Takei Calls For Boycott
2 min read
Star Trek‘s George Takei is calling for a boycott of Indiana.
The reason for Takei’s anger is because of a bill, SB101, recently passed in the state.
According to the bill, “state and local government cannot substantially burden a person’s religion, including if that burden stems from a rule, unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ and it is the ‘least restrictive’ means of doing so.”
This could mean that service could be denied on the basis of religious grounds. Say that a baker did not agree with gay marriage because of his religious beliefs; according to the interpretation of this bill, he could not be forced to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple who came into his business.
Those supporting SB101 believe that it “protects fundamental religious rights,” but opponents believe that it will “legalize discrimination,” especially against same-sex couples.
“I am outraged that Governor Pence would sign such a divisive measure into law,” said Takei. “He has made it clear that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples, like Brad and me, are now unwelcome in his state. The notion that this bill was not driven by animus (hostility) against our community is belied by the record and frankly insulting.
“I will join many in demanding that socially responsible companies withdraw their business, conferences and support from his state and that LGBTs and our friends and supporters refuse to visit or do business with Indiana. It is a sad day for the Hoosier state, and indeed for the many good people of Indiana, for whom this law now stands as a terrible blight upon that state’s reputation.”
“The legislation, SB 101, is about respecting and reassuring Hoosiers that their religious freedoms are intact,” said Pence. “I strongly support the legislation and applaud the members of the General Assembly for their work on this important issue.”
About The Author
Makes sense to me. If the disgusting bigot goons don’t want to be tainted by gay cooties, I’ll make sure none of my tainted money ends up in their hands.
Some people are educated beyond their intelligence.
I’ve been boycotting them since forever, but not for the obviously stupid things these two say. I just can’t afford their overpriced and overrated crap.
This man is either an idiot or getting senile in his old age. I would much rather have Nimoy with us still and this bafoon dead,
This Indiana boy has been boycotting Takei for going on three decades.
“Say that a baker did not agree with gay marriage because of his
religious beliefs; according to the interpretation of this bill, he
could not be forced to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple who came into
his business.”
SHOCK AND HORROR! …Wait, that’s a bad thing? I suppose freedom only belongs to those who agree with everything Takei does. I’m interested to know- if one of the theoretical bakers that objects to gay marriage came to hire him for a performance somewhere, would he want the right to refuse? The true travesty is that such a law is NECESSARY to keep people from being sued for choosing not to cater an event that goes against their moral code. That should be a basic freedom for everyone, religious and secular alike.
Dolce and Gabbana ought to ask Elton John to entertain at one of their parties and then sue him when he refuses.
With your logic, a business should be able to not sell a wedding cake to a black or Jewish couple too. Commerce is a public issue, not a private club; if you sell to the public and taxes take care of the street in front of your store and the police, that are paid for by taxes, protect your business from looters, then yes, you should not have a right to choose who sits at your counter for a meal.
To think to find these type of people here too on a Star Trek site, which purports equality of all lifeforms, is a big let down.
Not sure if Indiana has anything I want? What do they even sell there? As a Blackfeet native American, I even find their name racist. ~Ahki of Seattle
Sorry, but this is the day’s designated Homosexual Outrage Thread. Under our one-identity-group-grievance-at-a-time policy, you’ll have to wait for the upcoming Native American Outrage Thread, which we’re expecting George to inspire any moment now.
I’ll be honest and say that I much preferred Takei before he came out of the closet. Ever since he came out, the amount of garbage that has spewed forth from his mouth has badly dented his image. Not that this is unusual for people with only one agenda. He should get himself a job instead of trawling internet news sites everyday to see what he can find that provokes faux outrage.
