Is Jindal willing to say goodbye to Superbowls, Sugar Bowls, Final Fours, A-list performers at Jazz Fest, etc.? Is he willing to lose huge trade conventions? Political conventions? See corporations refuse to relocate to Louisiana?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Jindal is doing a George Wallace in front of a bakery in order to win votes for President. Hurt his state's economy and hurt his party at election time. A real twofer.
*  Jindal is irrelevant as a national player. Only his delusions of self-grandeur impel him to believe he has a chance to be POTUS. This may work on a provincial level but if the thinks this strategy will work across the country it proves how lacking he is as a conceptual thinker.
*  I don't get it. What on Earth is it about law-abiding, taxpaying adult Gay couples getting married that terrifies so many people? These are couples who are in love, who have made a commitment to one another's happiness and well-being. These are couples who in most cases already share a life together. Unless the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) applies only to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), I can see no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.  What are people so fearful of? The marriage equality movement was never some sinister effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone. It won't cause otherwise Straight people to marry other persons of the same sex. It will not require anyone to attend weddings for Gay couples. Conversely, denying Gay people the right to marry is not going to make Gay people turn Straight!   Is not love and commitment far more preferable to loneliness and promiscuity? I thought getting married was far preferable to just shacking up together. Why does the joy of Gay couples getting married make so many people angry?
...................................................................................................................................................................
The real religious freedom fight is about to begin — in Louisiana
By Hunter Schwarz, April 8, 2015

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), a possible 2016 contender, is a relative unknown among voters; only 1 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents prefer him, according to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.

That could soon change.

Following on the heels of contentious religious freedom bills in Indiana and Arkansas, Jindal said he plans to support his state's own bill. Judging from how Indiana's bill catapulted Gov. Mike Pence (R) to the national spotlight, Jindal could soon see the same thing happen for him — and not necessarily in a good way. But Louisiana's debate could be different in one significant way.

Whereas Indiana and Arkansas had versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which included broad language that critics have said could have unintended consequences, Louisiana's Marriage and Conscience Act is more focused and deals specifically with religious beliefs in relation to same-sex marriage.

Polling suggests that could -- emphasis on could -- be more popular and more difficult for opponents to beat back. Critics can't as easily point to the possibility of the vague language leading to unintended discrimination, and polling shows half or more of voters support exempting religious businesses from serving gay weddings. A March 2014 Washington Post-ABC News poll found only 28 percent believe businesses should be able to refuse service to gay and lesbian people in general because of religious belief, but a January AP-GfK poll found 57 percent believe that wedding-related businesses should be able to refuse service. (A later Pew poll put it at 47 percent.)

Of course, that doesn't mean the bill won't have its critics. HRC legal director Sarah Warbelow said in a statement that Louisiana's bill is actually worse than other states'.

"This bill is worse than any RFRA in that it explicitly allows discrimination based on an individual's religious beliefs about marriage," she said. "Nobody gets to go into court for a balancing test, there's no interpretation by a state judicial system. It flat-out gives individuals a right to discriminate, period."

The bill would allow private businesses to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage and not provide the same benefits to same-sex married couples, and the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Mike Johnson (R), said he is considering changes to the bill, according to the Times-Picayune. So the final product could be different than the bill we see today.

Backing the bill is a calculated risk for Jindal, who already stood up for the original bill in Indiana that Pence later pushed to clarify. Although it isn't like other states', it looks as if the public reaction could be similar, and Pence had a very difficult time beating back the public pressure.

On the flip side, though, is that in a crowded GOP presidential field, it could also give Jindal a national profile more quickly and effectively than anything else he has done, and could turn him into something of a hero in socially conservative circles. Where other Republicans declined to be bold, he will argue, he stood up for religious liberty — a cause he is no stranger to.

It's a gamble, and one he looks prepared to make. And at least this time, the debate over religious freedom will be less in the abstract.
...................................................................................................................................................................