Cappybara Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Seriously, of all the drum corps, don't you think that Madison making a statement is a little obvious? I don't know the concentration of LGBT in the Madison Scouts, and I don't care. But, of all of the corps, I would suspect that they are the most reasonable to speak to the concern that this law would target the LGBT community. That's the point. Others want me to care. I DON'T CARE. And I have enough on my plate just promoting the activity without the extra baggage of having to make a political statement, too. Others want me to carry their torch. Sorry, but I like my drum corps loud, driving, emotional, and of the highest caliber. I don't care of the persuasion of the kid blowing the horn. 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. He!!, even the Scouts said they've enjoyed a wonderful relationship with Indiana over many years. Why would they even consider that things would now be different? I know of no circumstances where one of their members, or members of any other corps, have experienced discrimination for being a widely-know significantly gay corps. What, in God's name, would the Scouts think would possibly change now? The true irony is that, to the extend that there is ANY discrimination against gay drum corps, they've place the target squarely on their own back. But, if you want me to take a stand, I will take it with the least-burdened. Period. That's the law. And please, don't hide behind "some" as a moniker. I've got thick skin and it's insulting. Call a spade a spade if it's worth it. They are involved because it concerns them. It's as simple as that. I assure you that them issuing a statement is not going to change the "loud, driving, emotional" nature of the corps. So I don't understand your faux outrage over this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 They are involved because it concerns them. It's as simple as that. I assure you that them issuing a statement is not going to change the "loud, driving, emotional" nature of the corps. So I don't understand your faux outrage over this. I am a lot of things, but "faux" is not one of them. Further, I'm not "outraged". But I would be if the pitchfork-wielding "outraged" at this law somehow convinced DCI to move from Indiana and my ticket prices went up as a result. You know, that whole "shifting burden" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) So, if those revelations about the beliefs about other posters has changed your viewpoint of them based solely on that impression, who's being unfair? Ney, who's being biggoted? Because they don't take up your cause you can't like their drum corps viewpoint any more? I like DCI's pronouncement: We love everyone, especially those who make great marching music. DCI is not obligated to take up the cause, and your opinion of them shouldn't change either if they don't. Considering you in the above post stated that we should simply wait to see if anyone makes use of this law in order to judge whether this law is a good or bad thing DOES say something about you. This nature of this law isn't a difference of opinion. This isn't homophobic vs not homophobic (which is a matter of opinion). This is about discussing whether this law allowing for discrimination is a good or bad thing. I'm not sure if one can have an opinion on that unless someone believes that discrimination is a good thing (and I'm not suggesting that you are pro-discrimination at all). Edited March 28, 2015 by Cappybara 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) 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. 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: 42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 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. Edited March 28, 2015 by Rifuarian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 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 these RFRAs: There is no Supreme Court decision that I am aware which has invalidated this part of the law. Have you read the federal RFRA? It most definitely focuses on shifting burdens. Your second sentence makes no sense because a subsequent federal court concluded that the federal RFRA law simply does not apply to states, so there is no "invalidation" argument to consider. It is this fact that prompted Indiana, and 19 other states, to draft their own similar laws. I suspect that DCI's lawyers recognize that they are in a no-win situation and made a non-committal statement, and I suspect, that the DCI BOD has rightly left it up to individual corps to address the law as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I get what a few are saying from their point of view BUT what some dont seem get it is not " THEIR" cause. It's everyone's cause , or should be. It's a cause of anyone EVER who felt left out because of any reason, anyone who felt that they could not be themselves and would be singled out, anyone who did not feel equal because of some backwoods, maybe redneck ,archaic hide behind religion law who legally says a business can refuse service ( why not go back to separate bathrooms and water fountains ) a law that says one persons human rights are different from another's as long as i say it's in the name of my religion, a law that does not protect a 12 or 13 or 15 year old boy or girl trying