Leaderboard

Yes, but those examples are anecdotal and rare. You can't force people not to be bigoted, and frankly I am appalled that anyone would want to try (especially those who preach tolerance as their foundational mantra). This nation was founded on freedom of conscience and belief, including (and especially) religious belief. You don't have to like or support someone else's belief. I will stand besides you day and night in defending your right to speak out against bigoted beliefs ... including bigoted religious beliefs. But I have a huge problem when people start wanting the government to use its power to force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs, even their bigoted beliefs, in the absence of a serious threat of harm to others. That is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on. If someone wants to refuse to serve me a meal because I am gay, then I will say "good riddance" and find someone else who will. But I don't believe it is my right to force anyone to serve me in violation of their sincerely held beliefs.

Sometimes, the truest test of a law and/or resutling personal viewpoints is to observe the resulting possible situations in reverse... If a business which is operated under the ownership of Gay individuals was to expel customers based solely on the customer's heterosexual standing, would there be a public outcry or governmental action? If a business which is operated under the ownership of Atheistic individuals was to expel customers based solely on the customer's Christian (or Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.) standing, would there be a public outcry or governmental action? I suspect that, like Cinderella's Prince, we'd all find out that one size doesn't always fit all. I think what we simply need is to sit Steve Rondinaro down and teach him, a la Darryl Waltrip, "Boogity, boogity, boogity boys (and girls)....Let's Just Go Marching!!!

I'd imagine that instead of the hat they'd use the Sorting Cone

Everyone should be accepted. Religious, Black, White, Gay, Straight, Male, Female, etc. Can you imagine living in a world where people just lived THEIR lives?

After actually READING the new law I think this is more of a "tempest in a tea cup" than anything else. How many businesses are going to turn away business? Perhaps I am making light of this because these laws are in many other states and I don't see the business community throwing business away for religious reasons. The other thing is that if you don't like the law, vote people in that will change it. Crying about something like this doesn't do much save add drama that may or not be warranted. People should NEVER be forced by the US government to do something under the threat of that oppressive hammer to do things they don't want to do save those things that are life threatening (which is covered I believe in law). I have fired MANY a customer for other reasons than sexual orientation etc..(not paying on time etc). Should I be forced to keep them? Certainly not. Time will tell how this all shakes out. Personally, I think it will be a big nothing at the end of the day with certain factions pointing out the remotest examples of being wronged to make a case. But that's just my opinion.

As I sat here this morning, having my morning coffee (which, being Saturday, means I didn't have to slam it down for once, thus burning my mouth) and reading (and re-reading) this entire thread...twice...the overriding thought which has come to my mind is this: If the rest of humanity could share, discuss, differ, agree, and argue over its' myriad problems, concerns, petty differences and meaningful differentiations with even half the degree of respect, equanimity, and tolerance I've seen over 27 pages of opinion from individuals -- some (or many) of whom, I'd bet, haven't even met face-to-face once in their lives -- such as this group...well...I'd feel a ###### lot more secure about the world I currently live in. No, this isn't any kind of Pollyanna "Kum-Bah-Ya" moment. But by ######, people...everyone needs a pat on the back once in a while -- especially when it's earned and deserved. i do know that my coffee is tasting just a little bit better than usual right now. Thanks. EDIT: And sorry for the couple of "XXXXXX"'s...funny how the difference of one little letter (an r for an m) can be the one which makes one appear either a reasoned individual or a mindless zealot.

When we speak of the respect " for the minority " view,( LGBT position on this ) this is of course a noble and worthy gesture. I assume here that most understand both this Nation's History and the World's history that religious persecution by the State has oftentimes raised its ugly head and the Religious throughout History have been tortured and murdered... with millions refusing to recant their strongly held religious Faith through to their last breath in their torturous death. Whether one believes it was the actual Messiah, or simply " another religious zealot", the fact remains that the State has literally crucified on crosses, those who took positions contrary to the State, and in some cases, that ran counter to the majority secular positions of those in their midst. Yes, there are those who claim religious liberties, yet practice some of the most vile intolerance for those different than themselves. That goes without saying too, of course. . And history is replete with bad things done to people in the name of Religion ( to this very day ). But the secular based State has likewise persecuted good people of Faith as well, throughout History too.. Lets not lose sight of the fact also, that to a much larger population of people of Faith, the state's policies sometimes does indeed intrude on aspects they they genuinely believe is not in the domain of the State, and such policies they genuinely believe do run counter to their genuinely held religious beliefs. Perhaps to some, those beliefs are misguided and wrong headed , and that's an entirely understandable position as well. There are agitators in the country on BOTH sides of this political hot button issue. But lets not also lose sight of the fact that there are reasonable and responsible and tolerant people on BOTH sides of this issue as well. When one's strongly held belief system ( religious or otherwise ) runs up against a societal, secular movement, there is bound to be some friction and some turmoil. But the rabble rousers on both sides of this issue are the minority. Lets not forget that. One hopes that the majority in the nation can come together to find a way to make both sides on this issue co-exist in a civil manner that allows both to feel their rights.. on BOTH sides of this issue... are not eroded by the strong arm of the Government. That might be an unrealistic expectation of mine. But thats my optimistic hope on this anyway. As for DCI's response to this out in Indiana, in my opinion, it was reasonable, measured, response.

I've been lurking on this thread (I've been lurking on DCP since the end of the season really), and I've learn A LOT about a bunch of "regular posters" that continue to lower my opinion of them. This thread has really just cemented that lower opinion for me ( which is why I've almost stopped posting). This law has an obvious effect on DCI and the marching arts groups. DCI has a much higher proportion of LGBT people than society at large. I'm glad this law is being discussed, but I really think DCI's hands are tied. They would need to plan long term for a switch to another location if that is what they would choose to do.

Thanks BRASSO! I really didn't want to read 26 pages of hyperbole and rhetoric. Saved me a lot of time. My question: Are we going to demand DCI to move every time a disagreeable law is passed? Every time a human rights violation occurs? Every time someone's delicate sensibilities are offended? One could find human rights violations in nearly every state. For example, we would have to rule out Missouri because of the Ferguson fiasco. What about child labor being used in tobacco states? Do we rule out Pennsylvania due to Kermit Gosnell's mutilation of women and children? Nevada for prostitution? Where does it end? DCI isn't responsible for Indiana's law. Don't hold them accountable for it. Write the legislators and the governor.

One of the most disappointing things about this thread is that it has made me more aware of the thoughts of other posters, and perhaps naively so, I had little clue just exactly how such a diverse activity still had participants who were so not in tune with what DCI has become (though they make attempts to rationalize opinions). DCI has come a long way. There is quite a journey to go.

That really is the crux of the matter. People clearly have different opinions on how you balance people's interests. In my opinion, free exercise of religion is fundamental to our democracy and shouldn't be set aside lightly. That is true not because God exists (though I am a believer) or because religious morals are necessary for a well functioning society. It is true, because the minute you start unnecessarily oppressing people's right to act in accordance with their conscience, you turn into an autocratic/totalitarian society. Who gets to decide which moral beliefs are acceptable and which ones aren't? There are certain circumstances where prohibiting free exercise is necessary--such as when someone's religiously motivated conduct causes physical harm or imposes serious burdens on those who have different beliefs. In my opinion, being prevented from buying a wedding cake does not constitute a burden that is substantial enough to justify prohibiting someone from declining to sale one because of their religious beliefs. Other people disagree, and I respect that. I believe that refusing to serve anyone because of their sexuality is disgusting and misguided. But I don't think it should be prohibited by law. The only thing the Indiana law says is that if complying with a generally applicable law forces you to do something that is against your sincere religious belief (and you do have to prove it is sincere), you have the right to argue, in court, that you should be exempted from the law. That doesn't automatically mean the law doesn't apply to you. It means that the government (or the party suing) has to come in and show that there is a compelling reason to make you comply with the law that outweighs your religious objection and that there isn't a more limited way to accomplish the purpose of the law without infringing on the person's right to exercise their religious beliefs. As pointed out in the letter I linked to earlier, there is a reasonable chance that the Indiana courts will decide that laws that prohibit discrimination of LGBT individuals serve a compelling interest that outweigh religious objections. If that is the case, then all this rhetoric will have been for naught. Are there bigots who support the Indiana law for bigoted reasons? Obviously the answer is yes. That doesn't mean the law itself is bad, especially when the alternative is forcing people to violate their conscience. I realize this post is way off topic for this board, but I have seen a lot of posts here that, while well-intentioned, don't really seem to address the real issue and don't seem to come from an understanding of what the law actually does and why it is important. It is something I feel strongly about, and have spent a long time studying, so I felt the need to cut through the rhetoric. I apologize if I offended anyone.

Great point, Lincoln. I've learned (from much experience) to apply this to weather forecasts as well.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

This is simply not true. The Indiana RFRA is no more onerous or discriminatory than the plethora of similar laws that have been on the books for years (which merely restore first amendment protections that were eviscerated by the Supreme Court in the early 1990s). Look ... I am gay. The last thing I would ever do is support and celebrate a law that was passed for the purpose of discriminating against gay people. That isn't what this law does, regardless of the rhetoric that some with political agendas want to spread. The law simply guarantees the freedom of religion that is provided for in the constitution. For anyone that wants the truth, rather than the rhetoric, read this well written letter from several constitutional experts in support of the law: http://www.faithlafayette.org/uploads/Church/LetterSupportingReligiousFreedomRestoration.pdf One of the signers is a former law professor of mine, and I can assure you that he is about as liberal and pro-gay rights as they come. Frankly, I find the way this has been twisted by some to be rather appalling. To bring this back to the topic at hand, I think DCI's statement was perfect.

Meh, the businesses that do this will soon be gone. The percentage on food etc (for an example) is so little that every penny counts. While this whole thing stinks (and I agree) there should be NO WAY someone should be able to be sued into poverty for being anti whatever for refusing to do a non-critical or life threatening service IMHO.

I've read this thread from the beginning and more than recognize that it could easily be heated, resulting in posters "screaming" at one another. The fact that it hasn't turned out that way kind of makes me wonder if we've entered the Apocalypse and just don't know it yet. :) In all seriousness, keep it up, folks. This shows hope for more than just drum corps.

Yup! We (those in the audience) had a grand time with that show. Lots of babies flying that weekend...

Thank you for posting the link HornTeacher. This is a wonderful statement and so follows the class of the Madison Scouts. Bravo!

Well I still love the show. :)

Practically speaking, it is hard for me to believe this law would have any significant impact on DCI, its members or fans. Discrimination on travelled paths seems likely to be rare. Businesses can't afford to turn down any customers these days. And once known to discriminate, they would likely lose so many of the rest of them they would go out of business and be replaced by non-discriminating business. All I can do is suppose, but If I am a LGBT in a corps, I would think this will not be among my top concerns on finals week. First, I'm in a frickin corps for god's sake, strong enough not to be fazed by having to go an extra two doors down to get a drink. Second, if somebody doesn't want to serve me for any reason I can't respect, they are not the kind of person I want to give my money to anyway. Third, the last thing I want is to harm my activity by harming it financially. Finally, I think I would be insulted by all the people assuming that all LGBTs think alike and must believe the same thing.

Whoa. Not according to the Constitution. Article VI, Paragraph 2, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause. "It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions." There is the Tenth Amendment, of course, which reserves to the states powers not specifically assigned to the federal government. But this is not a blank check to the states. You may recall that spot of trouble when a group of states, invoking the 10th Amendment, announced they would not heed federal instruction on certain matters. We fought a civil war over that, settling the question of who has the Last Word. As for local law "trumping" state law, that's . . . inventive thinking. Many states do recognize the concept of "home rule," but that is a carve-out provision giving municipalities room to adopt their own ordinances on matters that otherwise would be left to the state. But that is not permission to ignore state law.

Frankly - I'm tired of any segment of the population telling me what I should believe, but ESPECIALLY that segment that screams from the rooftops about tolerance and equality - but only if you agree with them. I couldn't care less about what anyone else believes or does as long as it doesn't threaten me. None of my business what 2 (or more ) consenting adults think or do, but neither do they have a right to tell me what I should think or do.

I thought these were amazing uniforms and completely appropriate for the program.

Where did this notion of "I should be able to do whatever I feel like doing and you should celebrate it" come from? It's a very self-centered approach to life. IMO well all have rights AND responsibilities.

I didn't mean to suggest that you thought anything. Sorry if you took offense.

The perfect analogy!!

We have a winner; well said!

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. I think people who are actually interested in the substance of the law, rather than the overinflated, political rhetoric, should read this letter and the one I posted before jumping to conclusions.

Thank you 3rd&10 for your unwaivering support of our Corps and this activity. Looking forward to seeing you cheer for these amazing performers in the stands this summer!

Have you been to Boston? (*giggle*)

And kudos to all the kids who are in camp this weekend preparing what should be a great summer of entertainment for all of us, despite our differences.

Nice summary Brasso To those who are essentially suggesting to people in groups who aren't in the majority to essentially "deal with it", I humbly suggest you read some history and political philosophy. In what way does it seem right or make sense that those who are numeric minorities shouldn't have a voice in a democracy? John Stuart Mills' thoughts on the Tyranny of the Majority in his classic essay on liberty is a nice start IMHO: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm IMO, DCI's response was tepid and political. IMO Madison's response was clear, appropriate and corageous. Kudos to the mods for keeping this thread open and kudos to contributors to largely keeping the conversation civil.

And lest anyone still believes that this law is really about religious freedom, it has become painfully clear what's going on and who specifically this law is targeting. This, from the lobbying group who championed the law: http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849 (Notice that they only mention Christians. Strange to think why other religions were excluded. It makes one wonder.)

2000 Cadets were great period. Actually the whole top 12 in 2000 were pretty enjoyable.

Madison Scouts Organization's Response: http://www.madisonscoutslive.com/mainsite/2015/03/madison-scouts-response-to-indiana-sb101/

+++++++ I'm going to edit this to take back some of my enthusiastic pluses, but only a few. The BD show rocked, I absolutely loved it. But Phantom sucked all of the oxygen out of the stadium that night. And from a fan perspective event PR '08 - in THAT stadium, in THAT competition - hits solidly in my top-5 ever, for life, most exciting drum corps moments.

BDs horns sounded like ### at the end of the show in 08, over playing the horn, bad sounds, stick outs. Some big overhype from BD. But the crowd ate it up. Probably the 3rd most enthusiastic crowd response of the night. Behind Phantom then Crown. No one even touched Phantom though. The majority of the crowd was engaged 100% of the show. If that doesn't warrant a win, I don't know what does. Just being clean doesn't win you a championship. The tick era is long gone. Phantom was clean enough to win that night. And hey they really cleaned up a lot of that drill, a lot of it hit that night that didn't hit at all during the season... they pulled a visual show out of their ##### that surprised the heck out of me. Give credit where credit is due. And the way the numbers added up they ended up a smidge ahead. And being in that audience... most of the cheering i heard was pro Phantom. Didn't really hear much along the lines of negativity to BD, not much pro BD, but PR won that audience over emotionally. And it's possible they got to some judges... but the judges are also fans, and I think 2008 then the reactions to 2009 and 2010 really opened up some eyes on what should be rewarded by the judges. Now if you want to say there was negativity towards BD in 09 and especially in 10... I could agree with you. And if someone brings up "oh the kids!!! you can't act negatively towards the kids!" Ed Rendell thinks you're a wuss. At BD, they are mainly college "kids" who know what they are getting into. And you aren't going to bruise their ego. It's a competitive activity whether you like it or not... we need some thicker skin.

Pardon me? LOL

1. You are clearly misrepresenting the Indiana law. If not, please explain to me explicitly what religion condones bigotry and exclusion (hint: not Christianity, which is why many Christian organizations in Indiana OPPOSED this law) 2. This proposed ballot measure in CA is more an exercise on how easy it is to get a ballot measure than it is a serious risk of this actually becoming law. The law giving free reign to discriminate against anyone for broad "religious reasons" excuse is signed into law: the CA law obviously has zero chance of passing and will likely never see a ballot

Seems many of you aren't so tolerant of diversity of opinion.

"Any Fool Can Make A Rule... And Any Fool Will Mind It." --- Thoreau

Do you have good seats? Can I buy your tickets? I just decided to go to help counteract people like you that have chosen not to support a wonderful activity in order to make a political statement. Never mind the fact that the organization you're hurting has nothing to do with the percieved wrong you're trying to right. On second thought, I'll buy my tickets direct from DCI and let you eat yours.

"These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."

"Ho ho ho." That is what he said. That is what Kris Kringle said.

So, let me get this straight: There is a similar federal law on the books that DCI has been operating under successfully without any confrontations in any locale or venue across the country. Now, Indiana wants to adopt a law that aligns with that federal law and there is clamoring among some for DCI to give up a good gig and leave Indiana (and not take up residence in one of the other 19 states that have already adopted such laws)? Do I have that right? What I'm wondering is why there has been no clamoring for DCI to exit the US? Is there really a problem here or is it suggested that DCI be used to make a political statement for an agenda that won't affect it in any way?

Evidently the Allentown office reads DCP! (2012 and 2014)

And for more consistent thinking, 19 other states have similar laws on the books. Would DCI no longer hold contests in those states? Has there been documented cases of drum corps fans or participants not being served in any of these other states?

I'd merge those "Demons" and "Angels" shows from 2011....

08....the crowd reaction at Regiment's win.