Rifuarian

They usually aren't, no. If you want an on-topic question (dunno how discussing the crux of your argument is off-topic, but that's fine), why do you have such an issue with people using this board as it's intended to be used? It's an outlet for opinions on drum corps, good or bad. Posts don't have to make a difference. No one has to care. All they have to do is follow the community guidelines and that's that. If you disagree with a post, you can ignore or you can debate it (with your post I'm taking the latter option). No one is under any obligation to demonstrate the relevance of their views. Now in that vein you're free to complain about people expressing views that you consider unimportant or irrelevant (which I take to mean you disagree with them but that's just supposition). And likewise I can point out why I think your complaint is ridiculous.

If you have an issue with someone's opinion try confronting it directly instead of fighting it in strawman form in a passive-aggressive thread built on a malapropism wherein you demand that other posters stop doing things that you're doing left and right.

You don't even have to call out names, just provide specific quotes that support your assertion. In other words, practice what you preach . . . if you want others to support their points then you should do so as well. Otherwise this seems like a passive-aggressive whine towards those nasty people with opinions different than yours. And if it's not the point of your post then I'd suggest changing the title. And also the content of the post.

Nothing you describe here amounts to pseudo-intellectualism, or even "being intellectual for intellectual sake". Again, I'd say they're the opposite . . . what might be called (a bit unfairly) philistinism. But since you provide no specifics, only a shadowy army of "theys", it's hard to say for sure. It really just sounds like people stating opinions on a message board, and other people disagreeing with them.

Okay, I find a lot of the stuff you're discussing annoying, but can you please explain how it amounts to pseudo-intellectualism? Because I'd say that most of the complaints you've mentioned represent the opposite of pseudo-intellectualism. Otherwise your post sounds like another whine from someone who has made the stunning discovery that there are people out their with views that are different than yours, and that these people have the unmitigated gall to express these views in public.

Not only can the new state RFRA be used to thwart any local anti-discrimination laws, it - unlike any other state RFRA - can be used by for-profit businesses to shut down any civil rights litigation brought against them in private lawsuits. But don't worry, I'm just a clueless simpleton. I've only ever passed the Indiana bar, never could pass the bar for internet lawyering. I'm sure that some frantic googling will be able to clear up any misinformation I post.

Only booing I ever heard in 08 came from a gentleman in a BD jacket making an ### of himself as the corps were slowly meandering off the field. I can understand why the crowd reaction to second place would have stung, but IMO it can mostly be attributed to surprise at the result. I know I was shocked. It had been decades since the semifinals winner had not also won finals night, and I honestly never expected to see any movement in the top spot at finals. Combine the surprise with the Phantom's unforgettable performance, and there you have it.

Garfield, did you notice how I quoted you the US statute in which the RFRA is encoded into law? That might clue you in on whether or not I've read the act. Didn't even need to google it, got a big ol' fat book of statutes right here next to me. And I see nothing in City of Boerne v. Flores that invalidates that exception. It would be odd if there was, of course, since that would be well outside the purview of that case.

Yes, the government's compelling interest most certainly can impose those burdens ("shift" here is questionable at best). It's right there in the language of the federal RFRA: There is no Supreme Court decision that I am aware which has invalidated this part of the law. Again, one of the principal issues with the Indiana law is the addition of the word "essential", which dramatically raises the burden of proof on the government even though strict scrutiny is already required in free exercise cases. Again, while I believe the law will have limited political impact the very fact that it was signed into law is completely outrageous and concern over it by DCI and its many fans is reasonable.

There seems to be some confusion about the use of the word "burden" in the RFRAs. The burden referred to in these laws refers to the burden that the government may impose on the free exercise of religion in order to further "compelling government interest". For example, government may determined it is in its interest to prevent for profit businesses providing public accommodations and services from refusing service to minority customers - racial, sexual, ethnic, or otherwise - for religious reasons. The type of burden you mentioned is not a part of the language of either the federal or Indiana RFRA.

Pence et al. were straight up lying about the Indiana RFRA in claiming it was the same as the earlier RFRA laws, that it didn't target LGBTs, etc. The letter exposes that lie and there's really no way around it and no refuting. The law dramatically raised the stakes by requiring the government to prove that a burden on the exercise of religion be proved "essential" to compelling government interests. That may sound like a minor change but it's significant. It could allow the RFRA to run roughshod over Indiana's state and local anti-discrimination laws (though the state law, conveniently, does not consider LGBTs to be a protected group) and opens the state to all sorts of litigation that the proponents of the law probably didn't envisage when they were try to score some cheap political points. By the way, the professors signing the letter represent a wide range of political and legal leanings. They're not unbiased but it is unlikely you'll find an opposing viewpoint that even comes close to being that even handed.

Here is a letter signed by dozens of legal scholars - including several IU law professors I know personally - which, among other things, explains why the Indiana RFRA differs from the state and federal RFRAs of the 90s. Though I recommend reading the entire letter you can jump to page 5 for the relevant information.

It dumbfounds me than anyone could think this is in any way comparable to the 1993 Federal law, which was passed nearly unanimously by a Democratic congress. The intent here is clear even though Pence was too chicken#### to come out and say it.

While I think the law will have little, if any, practical impact anyone who attributes the motivations behind it to concern about the Amish are either ignorant or, worse, disingenuous. I'm a church going Republican and frankly this whole charade is disgusting.

It's not all bad.