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
If the boycott hurts their business enough, they’ll care more. 😉
Wow. What a terrible thing to say. You don’t agree with his opinions so you wish him dead. I sincerely hope you grow up a considerable amount before your questionable morals are passed on to that child in your picture.
So many of the haters here seem to forget a little something from Star Trek called IDIC.
I’m not a fan of Tyson, but the people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old are just plain nuts!
I’m with you.Honestly I’d wager a lot of people are with you, but guys like Takei have people so scared that his crap often goes unchallenged.
I’m a Star Trek fan and I don’t support tyrants, which frankly most LGBT activist very much are. This “Hold people who disagree with us hostage or else” crap needs to end, period! I don’t agree with homosexuality or that it makes people very happy, but that does not mean I’m out there wanting to see all of them killed off or mistreated. And yet, from the angry rhetoric from the LGBT community, it comes off that EVERYONE who even kind of disagree with them is secretly a KKK or Natzi member.
I’m sorry, but I have right too, as do every conservative religious American, and we are sick to death of being subjugated the way the LGBT crowd keeps attacking us. Going against laws like this is little more than fighting for the legal justification of Christians in America. If I don’t want to be part of your gay wedding, why are you so hell bent on forcing me to be anyway??? Again, that is the kind of crap tyrants do.
It’s time that Liberals, LGBT activist and men like George Takei learn what the word “compromise” means.
Thank you! I’m sick to death of this growing push from the Left to force people to go against their morals. Personally, I don’t feel any business owner, even the gay ones, should be required to do business with anyone. However, should say a baker who does not want to be part of a gay wedding direct a gay couple to a list of other bakers who would love to be part of such a thing, I call that a “compromise”. Forcing Christan business persons out of business and into the poor house isn’t right, nor should it be accepted.
Exactly! Most of this situations really come down to gays targeting Christian business owners just because they know what answer they will get so they can sue and push they out of business. There is nothing “tolerant” or “loving” about it.
Ultimately, IDIC is the idea from a flawed man for a TV show and to make a quick buck. I love Star Trek, but I love God more. That said, those citing IDIC here are full of crap. I dare a liberal/gay who hides behind IDIC to admit that not every idea or way of thinking will conform with theirs. Isn’t THAT what IDIC really means? One can disagree with homosexuality and still be a good person. This is why we need compromise, a thing the LGBT elite have no concept of clearly.
No, the let down is the bigotry from the left and fellow Star Trek fans are shared on a daily basis all over the country. It amaze me how many death threats gays and gay supporters send to these Christian business people they disagree with, and yet have the nerve to cry “tolerance”. Tolerance is a two way street my friend, as is bigotry.
The day a black man can hide his blackness in the closet is the day you can compare race to sexual desires.
IDIC is a two way street friend. A lot of gays and gay supporters are intolerant of religious views that differ from their own.
Actually yes, this is also about pastors being forced to marry gays, or didn’t you catch the story about the pastor in Idaho last year?
What this really comes down to is gays wanting to hold a gun to head of every Christan business person in America to do what they want when they want it. That’s called slavery, and it’s wrong!
Then I guess good Christian customers are just going to have stop giving money to intolerant liberal business and only do business with Christan business owners. You know why you don’t hear about boycotts to much when the Left does something stupid? Because Christians are more tolerant.
“Diversity?” You mean like things different from Liberal points of view? Why does it feel like the people who cry “diversity” the most have no concept of it the most? I’m not sorry if it offends you, but other people will have a different opinion than you do. Deal with it!
No, Nimoy supported liberalism. However, he wasn’t as in your face about it as Takei has been!
Message from LGBT Mafia: Religion is dead in America. If you disagree with us, you have no rights, you have no free will and if you try to fight us we will crush you into a fine powered and take away whatever meager since of dignity you might still possess.
Yup, sure sounds like IDIC to me. Bigotry seems alive and well among the faithless.
I’d like to think that a baker should be able to not take any commission he or she chooses, honestly. The mindset of ‘If I walk in that door, you must do whatever I want you to because you are a business’ is not a logical one, to me.
But this is not about bakers refusing to serve gay clientele; rather, it is about being allowed not to make a cake for a specific ceremony which they have religious objection to. I don’t think forcing someone to make something in support of what they are morally opposed to is very IDIC; it’s MY-D-I-C… “My Diversity, but not Yours.”
No one is talking about refusing people to sit at a counter; there are no ‘gay water fountains and straight water fountains’ being installed. it’s just the freedom of a guy who runs a bakery to say ‘Hey, my religious beliefs conflict with this thing you’d like to hire me to make a cake for, so I am going to choose not to accept your commission and make this cake.’ I think that’s a reasonable thing; in fact, I think it’s a sad say when we actually have to make a specific law to give someone that right.
Think of it this way… if the baker were gay, and someone came into their shop demanding a cake for an anti-gay rally, don’t you think that baker ought to have the right to refuse?
To my mind, why would you WANT someone who morally objects to your wedding to bake you a cake? Unless it’s some kinda power trip, why not just go down the street to another baker who has no moral objections? Then you haven’t forced anyone to do anything they don’t want to do, and you’re giving your money to (and getting product from) someone who wants to support you. It’s win-win.
On the other hand, suing the guy, potentially getting him to lose his business, or forcing someone that believes what he’s doing is inherently wrong to give you a cake for your big day, sitting there as a great big reminder of what you forced someone to do against their will? Kinda seems lose-lose to me. I don’t know why anyone would WANT it in the first place.
But no one is telling people they cannot shop somewhere- merely that whatever commission they may seek to hire someone for is not something they can force that businessperson to take. If we’re going to discuss this, we need to be honest about what’s being said. It’s not ‘you can’t come into my store and buy something because of who you are,’ and it never will be. It’s about ‘you want to hire me for this event, I do not support that event, so I will refuse- and I have the right to do so without getting my business sued out from under me.’ It’s a major difference.
That’s a bit disingenuous. No one is talking about freedom of access. Only freedom not to accept commissions for an event that the business owner doesn’t want to support. There’s a heck of a difference between ‘No, I would not like to make a cake for your party; perhaps try elsewhere’ and ‘We don’t serve your kind here!’ (to quote Star Wars).
If you do business with the public, you don’t forfeit your right to live by your own morals. The ability to refuse to support an event that you believe is morally wrong is one that belongs to every person. The right to refuse to serve somebody based on their sexual orientation is not- but that’s not what Indiana is doing, either.
The store owner is not being prejudiced against them for who they are by politely refusing to cater an event that, according to their religion, is wrong. There’s a difference between refusing to serve someone, and refusing to accept a commission to be hired for an event.
And it is a sticky situation. I saw a friend put it this way- it’s the 14th amendment rights of the prospective client vs. the 1st amendment rights of the store owners… both of whom have inherently-opposite ideologies, and neither of whom can get what they want without potentially stepping on the rights of the other. It’s not an easy thing to resolve. But decrying it as ‘one side is evil and bigoted while the other is pure as the driven snow’ is not acknowledging the reality of it. Both sides have strong moral, ethical, and deeply held personal belief-reasons for believing what they believe, and wanting the freedom to do what they want to do. If someone wants to advocate a solution in which the rights of both can be preserved without being at the expense of the other, I think every one of us would be all-ears. In the meantime, it would be good for all of us- on BOTH sides- to not be so quick to jump to accusations. (And yes, I do include myself in that!).
You know what? It is true. Race is not the same as sexual orientation. But the treatment (or mistreatment) of a person for who they fundamentally are is very much an issue of ignorance, bigotry, and archaic ideologies.
And don’t for a moment think that there haven’t been blacks that didn’t metaphorically hide in the closet. Those that kept their heads down, that agreed to sit at the back of the bus, use the separate water fountain, and walked meekly away when refused service.
You may also want to try and comprehend the difference between sexual orientation and sexual desire. One is a definition of who you inexorably are, the other is an aspect of your sexual interests. You may desire public sex wearing Lederhosen and a safari helmet, but your sexual orientation means you will only find that interesting with a woman.
There is no doubt others have different opinions, but you must agree at some point one can lose respect for another based on those opinions. By your logic I should respect those that hold the opinion a black person should not share a bus with them or eat in the same restaurant as them. Perhaps you hold this opinion yourself, in which case I can’t respect that.
