I get it. You’re mad. And I’m proud of the way people have responded locally and nationally. But I’m tired of people blasting our whole state. Superstar CEOs, leaders from other cities and people who might have had a layover in Indy one time, have joined the charge against RFRA. You’re putting real pressure on our representatives to make a change. I have a ton of respect for adding your voices to the conversation in our defense of this ugly bill, but let’s add to the conversation in the right way.

Indiana has always been known for “Hoosier Hospitality”. A place where that’s still more than just a slogan to us. A place where the cost of living is actually livable. A place where the sky isn’t blotted out by skyscrapers in every direction.

A place that is proud to host the world.

For years, Indianapolis has hosted millions in conference traffic. We’ve been home to a Super Bowl. We take care of over 300,000 people on one day once every year for “The Greatest Spectacle in Racing”. We take in crowds from around the midwest for Big Ten championships of all kinds on a regular basis. We’ve hosted men’s and women’s Final Fours for a couple of decades. We’re about to do it again and we’re going to crush it. During and after every event, no matter what group was here, you always hear the same thing: praise.

But there are still a lot of people who don’t know a damn thing about what’s actually going on and they certainly don’t know much about Hoosiers. And a lot of them are saying the wrong things right now.

“Shame on Indiana!” Really? Maybe shame on the lazy non-voters of this state. But mostly, shame on Governor Mike Pence and the House GOP for bringing this on our state. And Pence had a clear case study in how to handle it with Arizona’s very similarly directed SB1062. He did this, not Indiana.

Boycott Indiana. Are you serious? that’s not going to affect any decision making. Mike Pence has a history of going on the aggressive when he doesn’t get his way. After all, that’s how this bill got here. More than a few opponents of signing the bill also happen to be major contributors to his campaign. Money clearly doesn’t drive this guy. The only people you are going to hurt by pulling investment in our cities are the middle and lower class citizens of our state. The phrase, “shit rolls down hill”, exists for a reason. Plus, boycotting is pretty much discrimination. That thing you’ve been yelling about all week.

If the rally cry continues to be centered around how bad Indiana is, it’s going to start having real financial impact on a lot of really good, hardworking people that never discriminated against anyone.

Indiana was quickly becoming a place where talented people made it their dream to live and work in a city with real opportunity and a booming economy. Business and conventions are already making decisions that will cost our local economy in the millions. Punishing all Hoosiers for the aggressions of a few doesn’t make much sense.

Here’s a list of a few people that most likely don’t support this bill:

• The taxi driver picking you up at the airport.
• The guy holding the door for you at your hotel.
• The bartender pouring that locally made craft beer.

You get the idea.

Let’s reshape the conversation. Let’s use some intelligence. Let’s use positivity. Personalities like Marc Benioff of SalesForce, who is invested in Indianapolis whether they like it or not, need to use their clout responsibly — for highlighting the good things we’ve got going on here. At first, I loved the passion, but it’s getting serious now. You are aware that you have 2000+ employees here who still have to deal with this. And while it’s highly likely that your employees will be fine, they probably have friends and family who will be directly impacted by any serious financial losses in Indianapolis. Wilco cancelled a show here in Indy. How does denying your fans a positive experience send a message if it only affects the people you’re concerned about protecting? You can be mad at the people who passed this bill all you want. I am too. But it’s unfair to use your wallets and words against our citizens. Threats won’t change the mind of a delusional man at the helm of a state. And this bill certainly isn’t going to stop Indiana from being the friendly, welcoming state it always has been.

Come on in. Welcome to Indiana.

When I first heard about SB101 or Indiana’s version of RFRA, it didnt feel right. That was back in the winter. I never thought something that sounded so wrong would ever really make it’s way through our house without a fight. Just a few short months later, I was proven wrong. I’ll back up a bit so we can see exactly how we got here.

In June of 2014, Indiana was in the national spotlight with their first same-sex marriage. And House Republicans FREAKED. OUT. They promptly began blocking same-sex marriages with an emergency stay. Turns out, the Supreme Court thought they were wrong. In October, that stay was lifted and same-sex marriage was recognized in Indiana, again.

A stubborn Mike Pence and Republican-controlled house wiped their tears away and swiftly took action after their ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by the Supreme Court. By December the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was introduced. This timing is not merely coincidence. The law has been around since 1993 on a federal level, as everyone who agrees with it will be quick to tell you.

The law in its original form was built to do good things and it could absolutely do good things for people here. And that’s what all the people who are supporting the Indiana RFRA are going to point to.

• “But, but, Bill Clinton signed this law in. You liberals love him!”
• “And this guy in prison got to keep his beard. He wasn’t even Christian!”
• “There are like 100 other states using this too!”

The real story is that it was never meant to be used as it’s being presented in Indiana. It’s been reshaped by conservatives to combat LGBT rights as they spring up across the nation. It’s also no coincidence that this is being brought to state laws across the U.S. by Republicans, almost exclusively.

Whenever you argue this bill, the same responses come, most notably:

“Just read the bill.”

So I did. Our law isn’t the same as the one our beloved Billy C. signed because Indiana’s law is so broad. And it’s designed to be that way. I’m not the only one who read it. 30 law professors from across the nation read it too. They felt so compelled by their the possible outcomes that they wrote a letter to the authors of the bill expressing their “several concerns with the language”. This letter is a great example of the RFRA overstepping already established protections with case history examples from real lawyers who are way smarter than me. One of the aforementioned letter’s key points is how our law defines a person.

