I think it is interesting that corporations or institutions would use their power of the purse to pursue pointless division politics in order to present the image they care about the irrelevant. It seems to me that it would go further to threaten withdrawal if Indiana does not establish "sexual orientation" as a protected anti-discrimination class ... Than to withdraw as a knee-jerk response to provisions not supplied in the text of the legislation ... In order to run and hide from accountability as far as actually accomplishing anything worthwhile.
.
I think it's great when businesses consider the local climate before opening up offices/moving there.
Like if Roe were overturned and states got to vote on women's civil rights...you'd have states that kept Roe in tact and states that overturned it. The thing is that if you're Bank of America or Wal*Mart and you want to transfer a female to a state that outlawed Roe...you may not be able to entice her to take a pass on civil rights in the interest of managing a branch or store. It not only makes the playing field unlevel for the people involved, it makes the playing field more treacherous for businesses who now have to consider the local ordinances.
The real hilarity behind the Indiana law is that religious freedoms are not under attack. The law was needless and Indiana stands to lose tens of millions of dollars for something nobody needed or wanted outside of the political class.