Salesforce exec criticizes 'religious freedom' bill

Tech giant Salesforce.com has joined a growing list of companies who are standing in opposition to the "religious freedom" bill currently making its way through the Indiana legislature.

In a letter to the Indiana General Assembly, Scott McCorkle, CEO of the Salesforce Marketing Cloud, warns that the legislation threatens future growth in Indiana.

He goes on to say that the bill removes protection from discrimination, ultimately damaging the states' economy and business environment.

"We have been an active member of the Indiana business community and a key job creator for more than a decade," McCorkle writes. "Our success is fundamentally based on our ability to attract and retain the best and most diverse pool of highly skilled employees, regardless of gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity or sexual orientation."

Salesforce, a San Francisco-based cloud computing company, bought Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget for about $2.5 billion in 2013.

The Indiana Chamber and several large Indiana employers — including engine maker Cummins, health-care provider Eskenazi Health and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co. — have already voiced concerns about the measure's impact on their businesses.

Supporters say Senate Bill 101, known as a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would add legal protections for people with strong religious beliefs, including business owners who don't want to provide services for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Opponents say the measure would license discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In the letter, McCorkle says the measure endorses discrimination puts the future of a thriving technology center in Indianapolis in jeopardy. He adds that the full impact of the legislation is uncertain.

"This lack of clarity hurts the business community and the connections that a successful region and state need to continue progress in a competitive environment," he writes. "Without an open business environment that welcomes all residents and visitors, Salesforce will be unable to continue building on its tradition of marketing innovation in Indianapolis."

In response to the letter, Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said McCorkle hasn't done his homework on the legislation.

"That's a person who has not studied this issue, that is reacting probably emotionally to it. But again, if you peel this onion, I think you will find that ... this law is not going to allow you to discriminate against anyone else or anyone's rights in this country," Long said. "I really, seriously doubt that this individual has done any homework at all on this issue and does not understand the history of this law, and certainly hasn't read the court cases."

Ryan McCann, director of operations and public policy for the Indiana Family Institute, called it "odd" that some of Indianapolis' largest companies would voice their opposition to the bill, because he said the measure is meant to protect businesses from the government.

He said the religious freedom proposal is supported by family-owned small businesses seeking additional protections of their First Amendment rights.

"A lot of those folks don't necessarily want to speak out and be targeted," he said, in part because they lack the resources to wage a "PR war."

In opposing the issue, Eli Lilly and Co. spokeswoman Janice Chavers said she feared such a religious freedom law would make some employees feel unwelcome and complicate recruiting.

"We're trying to cure diseases such as cancer and heart disease, and you need the best minds in the world to do that," Chavers said. "And some of the best minds in the world don't want to come to a state that is seen as discriminatory."

The Indiana Chamber said it also worried about the cost of an increasing number of discrimination lawsuits should the proposal become law.

The bill is quickly moving through the legislature, with House Republicans rejecting Thursday several proposed changes by Democrats. The amendments sought to prevent child care ministries from using the proposal to skirt regulation, prohibit religious objections from discriminating or infringing on civil rights, and require businesses to display signs showing which groups they were religiously opposed to serving.

But Republican supporters of the bill said such additions were unnecessary, since the proposal and existing state laws would already provide sufficient protections.

Star reporter Tony Cook contributed to this story. Call Star reporter Stephanie Wang at (317) 444-6184. Follow her on Twitter: @stephaniewang.