Bear with me here, this is the hard part. reading all this boring bullshit, lawspeak. But it’s actually the good part:

“The definition of “person” under the proposed RFRA differs substantially from that contained in the federal RFRA, affording standing to assert religious liberty rights to a much broader class of entities than that currently recognized by federal law.” The definition of a person is extended to organizations and companies that are “compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by an individual or the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.” So, basically any privately held company. And it goes beyond the government compelling you to do something by stating “regardless of whether the state or any other government entity is party to the proceeding.” So, this isn’t just about government getting in your way. No private party can get in your way either, regardless of anti-discrimination laws.

The precedent started with Hobby Lobby, who was so worried about birth control and women making decisions, that they somehow convinced a bunch of really smart people that “closely held” corporations were extensions of the individuals who owned them, instead of the mega-corporation they really are. This was a landmark, earth-shattering decision, mostly because Hobby Lobby is a giant in it’s specific retail segment and employs people by the thousands. The problem here is that it opens up all these other places, big and small, that are privately owned to start making life hard for people they don't agree with, too.

Even supporters of the law will tell you it’s true goals. The American Family Association of Indiana (don’t you love those vague titles?), which is really just a lobbying group for conservative values, has been behind this bill from the beginning. Their own director, and current RFRA cheerleader, Micah Clark, told the IndyStar, “It would allow small businesses — such as bakeries, caterers, florists, and wedding chapels — to refuse services to gay couples based on the owner’s religious beliefs. It would also allow adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples.” He said that, to a reporter. That’s the kind of specific language the bill is missing, by design. Now, he is refuting that and touting the great protection it gives people of faith, just look at his Twitter feed.

Some of the amendments that failed to make it into the bill are quite telling of how vague and broad the authors truly wanted this bill to be.

From the cutting room floor of the Indiana House:

“A person described in subsection (a) must post a sign that 3 satisfies all the following requirements: 4 (1) The sign must be posted and maintained in a conspicuous 5 place that is visible to customers of the person’s business 6 before the customers enter the premises of the business. 7 (2) The sign must state that the person believes a 8 governmental entity substantially burdens the person’s 9 exercise of religion by requiring the person’s business to serve 10 individuals who are members of certain groups or classes of 11 individuals within the general population. 12 (3) The sign must specifically identify the certain groups or 13 classes of individuals within the general population described 14 in subdivision (2) that the person’s business may not serve 15 because the person believes doing so would substantially 16 burden the person’s exercise of religion. 17 (4) The sign must be posted before serving or denying service 18 to an individual who is a member of one (1) of the certain 19 groups or classes of individuals specifically identified under 20 subdivision (3)”

So they want to be able to turn people away, but they dont want anyone to have to display that they want to turn people away. That sure would be embarrassing if you had to post a sign that you dont serve gays wouldnt it? People who aren’t even gay might decide they dont want to do business with you. Weird how that works.

But it’s not just open-minded hippies like me or highly experienced lawyers who oppose this bill. Several high profile businesses and personalities have come out strongly against this action. Marc Benioff, CEO of SalesForce, being the most interesting to me given their importance to the economic success of our state. I refuse to believe that he’s just another like-minded guy. A business like SalesForce doesn't just make comments without consulting experts and passing statements through legal. They reject this bill’s intention because they understand it’s true statement. Indiana was on the rise as a place business wanted to be. This bill stops that growth in its tracks, or at the very least, will make forward thinking companies re-evaluate their investment in a place where people can still be regarded as second-class.

Republicans in our state got beat on the issue of same-sex marriage and this is a clear message that they may have lost the battle but they’re ready for war. If you took RFRA completely away, homosexuals and transgendered are not a protected “class” in our fair state right now. That means that RFRA is 100% unnecessary. You can turn away business from these groups right now, before the law is enacted, and you have always been able to. You can’t be sued for discrimination if a certain group isn’t defined as having rights. Of course, this also means that a Jewish sign maker can’t be sued for refusing to make Nazi signs. Because Nazi isn’t a defined, protected class of people. So stop spinning that yarn. All it takes is some simple math to realize that this is basically a preemptive measure in response to the LGBT community gaining rights in our state.

As time goes by, the LGBT community will have these rights and be a protected class by law. Our sitting Republicans and the interest groups that fund them know it’s only a matter of time. Indiana’s RFRA will be directly at odds with this protected class of people. So who will be burdened more? A person living their life as they were born or a person running a business that they chose to put into the world for consumers to choose?

The broad language of the bill clearly creates confusion. Not only are we giving people legal ground to stand on, in the end, the result is litigation. Which means countless hours lost and money spent privately and publicly on court costs. Ugly headlines and a community divided are sure to come along as well.

The most comical and ironic thing to me is use of the term “Freedom Restoration”. No freedoms ever left. Religious freedoms have been protected since the inception of our great country. What hasn’t been protected at points in our history are rights for people who are different. We, Americans, have an ugly history of being really fucking rude to people that look, act and think differently. First it was Native Americans, then it was certain religions, then any one of the immigrant nations, Irish, African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Now it’s “The Gays”.

If anyone needs Freedom Restored, it’s the LGBT community. Every American is born with certain freedoms and rights. They lose theirs as soon as they make the courageous choice to be exactly who they are.