Northern Ireland is in the middle of the exact baker/cake example you’ve given. A homosexual from a gay campaign group went in to what he knew was a Christian run bakery, and asked for a cake with the logo of the gay group with a photo of Bert and Ernie on it. Bakery refused saying it was against the religious beliefs of the company owners. The poor little mite went running to the local council, made a complaint, and I believe the whole case is currently in the court system. Yet not person in the media or legal profession has made the pertinent observation about the photo and or image of Bert and Ernie being trademarked, thus the cake couldn’t have been produced with their image on it anyway unless the bakery had paid for usage rights. The world has gone bonkers, and is now run by the gay mafia who seems able to ride roughshod over any and all laws when they don’t get what they want.
I couldn’t agree more!
So… By this logic, I can sue someone for not allowing me access to a nightclub. The bouncer stops people at the door. By this logic, I can sue anyone who has a ‘no shirt, no shoes, no service’ sign on their door. By this logic, I can sue any high end “black tie” restaurant for not allowing me access in my cut off jeans and wife beater shirt. By this logic, I can sue a bar for tossing me out if I am to drunk or cutting off my booze.
Do you see the hypocrisy yet? Or, must I keep giving you examples? Gay people feel like they need to wave their flag and force people to serve them. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with them. I am a tolerant person who thinks that LGBT people are free to live the lifestyle that they want. That is as long as they are not thrusting it upon me. They, however, are completely out to force their views upon everyone which is actually intolerance. If a baker will not bake them a cake, instead of causing a ruckus, why do they not just go to a different baker that will? It is because they are intolerant of said bakers beliefs and his or her right to run their business the way they see fit.
To tell people and businesses to ban a state is not only intolerant but it is also a unintelligent idea.
My guess is the only thing George and Brad will be unwelcome to do in Indiana is, with the expectation he can get the law to back him up, walk into somebody else’s church and demand the pastor perform a ceremony he doesn’t desire** to; force a wedding photographer show up and spend time at something she doesn’t want to; or force someone to do creative work on some kind of visual display when they don’t want to.
When George Takei shows up at conventions upon demand, he’ll be on a little stronger ground to others perform services upon demand. Lawyers don’t have to take clients, doctors don’t have to take patients; TV stations can reject advertisements. The common carrier principle is not a universal absolute in the law. I suggest George be happy being able to do things that could not once be done, which he will be able to do in Indiana, and stop thinking we are going to waste government resources on trolling cases where one group wants to get a “harrumph” out of a Christian man. Leave them be, and enjoy the new age.
**Pastors already “discriminate”. They are not justices of the peace, and will not marry you willy-nilly if they do not desire to. Many have wickets if you want to use their church or themselves. Because it is not community property, but theirs, and marriage is something they do as a service, not necessarily a profit sideline.
and since when can we compare sexuality to race? am sorry but been gay and been black/jewish is not the same thing. you cant choose your ethnicity but you can choose who you want to sleep with.
Oh, joy. The bigots and homophobes are out in force today.
When Takei fought for gay marriage he said he wanted dignity for him and his significant other.
Yet he was on Howard Stern this week participating in “The Most Beautiful Black Penis” contest, and that’s not the only thing he’s done to play up gay stereotypes on that show. I get that Stern is risqué material, but if I were gay I’d take offense and call out Takei on his hypocrisy.
When you’re too far out there for Howard Stern, it’s time to take a long hard look in the mirror.
I’m appalled that fellow Star Trek fans would agree with such disgusting legislation. We are meant to be open to diversity and treat others equally and with respect. Denying goods or services to a person due to sexual orientation IS EXACTLY like doing so to African Americans or Jews or Japanese or whomever.
Imagine for just a moment that Jadzia and Lenara were denied service at Quark’s bar upon finding out that they shared a kiss….
All these comments from folks who haven’t even read the bill. This doesn’t just impact the LGBT community, it impacts everyone. It is not a political issue, it is an issue of simple humanity. I live in Indiana, am not gay, am Catholic and am appalled with this bill, much as most of my state. This is a law enacted by the fringe ‘Christian’ right, who disregarded the will of the people for the lining of the governor’s pockets. Here’s a thought to everyone here bashing a law they only know about because ‘those two’ complained about it – educate yourself. And perhaps find some humanity buried deep under your hate or fear of things that you don’t understand or believe in. IDIC anyone?
