Jump to content

Indiana's New Law


Recommended Posts

Interesting point (trying to move the locked clock back a notch).

Doesn't DCIs Mission Statement include "education" in their somewhere? If so, then DCI could argue that this law could impact DCIs ability to provide the same education for all members. IOW - hard to provide education/services for all members when some members are not allowed in certain places. Or this law could make it harder for DCI to provide education as might be harder for corps to find what they need (housing/supplies/whatever).

Edit: Just goggled and NCA appears to be tax exempt. Lot of sounds coming from that area.....

It could be suggested DCI, or any non-profit for that matter, that purposefully strays from the sphere of their formal intended documented purpose for obtaining said non-profit status would be (rather) busy arguing and focusing (instead) to try and get their non-profit status returned.

Inasmuch, formal statements outside the scope of interest and intent of a non-profit could get that status yanked faster than crap through a goose. They would never see it coming..............BAM!

DCI's present statement is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCI's present statement is fine.

Didn't say it wasn't, just disagree if DCI speaks out against the law they could lose their non-profit.

Especially if DCI points out that the law could affect their mission.

Belong to an old car club that is non-profit. One of the committees is the Legislative Committee which keeps an eye out for an law that could affect old cars and their use. And yep, they do some lobbying (aka b-wording) if need be. My understanding is if it affect the mission then being active in this way is allowed.

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be suggested DCI, or any non-profit for that matter, that purposefully strays from the sphere of their formal intended documented purpose for obtaining said non-profit status would be (rather) busy arguing and focusing (instead) to try and get their non-profit status returned.

Inasmuch, formal statements outside the scope of interest and intent of a non-profit could get that status yanked faster than crap through a goose. They would never see it coming..............BAM!

DCI's present statement is fine.

I respectfully disagree. IRS 501©(3)s risk losing their exemption for contributing to, or working for, a political campaign on behalf of a candidate, or through educating their members in such a way that is clearly biased in favor of one candidate or another.

There is nothing preventing 501©(3) organizations from considering local laws and other concerns when selecting where and with whom they do business.

Edited by Eleran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. IRS 501©(3)s risk losing their exemption for contributing to, or working for, a political campaign on behalf of a candidate, or through educating their members in such a way that is clearly biased in favor of one candidate or another.

There is nothing preventing 501©(3) organizations from considering local laws and other concerns when selecting where and with whom they do business.

Yes, and I would say, exactly as any member of the LGBT community and exactly as should any member of the business community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And potentially risk the lose of their non-profit status??

Hasn't stopped various churches over the years, has it? (Specifically, the Mormon Church diurectly involvingh itself in Prop 8 in California).

If churches of all stripes don't lose theiur non-profit status after directly involving themselves in political campaigns, DCI is at no risk if they simply pull out of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and I would say, exactly as any member of the LGBT community and exactly as should any member of the business community.

My reference was to 501©(3)s evaluating the legal climates of various localities to choose where they do business. 501©(3)s are still bound by legal restrictions on discrimination against individuals. Are you advocating that they should be allowed to discriminate? hire whomever they like for whatever reason, even if based upon sex, race, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indiana the State of ISIS-Lite?

Hyperbole is not always helpful. There have been periods in U.S. history where some citizens have indeed been treated every bit as horribly as ISIS prisoners (here's a good article that tells of an African-American burned to death, and more, by a Texas lynch mob less than 100 years ago, an incident not very different from some of ISIS's recent atrocities), but this controversy doesn't even rise to "Lite" by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring up one point that might have been missed. People are referring to States that passed their own "equivalent" law in the 90's and are asking why it's such a big fuss now (even though some posters have pointed out the differences between the Indiana law and others).


We live in the age of social media. News and opinions are transmitted in seconds and more people voice their opinion and just like the news, they as well are transmitted in seconds. People are more in tune and are much more likely to voice their opinion with Social Media.

That is one key difference between then and now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring up one point that might have been missed. People are referring to States that passed their own "equivalent" law in the 90's and are asking why it's such a big fuss now (even though some posters have pointed out the differences between the Indiana law and others).

Nevermind .... misread what is in the parans.....

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Thanks for posting that. It's very helpful. As garfield says, it presents the case for just one side of debate about this bill, but it does so very clearly with much useful contextual history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...