You are reading

Gianaris Introduces Bill to Ban State-Funded Travel to Indiana

Mike-Gianaris-225x300March 31, 2015 By Christian Murray

State Sen. Mike Gianaris has introduced a bill that would ban state-funded or state-sponsored travel to Indiana.

Gianaris’ bill comes in the wake of Indiana’s recently introduced Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new law provides people with the ability to ignore existing state laws in cases where they are a “substantial burden” on their ability to follow their religious beliefs.

Critics of the law are concerned that it might allow a business to discriminate against gay residents, such as a baker being allowed to refuse an order from a gay couple for a wedding cake.

The law has been met with widespread concern across the nation as many fear that it could lead to rampant discrimination against the LGBT community.

“In recent years our nation has finally moved forward on LGBT rights and it is important that we as New Yorkers take a stand to keep us from moving backwards,” said Senator Gianaris.

“In order for our state to play our rightful role as a national leader on this issue, we need to send a loud and clear message all the way to Indiana that this discriminatory law must be opposed. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal, and I encourage states that have not already done so to follow our example.”

While other states also have religious freedom laws, none contain the specific provisions in Indiana’s law that facilitates anti-LGBT discrimination, Gianaris said.

email the author:


Click for Comments 
El loco

Wow. An intelligent conversation in the Sunnyside Post. Unfortunately I am unable to participate. But I’m enjoying it.


What religion tells its adherents that they can’t bake a cake or make a floral arrangement for a gay couple?

Heywood Jablomey

I’m guessing the state doesn’t exactly spend a whole lot of money on state funded trips to Indiana. This is just political grandstanding.


Gianaris is an idiot. I would like to ban him. This is a man who supports abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. How about going to a gay bakery and demanding that verses from Leviticus be put on the cake? Should they not have the right to refuse? Or how about the Westboro Baptist Chuch, which is vehemently anti-gay, demanding that gay florists work at their next event? Should they not have the right to refuse without being sued? Why is Cuomo going to CUBA which puts gays in prison?

Kramden's Delicious Marshall

Tolerance is a two way street. Unfortunately, liberals are the least tolerant people around. They are good at demanding tolerance but when it comes to practicing it, not so good.


Good for him! It’s great to see so many politicians, business leaders and others standing up to this medieval legislation!

Heywood Jablomey

Indeed. When I think of the Medieval period, the first thing that comes to mind is their cruel practice of not baking a cake for someone.

Maybe if you read a history book, you might have known the Middle Ages was infamous for people violently forcing their religion on others. In this case, we have religious people simple asking to be able to keep to the tenets of their faith and not have certain secular values forced upon them.

If you ever read a history book, you’d also know that this country was founded on the principle of worshipping freely.

David I

For all of your condescending and arrogant comments, you’d think you would at least know what you’re talking about.

The fact is, in all 50 states the baker ALREADY has the right to refuse the order. He just can’t do it on the basis of that person’s race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. When you say “I won’t fulfill this order because you’re gay” you cross into the territory of discrimination, for which there are laws against FOR A REASON.

I don’t take you seriously, I know you’re just an idiot 12 year old on his parents’ FiOS connection. But in case there is anyone else reading this with half a brain cell please know, he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Heywood Jablomey

Your reading comprehension needs work.

There’s a difference between refusing to serve someone based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. but they are free to refuse service if the service the customer demands forces one to go against one’s religious beliefs. For example, if I go into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich, they won’t accommodate me. I’d be a total asshole if I made a huge fuss over it. I would just respect their customs and religious beliefs and go to a non-kosher deli for my ham sandwich.

Big difference.


You don’t need laws like this to protect freedom of religion. That is already protected in the constitution. No one is asking a kosher deli to serve pork, or telling anyone they can’t worship freely. You must see that! These laws are medieval because they use religion as a guise for discrimination. People are afraid of what they don’t understand, so they pick and choose lines from the bible to justify their fear. It’s taking scripture out of context, and promoting hate. Unacceptable.

Southside Johnny

Well, no one is going to expect a kosher deli to sell ham in the first place so how can you make a fuss over it? It’s more like when you hire the deli to cater your party and then they cancel the order when they find out that you aren’t Jewish. Or when you propose to you girlfriend and she says yes but your florist will not cater your party when they find out that your are both already loving together and they think this is the same as living in sin. since you are having sex outside of a marriage.

Leave a Comment
Reply to this Comment

All comments are subject to moderation before being posted.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Recent News

AG James announces dismantling of Queens-based ghost gun trafficking operation

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced Wednesday the takedown of a prolific Queens-based gun trafficking crew accused of selling firearms and ammo at an East Elmhurst playground, the Queens Center Mall and other locations around the borough.

James secured a 625-count indictment charging five men for participating in the gun smuggling ring, which involved selling dozens of ghost guns, assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.