Am I reading this right? That you support discrimination and think that Leonard Nimoy would feel the same way?
Really, and your a Star Trek fan and you support prejudice acts against people for who they are, wow, I guess the message fail to get to you too.
They are not going into the store and having sex on the cake, but the store owner is being prejudice against them for who they are, that is when it becomes the same as race and religion, when they are denied service.
They are not under 21, it is not an alcohol establishment, following state and federal laws; the customers are not breaking health codes by not wearing shoes or shirts in a sit down eating establishment; they are not being drunk violent off of cake, in the store, to be cut off from buying cake. There are already laws for examples that you’ve given, which have to deal with health and safety, which buying a cake has nothing to do with either of them.
Every tv show, movie, books, radio is full of straight people relationships and issues, along with 100s of undignified elderly actors 24/7, but one gay guy motioning for equal human rights and dignity makes you forget about Star Trek’s humanity towards working with each other, not dividing each other, especially by staying only one group is only allowed to buy pastries over there, cause of a religion who’s original books don’t even exist and many wordings mis-transcribed over thousands of years is making the rules for people, even considering that the two guys that started the religion, Jesus and Paul were single guys and against marriage.
This has nothing to do with marriage, but about going into a store, shopping around and buying something, and then told that you can’t shop there, even though you are not breaking and civil or criminal, safety or health rules or laws. No one is asking or forcing anyone or church to marry someone, no one would do such a thing, they are non profits and we know the voodoo heal-everything potions they are selling, so we would not shop at that church, cause that is all they sell. Besides that would be against the law to for a cleric in a church or such place, to marry you, that could be considered kidnapping or something? Store clerks or not clerics.
How do these people consider themselves Star Trek fans and totally miss the point that star trek gives out, being humane to your fellow man, being compassionate, logical, and ethically treated.
Human rights and dignity is everyone’s responsibility, not just Takei’s. I don’t know which tv show you’ve been watching, but I was watching Star Trek, which promotes both those things and equality.
I’m always wondering why gay people try to force everyone to be tolerant towards their lifestyle, but they show zero tolerance as soon as someone says that he personally does not endorse their way of life. Shouldn’t tolerance work both ways?
So Takei is calling to boycott a State that is defending the 1st Amendment. Classy.
Seriously? And when did you “choose” to be heterosexual? It was never a choice for me, it is as much who I am as is my skin colour.
Trekkie of over 30 years here. One of the things I learned from it is that real equality involves respecting the rights of EVERYONE, which is hard WORK because you don’t get to just throw away the rights of certain people because you don’t understand or agree with their beliefs.
I’ve always found it amusing that the high-horse scolds who can’t grasp this are usually the ones who want to question the fandom of those who do.
IDIC for me but not for thee.
“People with only one agenda” And that’s a bad thing because??? George Takei is only one person, so yes, he IS going to raise awareness of how something affects him and the rest of the homosexual community. Everyone has there own opinion on things based on the lives they’ve lived and their own experiences. It is not invalid simply because other people didn’t share those same experiences. If this particular law affects other demographics, then leave the expressions of outrage to people who belong to that demographic.
Tolerance of what? Intolerance? That’s what this law is. Plain and simple.
If you still want to set foot in Indiana, Mr. Takei isn’t stopping you.
So I guess Neill deGrasse Tyson should shut up about the alarming number of Young Earthers in America and focus on some other more pressing issue that is far worse than people believing the Earth is only 6000 years old?
I love how these critics of activists come in and say, “No, he or she should be more outraged over Y, which is far worse than X.”
I don’t see the problem people here have with Takei asking for a boycott of Indiana? He is just helping stores there not have to serve anyone that “thinks” being gay is ok, since those are the only ones that would join the boycott. Where the problem with that? The gay people are not having sex on the cake making tables, it’s just in the minds-eye of everyone.
