Boycott In Full Swing As CT Gov. Malloy Moves To Ban State Sponsored Travel To Indiana


The backlash against Indiana’s anti-gay law continues to gain momentum. On Monday, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announced that he plans to sign an executive order barring state sponsored travel to Indiana, in response to Indiana’s decision to pass a law permitting religious-based discrimination against gays and lesbians. Malloy expressed his opposition to Indiana’s law on Twitter as well. The Connecticut Governor tweeted:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated.

Connecticut becomes the first state to officially sanction a boycott against Indiana over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The cities of Seattle and San Francisco have also imposed travel bans, prohibiting city-funded trips to the Hoosier state. Several private companies have also declared their intent to boycott the state.

The backlash has clearly caught Indiana Governor Mike Pence and his Republican supporters in the legislature off guard. While the hapless Indiana Governor continues to defend the discriminatory law, it has clearly become a public relations disaster of epic proportions, for his state.

Many conservative Republicans, like Pence, seem not to have adapted to the 21st century reality that courting homophobic bigots is no longer a viable political strategy for boosting one’s approval ratings. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was smart enough to figure that out in 2014, when she rejected a similar bill in her state, but apparently Pence never got the memo. Discrimination isn’t acceptable, and it also isn’t a smart career move in American politics, at least not anymore.

What Pence fails to realize is that we’ve reached a tipping point on LGBTQ rights in America. Not long ago, right-wing politicians could use discrimination against gays and lesbians to ride to victory, and to bolster their credentials with the “Christian” Right. Now, they can still do try to do that, but it is no longer a winning issue for them, with the general public.

The fight for equality, of course, isn’t over, but increasingly the opponents of LGBTQ equality look more like losers digging in deeper for a lost cause, rather than winners successfully rolling back substantive gains. In Indiana, the side for equality may have lost the battle, but they are winning the war. The Connecticut Governor’s decision to add his state to the growing list of entities boycotting Indiana, is just one more nail in the coffin of Mike Pence’s political future.

32 Replies to “Boycott In Full Swing As CT Gov. Malloy Moves To Ban State Sponsored Travel To Indiana”

  1. I’m waiting for some benefactor, maybe a church spending some of their tax-free profits, to start offering red states’ donations to encourage sending school children to Indiana to “experience real ‘Merican freedoms”.

  2. This is only the beginning of the unanticipated consequences that cretin of a governor in Indiana has set in motion.

  3. It cracks me up that these repugs are shocked at the outburst against them. The christian far right bubble they live in makes them totally unaware and/or totally not care enough that millions of people do not agree with them.

  4. You on the left do realize the federal government also has this law in place, which was signed by Bill Clinton. That’s not all, however…….
    ….19 other states, INCLUDING Connecticut itself, also have this law on the books! What’s Dan Malloy going to do to be consistent? Not reimburse travel anywhere in the US; or better yet, not reimburse travel within his own state! The stupidity of the government of Connecticut never fails to amaze me!

  5. Lets make the state of Indiana and its governor, mike pence a perfect example too the GOP “god” PARTY and the entire-world how we “rational” people in the U.S.A. will react too any of our U.S. Govt. officials making-laws that will force or invoke their “religious-propaganda” and “beliefs” on the citizens of this country (U.S.A.). FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS CONTROL AND ZEALOTS IN OUR GOVT. OFFICES IS THE KEY!!! In my opinion.

  6. More fodder for the Dems to hash and rehash to demonstrate what Republican Christianity and ‘Small’ Government mentality is REALLY about.

  7. All the other states with similar laws better take notice. Progressive businesses aren’t going to take kindly to those states with such laws.

    Even the reddest of red states can understand the loss of capital investment and much needed jobs. The pulpit is losing the war. It’s about time.

  8. When blue states’ TV affiliates start refusing to broadcast Notre Dame sporting events we’ll see where the Catholic University’s loyalties really lie. [wink]

  9. Here’s the difference: CT law has specific protections in place for LBGT.

    The stupidity of trolls and bigots never fails to amaze me!