There are many topics to discuss in relation to race and gay rights and such, but on the specific topic of having the right not to serve them at a restaurant due to sexual orientation……that’s not an opinion that’s just harmful bigotry.
Gays are two to three percent of he population. Most businesses wouldn’t even care
YOU ARE EXCOMMUNICATED!
The values of freedom of thought and the right to self-determination have been at the core of Star Trek from the very beginning. It seems as though you’re the one who’s been watching but does not see.
This particular law affects a state in which Mr. Takei does not live, has never lived, and has probably never even visited. For its sins, Indiana has become subject to the punitive economic sanction of the cancellation of George and Brad’s summer vacation trip to Fort Wayne. Should Takei not leave the expressions of outrage to Indianans, or at least to people who actually gave a shit about the state and its citizens at some point in their lives?
smh…Takei is boycotting someone again…SHOCKER! He’s so unwilling to let people live their lives without the fear of being labeled a bigot or a hater. Takei is a typical gay radical that won’t be happy unless everyone in the world is forced to do what he wants. He’s certainly become annoying in his old age.
Not to the gay community. “You’re either with us or you’re against us” sounds about right when you describe the radical gay activists. Scary stuff, actually. It’s synonymous with Nazis and the KKK.
How so?
When a gay couple have the guts to go into a muslim bakery and make their crazy demands, THEN I’ll start taking them more seriously. They targets Christians because they know the Christians won’t cut their heads off. Those nasty, mean Christians need to be put in their place!
I totally agree. Well said.
Well said.
Classy isn’t how I would describe Takei these days,.
You don’t have a right to be a bigoted swine and impose your Christofacist beliefs on the rest of us, nor do the rest of us in North America have to indulge you. Looks like you’re just projecting bullshit.
There is no such thing as a ‘Gay Mafia’, sir, and even if there was, they are fighting for their human rights to be who they want to be without centuries-old bullshit being shoved in their faces telling them that are all damned to hell for being GLBT. Also, please stop believing the the ‘Christians are being persecuted’ meme, it isn’t true.
But…. but somebody paved a road outside the business, and there’s a traffic light somewhere nearby, and a bunch of power poles are carrying electricity and shit, and, uh…. well, come on, EQUALITY, man!
The clear parallel between the rights issues of then and now are obvious to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
I am a Christian who walks the talk. I do not persecute or deny the most basic of human rights to my LGBT brothers and sisters. You need to take a good look in the mirror and see clearly the hate in your heart.
Excuse me, Milo, but I am a 60 year old, straight, white, married Christian.
There is no dignity, only hate in the bigotry of those who wish to deny the most basic of human rights to the LGBT among us. Next I guess you want to set up seperate water fountains, restrooms, and entrances for the LGBT among us?
There are also pastors in many mainstream churches today who are more than willing to perform same sex marriages. Why are you so afraid of allowing only those you like and accept the right to marry the people they love? Or are you stuck on the issue of “plumbing” as so many “Christians In Name Only” are? If so, you simply cannot be a Christian, because being Christian must mean that you place spirituality and religion before matter and physicality.
So then you believe in bigotry? Persecution of those already being denied the human and civil rights you already possess?
Take a look at what is already happening in Arizona, where denial of service to LGBT couples has already closed one wedding cake bakery, whose owner simply cut off their nose to spite their face.
Tyrants like the governor of Indiana? He will have cost his state a fortune before he realizes that history is not on his side.
There can be no “compromise” when it comes to human and civil rights. Ask a real Christian, like oh, Jesus for example.
What do you have against human civil rights? What are you so afraid of? Must you justify bigotry, over and over?
I suggest you reread carefully the Sermon on the Mount, which is the core of the bible. The rest is commentary.
Exactly. That meme is lame, poor me BS and nothing more.
So if you don’t want to make money off of gays or blacks or little people, find another way to make money than having a bakery! Otherwise, set up a separate entrance, water fountain, and restroom if you insist on being a bigot!
Several mainstream protestant Christian churches (Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, etc.) already are or are in the process of becoming LGBT welcoming and affirming, as well as willing to perform same sex weddings!
Is it being a bigot to tell somebody else they shouldn’t be bigoted?