If I am male I am more comopatable with the oppsite sex and vice versa. its just logic.
you cant change your skin colour if you try and bleech it you will only get skin cancer however you can choose who to sleep with and have a romantic relationship with
Respectfully, it seems you also are unaware of the contents of the bill. It is almost a word-for-word copy of a Federal law signed by Bill Clinton over 20 years ago. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html.
Respectfully Matt – I disagree. I am well aware of the contents of the bill. The most important part of yous post is ‘almost’. That almost is a rather substantial difference as the definition of ‘person’ is far broader than that of the Federal law that includes organizations, corporations, or 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.” In addition, you may wish to review this as well, from the Columbia University School of Law. http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf
You didn’t answer the question and you ignored my statement.
When did you “choose” to become heterosexual?
It is not “just logic”. It is a core part of who you are as a person, and can’t be just wished away. I can’t choose to sleep with a woman, nor can I choose to have a romantic relationship with a woman. Those that have attempted that to try and hide their core sexuality end up being miserable and the woman usually ends up finding out she was being used as camouflage. Trying to deny who you are like this is just as futile and damaging as trying to change skin colour with bleach.
Let’s put this is simple terms…..
I am a male and I am not more compatible with the opposite sex. That is a statement of fact. Your “logic” is based on opinion and personal feelings. Guest what? Logic doesn’t care about opinion or personal feeling.
The Dictionary Act defines “person” for purposes of the Federal RFRA (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1): “…the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals….”
How is this more narrow than the Indiana language? I assert that the opposite is true, because the Indiana bill explicitly requires that the organization or business be controlled by individuals with relevant, religious beliefs.
The Neill Tyson Outrage Thread is several posts down.
(But since you mention it, yes, there are many far more pressing issues than that. I have about the same amount of worry for Young Earthers as I do for Tyson himself being a smug fuck: none. Neither’s idiocy hurts anyone.)
Matt, as you are likely well aware but likely unwilling to admit, the Dictionary Act has been interpreted in many differing ways by the court. It is amusing to think of a corporation to have ‘religious views’ if they are not a religious institution. Religious views are held by people, rather than by corporations. The courts had the opportunity to correct this in the Hobby Lobby case, but as expected by its political slant chose to ignore this fact. If you are in the business of providing goods and services to the public, you should not do so in a discriminatory manner. I see for your Disqus page that you have your own leanings and I certainly respect that you are allowed your opinion. However, as I stated initially, this should be a human issue, affording basic human rights to all people, regardless of your ‘approval’ of their lifestyle, racial background or even political stances. There is such a divide in this country now that the center has been destroyed. Take the Reagan Democrats in the 80s. Can you imagine a Bush Democrat or an Obama Republican today? I’m not here to change your opinion, just to provide mine and perhaps give people something other than tired rhetoric to think about. And on top of it, in a Star Trek forum where one of the prime tenets is Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination. Irony fans?
Sorry, but the gays, obviously including Takei, over reached on this one. In the case of the cake, they could have just gone somewhere else, but they decided to have a hissy over it AND get the Federal government involved, who then turned around and threatened to bring the resources of the Federal government to bear in order to FORCE these people to either bake a cake or be run out of business legally. THAT is not America. If Takei is for that, then he can kiss my ass
Not who they are, the behavior they engage in
And they couldn’t care less
Then too a private property owner may not want to serve folks at Westboro.–but by law they have to. Freedom of association vs. Freedom of access is always going to be a hot-button issue.
The gist of it is this–if you do business with the public–it becomes the public’s business–and in small towns, gay folks just don’t have a choice to go to a more friendly venue.
That’s incredible closed-minded. Us heterosexuals didn’t choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. We were just born this way. Same goes for homosexuals. You don’t understand the way they feel and to be honest, I don’t either because I haven’t experienced it. Claiming that it’s a choice is just blatantly ignorant.