  10. What an idiot. Connecticut has a similar law, and The Religious Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It was passed by a unanimous Democrat House of Representatives and a near unanimous Democrat Senate, and none other than Bill Clinton signed it into law — and that law that is practically identical to the one in Indiana. Did any of you bother to think for yourselves today?

  11. Connecticut has a similar law, and The Religious Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY). It was passed by a unanimous Democrat House of Representatives and a near unanimous Democrat Senate, and none other than Bill Clinton signed it into law — and that law that is practically identical to the one in Indiana. Did you bother to think for yourself today?

  12. The laws are NOT similar. You are just repeating the bigots lies . Now trying reading for a change
    Fox News Anchor Debunks Fox’s Own Propaganda About Indiana Religious Freedom Law

    But while RFRAs advanced in previous years were designed to prohibit the government from burdening the religious beliefs of citizens, Indiana’s bill would allow individuals to use their religious beliefs to defend themselves in court even if the state is not party to the case. Thus, this would allow a business owner to use their religious beliefs to justify refusing services for a same-sex couple’s wedding. As a state law, this would supersede any municipal nondiscrimination laws that protect LGBT people.

  13. Connecticut’s “RFRA” protects individuals from the government. Indiana’s “RFRA” contains a few words that no law should ever contain, “..or is likely to…” Comparing CT’s law to Indiana’s law is like comparing apples to oranges.

  14. You on the right refuse to face the fact that most everyone knows that Bill’s Law is nothing like Pence’s law!
    PS Once the Senate goes Blue! That Law or the justices who interpreted that law are soo outa here!

  15. It’s best to ignore these moronic trolls. In their pathetic narcissistic world, negative attention is still attention.

  16. Schumer’s bill covered government discrimination based on religious freedom, not businesses. The US gov’t cant make decisions based on religion. Not the same as refusing service to a patron you deem gay. Who gets to decide if you look gay or not?

  17. Connecticut recognizes no other Second Amendment Licenses – only its own. Why would any responsible handgun owner want to visit?

  18. “practically identical”

    Not. It was specifically different in order for a business open to the public to legally discriminate against anyone it chooses by hiding behind religion. Maybe you should try reading it yourself instead of repeating right wing talking points.

  19. History Lesson for Assholes: Bill Clinton Is Not Your Religious “Freedom” Tool Whenever you hear from a weaseltwat like Gov. Mike Pence defend Indiana’s odious Religious Freedom Restoration Act, they inevitably point to the original RFRA, a 1993 law signed by President Bill Clinton. In the Senate, the bill was sponsored by Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch. It was supported by everyone from the National Association of Evangelicals to the American Civil Liberties Union. And it passed the House by a unanimous voice vote and the Senate by a 97-3 margin. It was not, in any way, controversial.

    And that’s because it was designed to undo the fuckery of the Supreme Court in a couple of cases, most specifically the 1990 decision in Employment Division v Smith. In the 6-3 majority’s decision, the Court held that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to two drug counselors who had been fired because they had taken peyote as part of a Native American religious ceremony
    Read More

  20. Actually the CT law is much tougher than the the Indian law. The indian law says the gov’t cannot “substantially burden” the exercise of religion, while the CT law simply says “burden”. The removal of the word “substantially” makes a great deal of difference. None of this matters to the left however because CT is a reliably blue state, so we can special plead this all away. Kinda like how it was totally cool back just a few years ago when Obama and Clinton were against gay marriage, but now anyone against gay marriage (as long as they are Republican and preferably white) is the return of the third Reich.

  21. You really don’t have any idea WTF you are talking about.
    Thirty law professors who are experts in religious freedom wrote in February that the Indiana law does not “mirror the language of the federal RFRA” and “will… create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the state’s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or a police officer’s private religious beliefs.”

    Now unless you have a law degree and practice in this area of law you need to STFU

  22. Connecticut is a civilized state which has a high standard of living, which places value on education, and which doesn’t contain a whole lot of right-wing racists, loonies and ignorant redecks. It’s a great place to live.

    Sorry about wherever YOU’RE coming from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.