to figure themselves out, bullied , parents that just dont get it. Sorry for the soap box also BUT I have seen way to much of this and to actually allow this in 2015 is disgusting IMO and does need to be addressed by our activity as it should and Im sure will be addressed by other activities through out the state. I by no means am not saying nor trying to convince others what they should believe in , time will take care of that in one way or another ( seen that so often ) but to think many issues including this one , maybe more so this one , has nothing to do with Drum Corps and it's many fans and participants is naive at best. Oh and yeah , lets care about our ticket price before we do if your son or daughter will be discriminated against on tour. Now maybe , just maybe it's just alot of smoke from those losing the battle in many states , 37 i believe with same sex marriage now but to even entertain the thought of a law to allow ANY discrimination of basic human rights, small or large, significant or not,even superficial at best should never be allowed ,period. Maybe some need it to hit closer to home to finally get it ( at it will happen, it often does ) let's hope it's not to late for that young individual. Man I want to see Ohio do this and it could and what WGI would do with the needed dollars that go into Dayton. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 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. You aren't reading the law correctly. Re-read your quote above carefully and you'll see that it says the gov't CAN burden against religious freedom if it IS in a compelling government interest and if it's the least excessive solution. The "compelling interest" under the letter of the passage you quoted is in the furtherance of one group (LGBT for this discussion) and to the detriment of religious freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Have you read the federal RFRA? It most definitely focuses on shifting burdens. Your second sentence makes no sense because a subsequent federal court concluded that the federal RFRA law simply does not apply to states, so there is no "invalidation" argument to consider. It is this fact that prompted Indiana, and 19 other states, to draft their own similar laws. I suspect that DCI's lawyers recognize that they are in a no-win situation and made a non-committal statement, and I suspect, that the DCI BOD has rightly left it up to individual corps to address the law as they see fit. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I get what a few are saying from their point of view BUT what some dont seem get it is not " THEIR" cause. It's everyone's cause , or should be. It's a cause of anyone EVER who felt left out because of any reason, anyone who felt that they could not be themselves and would be singled out, anyone who did not feel equal because of some backwoods, maybe redneck ,archaic hide behind religion law who legally says a business can refuse service ( why not go back to separate bathrooms and water fountains ) a law that says one persons human rights are different from another's as long as i say it's in the name of my religion, a law that does not protect a 12 or 13 or 15 year old boy or girl trying to figure themselves out, bullied , parents that just dont get it. Sorry for the soap box also BUT I have seen way to much of this and to actually allow this in 2015 is disgusting IMO and does need to be addressed by our activity as it should and Im sure will be addressed by other activities through out the state. I by no means am not saying nor trying to convince others what they should believe in , time will take care of that in one way or another ( seen that so often ) but to think many issues including this one , maybe more so this one , has nothing to do with Drum Corps and it's many fans and participants is naive at best. Oh and yeah , lets care about our ticket price before we do if your son or daughter will be discriminated against on tour. Now maybe , just maybe it's just alot of smoke from those losing the battle in many states , 37 i believe with same sex marriage now but to even entertain the thought of a law to allow ANY discrimination of basic human rights, small or large, significant or not,even superficial at best should never be allowed ,period. Maybe some need it to hit closer to home to finally get it ( at it will happen, it often does ) let's hope it's not to late for that young individual. Man I want to see Ohio do this and it could and what WGI would do with the needed dollars that go into Dayton. Wow. OK, I respect your opinion, but there is so much here that is way off-topic that, to address it, will certainly get the thread closed. And maybe it's time for that, mercifully. If you care to copy and paste your post to me in a PM I'd be happy to keep sharing my opinion. My hope is that you'll accept it with equal veracity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Response to guardlings post (flippin IE not allowing quotes): Regarding protecting gay members of DCI corps should the concern be more over number of states with same sex marriage laws or states that protect the rights of LGBT (or any combination there of). Asking because PA does have same sex marriage (as of last time I checked) but does not protect LGBT rights. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts