JimF-LowBari Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) And, frankly, I resent that the activity I've loved for 40 years is even involved in this, clearly, political battle just because some of the participants think it should be. We all have known of the percentage of LGBT community in drum corps and it has never been an issue. Not by me, and not by anyone I know. All of a sudden a group believes that the activity must make a stand when there is no evidence presented anywhere that the activity has been affected. Are you honestly saying we should wait to see if anyone uses the (2 day old?) law to kick gay people or others out of a business to say we don't like it or think it's a bad idea? Nice thing to have hanging over your head..... And yeah PA falls into this category of having not listing LGBT as a group that has it's civil rights protected. So we're just as bad... And as I stated about how is treating people with same the respect a POLITICAL issue, to me that's a cop out... PS how is anyone forcing you to care about this, if you don't you don't... Edited March 27, 2015 by JimF-LowBari 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) Are you honestly saying we should wait to see if anyone uses the law to kick gay people or others out of a business to say we don't like it or think it's a bad idea? Nice thing to have hanging over your head... Well, garfield has said, echoing Indiana's governor, that that is not the law's purpose. There is no reason to doubt that he sincerely believes that. And It is, I think, highly unlikely that the inevitable challenges to the law will have anything to do with, e.g., a gay couple being ejected from a restaurant. So in actual experience, even most LGBT people in Indiana will experience discrimination enabled by this law only in a few particular circumstances, mostly having to do with same-sex weddings. I don't believe they should face such discrimination, mind you, but garfield might ask, even if this law will affect gay wedding ceremonies, what does that have to do with DCI? Edited to add: it is, in part, thanks to garfield's own posts on the subject of the G7, in which he sometimes went to great lengths to try and understand the points of view of Hopkins, Gibbs, et al., that I have learned to take such a balanced view of controversial subjects. Edited March 27, 2015 by N.E. Brigand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) Are you honestly saying we should wait to see if anyone uses the (2 day old?) law to kick gay people or others out of a business to say we don't like it or think it's a bad idea? Nice thing to have hanging over your head..... And yeah PA falls into this category of having not listing LGBT as a group that has it's civil rights protected. So we're just as bad... And as I stated about how is treating people with same respect a POLITICAL issue, to me that's a cop out... PS how is anyone forcing you to care about this, if you don't you don't... I regret not that I wrote that paragraph, but that I included it in the discussion. This is not about me, it's about DCI and Indiana's SB101. It does not matter what I think personally, it's about DCI's stand and, now that they've gone public, Madison's stand.. The law is about shifting burden's by government fiat. It's not a blanket authorization to discriminate, it's applied on each case individually (see the Chamber's reason for opposing it). There have not been any cases, that I'm aware of, against drum corps or its member corps or its members when they are participating in the activity. Edited March 27, 2015 by garfield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Understood but a lot of times "intent" gets thrown under the wheels of "what is actually written down".. To paraphrase what I heard on the news tonight, it' sad that a person can go into a store knowing they can be kicked out becaue someone doesn't like their orientation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) The law is about shifting burden's by government fiat. It's not a blanket authorization to discriminate, it's applied on each case individually (see the Chamber's reason for opposing it). There have not been any cases, that I'm aware of, against drum corps or its member corps or its members when they are participating in the activity. Could you explain the shifting burden in non-lawyer speak? Thinking of my understanding of PAs lack of protection of LGBT rights and not sure what exactly is different in IN. And understand it's not a blanket authorization and wondering how one "proves" refusing to serve a gay person is religious belief based. And A #1 question: How can one legally refuse service on religious grounds to a gay person and not a mixed race couple? Is it because civil right are protected by the state based on race and not sexually orientation? To put it On Topic... how many other states are like this that DCI performs in Edited March 28, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I wonder if drum corps itself could be used to douse the flames of such controversy? Some engineering students have developed a fire extinguisher that uses sound waves. If enough tubas played the right note...? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Could you explain the shifting burden in non-lawyer speak? Thinking of my understanding of PAs lack of protection of LGBT rights and not sure what exactly is different in IN. And understand it's not a blanket authorization and wondering how one "proves" refusing to serve a ay person is religious belief based. To put it On Topic... how many other states are like this that DCI performs in The end result of the 1993 federal law and this one is that the government cannot shift the burden of one entity onto another in order to resolve the first's burden, unless there is a significant government interest in doing so. I have read, now, nine RFRA acts in different states and, although I am no expert, they are all summarized by the admission that shifting the burden from one discriminated entity to another is unconstitutional. As an apt example, a gay couple go into a baker to buy a cake for their wedding. They want the words: "Support Gay Rights" printed in icing on the cake (this is referencing an actual case where this actually occurred). The baker objects based on his long-held and sincere personal beliefs. The federal law says that the government cannot discriminate against the baker's beliefs in order to solve the gay couple's purported discrimination (i.e. "shift the burden" in the Supreme's language). The Indiana judiciary has even drafted protections against a business-owner suddenly claiming to have religious beliefs with no history of expression of those beliefs. If the baker's case goes to the State court, the judiciary is required to seek the "least burden" in adjudicating "equal claims". I am not a legal expert. Talk with your legal expert, past performance is not indicative of future performance, wear clean underwear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I wonder if drum corps itself could be used to douse the flames of such controversy? Some engineering students have developed a fire extinguisher that uses sound waves. If enough tubas played the right note...? I saw this story today and the first thing I thought was "a drum corps non-correlated business". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) The end result of the 1993 federal law and this one is that the government cannot shift the burden of one entity onto another in order to resolve the first's burden . . . 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. Edited March 28, 2015 by Rifuarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 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. You said it yourself, and then you said it doesn't exist. What burden did the USSC see? The burden placed on the rights of religious expression by solving the aggrieved's claim. What was the compelling government interest? In maintaining the freedom of expression of differing interests. The government's "compelling interest" cannot shift the burden of discrimination from one entity to another entity. That's unconstitutional according to the highest court in the land, and now in Indiana, too. It is true that Indiana's version is more broad in that the federal ruling dealt with private corporations and some non-profit religious organizations. The Indiana law expands that to include individuals. As is usual, it will be up to the Indiana judiciary to craft the procedures for abiding by the law. Application of those procedures must be equally meted out, and you can be sure that the state solicitor will watch very carefully to minimize exposure to liability from discriminate application of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts