new worry: that it will spawn a backlash of negative public reaction that will discourage tourists from coming to the state and some residents from spending money here for certain services.

One scenario sketched out by opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was that the law would give wedding-related businesses the legal right to refuse to serve same-sex weddings. In 2014, an Indianapolis cake shop that’s now closed did just that. Years earlier an Indianapolis bakery wouldn’t sell its baked goods to a gay customer.

But several businesses in the wedding industry didn’t see the new law causing a rise in such practices.

Taylor’s Bakery of Indianapolis and Fishers, one the oldest bakeries in the state, said it has made many wedding and commitment cakes for gay couples, and plans to continue.

“Our door is open to everyone,” said John Allen, the bakery’s president. “Why would you run off business? I don’t understand who would do that. I don’t know anyone who would.”

Classic Cakes in Carmel was of similar mind. “I have very strong religious beliefs, but I am not going to judge anyone who walks in the door,” said owner Ilene McHone.

Wedding planner Renea Gates said she serves all kinds of clients, and doesn’t care about their sexual or religious beliefs. “I’ve served Christians, Muslims, Baptists, atheists, gays, straight – I just don’t care,” said Gates, owner of Elite Coordinators. “I am going to keep serving everyone.”

Wedding photographer Jennifer Van Elk said she worries the new law could prompt gay couples to choose other states for wedding ceremonies and receptions, costing Indiana money.

“They will miss great opportunities to work with great people because the religious freedom bill will scare those great people away from getting married in our state,” she said.

Tom Trine, owner of Elite Banquet and Conference Center in Kokomo, sees little changing for him under the new law.

“I just don’t think it’s going to be a business killer,” he said. He said he knows how he’d react if a business owner chose to discriminate against him for religious reasons.

“If somebody would tell me they don’t want to serve me then I wouldn’t want to give them my business. I’d go somewhere else.”

Both the Indiana and Indianapolis area chambers of commerce decried passage of the law.

“In our eyes, the law is entirely unnecessary. The reactions to it are not unexpected or unpredicted; passing the law was always going to bring the state unwanted attention,” said Kevin Brinegar, CEO of the state chamber.

“The Indy Chamber remains opposed to this divisive and unnecessary law,” said CEO Michael Huber. “We warned of the impending negative economic impact this legislation would have on our ability to attract and retain jobs, talent, and investment, noting the bill will encourage current and potential residents, and visitors to take their business elsewhere.”

“Within moments of this legislation being signed,” Huber said, “this warning became a stark reality.”

The early fallout from the bill’s signing was an announcement via Twitter by Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff that his San Francisco company will stop sending out-of-state staff to meetings in Indianapolis with its locally based ExactTarget division.

A Salesforce spokeswoman said Benioff wouldn’t expound on his remark.

At Shapiro’s Delicatessen, a near Downtown fixture, owner Brian Shapiro said he worried the bill would “foster anti-Semitism and a lack of tolerance.”

“Shouldn't the legislators be passing bills that help the business community, not hurt us? My great-grandmother, Rebecca Shapiro, once said: The only bad customer is the one that doesn't come in.”

The business community also suggested the law would impact the quality of their workforces. In testimony in the legislature while the bill was debated, several businesses said the law would hamper efforts to retain employees and recruit new hires because some might object to living in a state with a religious freedom law in place.

About 20 other states, including Texas, Florida, Illinois and Louisiana, have passed religious freedom laws since 1993 that are the same or similar to Indiana’s. Those laws passed for the most part with little or no controversy. The passage of Indiana’s law comes at a time of debate over same-sex marriage legislation that heightens the public sensitivity over sexual and other types of discrimination.

A consultant to the convention and meetings industry, Joan Eisenstodt, president of Eisenstodt Associates in Washington, D.C., said she’s never had a client ask her to avoid meeting in a state with a religious freedom law in place. But that could change with the public furor over Indiana’s passage of its law, she said.

“It’s been more on the radar and people are more aware of this,” she said. “Groups are going to be out there and make the connection” that a state has passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“It’s going to be a very interesting issue,” she said. “And Indiana is going to be on the forefront of dealing with this and is probably going to lose some (convention and meeting) business.”

Another meeting consultant, Tim Brown, CEO of Meetings Sites Resources of Irvine, Calif., said it’s unlikely that conventions or other groups will cancel already scheduled meetings in Indiana because they’d have to pay stiff cancellation fees to hotels. But the multimillion-dollar convention industry in Indianapolis could be hurt if groups that book conventions years ahead of time decide to avoid Indiana, he said.

“It’s hard to quantify,” how strong the anti-Indiana feeling will be in the convention and meeting industry, he said. “But you really are talking about the potential loss of revenue and jobs if it gets legs.”

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 01:14:00 PM

I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.

To ensure economic sovereignty for businesses most likely.

The market always finds a way though, as this thread has amiably pointed out, so there was never really a fuss to begin with. Like I've said in the past, there's no money to be made in isolating your consumer base.

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on April 01, 2015, 01:17:27 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 01:14:00 PM

I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.

To ensure economic sovereignty for businesses most likely.

The market always finds a way though, as this thread has amiably pointed out, so there was never really a fuss to begin with. Like I've said in the past, there's no money to be made in isolating your consumer base.

So if businesses aren't having their religious freedoms trampled on, why was this even passed, and why are there similar bills in more than a dozen other states?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The bill is there to protect economic freedom, not impede it. The government should not be forcing a business or a commercial body to serve someone. That's the entire point of the bill.

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 01:27:27 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on April 01, 2015, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on April 01, 2015, 01:17:27 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 01:14:00 PM

I still don't get why the bill is even necessary to begin with.

To ensure economic sovereignty for businesses most likely.

The market always finds a way though, as this thread has amiably pointed out, so there was never really a fuss to begin with. Like I've said in the past, there's no money to be made in isolating your consumer base.

So if businesses aren't having their religious freedoms trampled on, why was this even passed, and why are there similar bills in more than a dozen other states?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The bill is there to protect economic freedom, not impede it. The government should not be forcing a business or a commercial body to serve someone. That's the entire point of the bill.

But this specifically focuses on religion. Isn't government forcing someone to do something against their religion already against the law?

Well, I'm not a legal expert, but the First Amendment is there to ensure the freedom to practice religion. I don't think it has anything to do with business practice.

So a few people/businesses saying they aren't bigoted is proof?

LOL

Which is why I don't trust what they say, but what they do.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 01, 2015, 04:00:55 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 01, 2015, 03:55:48 PM

Which is why I don't trust what they say, but what they do.

You think they're going to say they'll serve anybody and then covertly sneak gays out the back door so nobody will suspect anything?

I'm not answering that loaded question.

Hmm

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

I dont see why we cant just criminalise degeneracy like homosexuality and transexuality. That would be better than having to pass laws to allow christians their freedom.

Quote from: Mad Max on April 02, 2015, 12:42:41 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on April 02, 2015, 12:41:32 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on April 01, 2015, 07:55:38 PM

Hmm

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

HOLY SHIT.  ONE business out of THOUSANDS is refusing to cater gay weddings!  Fuck me I guess we need legislation against that so that everyone can be serviced by a backwards-ass pizza parlor!

That quite obviously wasn't the point.

We were just talking about how businesses were just saying they wouldn't ever discriminate against a customer for something like that. Clearly some businesses would.

And one of the first businesses to do so is getting hammered with negative public opinion.  I don't see the problem.