Eleran

I personally think that's an extreme overstatement, but ...

I disagree with Kelly's final argument, however (the one preceding his brief note on comparisons to Jim Crow). It may not confer the dignity immediately by enlightening the individuals who wanted to discriminate presently, but it changes the status quo in which the next generation will develop its own moral compass, and will thus likely, in fact, confer that dignity over time. It was, in my opinion, an ill-chosen anecdote to use about the child sitting down defiantly, because children often take their lessons from elders defiantly, not willingly, and yet years later when they have matured into adulthood, find that such lessons in fact improved them.

And now for a musical interlude ...

the irony being why I made mention of it.

And FYI - Arkansas' House just passed their bill, which I believe is nearly identical to Indiana's, and has just one more step before hitting the desk of the governor. Even Walmart is against it.

As posted on Instagram tonight: ,

It certainly has been for 26 years of my life ... [and there has been a series of 7th Circuit cases regarding a prisoner in Wisconsin that have tried to state that atheism is a religion for purposes of Free Exercise, but the logic is strained beyond credulity in my opinion, especially when they tried to state that atheism has a code of ethics ... really? we have our own manual now? Ethics, yes ... code of ethics, no. I believe the cases around that single prisoner are still evolving]

If you are referring to interpretations of what constitutes religious beliefs under Federal Laws such as Title VII, you are correct that "ultimate" type beliefs - about existence, purpose, death, etc., can be deemed religious even absent actual religion. But social philosophies - which would more than likely encompass feelings about homosexuals, inter-racial marriage, bigotry, etc., even though strongly held, are NOT deemed "religious beliefs" when not associated with actual religion, for Title VII purposes. And beyond specific statutory applications (eg. - the language granting consciencious exemption status specifically states that actual religion is not required), the Supreme Court decisions since Yoder have consistently held that 1st Amendment protections will not extend to personal and philosophical belief systems. I have no idea whether Indiana has expanded its statutory definition of religion as far as Title VII or not, but I'm open to elucidation from am Indiana specialist. The text of the law did not do so on its own, and specifically referenced the 1st Amendment, and adapted it's phraseology "exerice of religion", as opposed to holding religious beliefs, so until I see it tested in court, I will respectfully bet against your statement.

Actually, the baker dilemma raised above points out my very problem with the Indiana law. As was mentioned by the Indiana conservative lobbyist, this is one of the examples why religious freedom should be protected: (a) Christian baker gets sued for discrimination for refusing to provide requested cake for a gay marriage, then Religious Freedom Restoration law provides a defense to the Christian baker who states that his religious beliefs will not condone gay marriage. However, let's assume the Denver baker is in Indiana and is an athiest: (b) non-religious baker gets sued for discrimination for refusing to provide a requested cake saying "God Hates Gays" ... guess what - that baker is NOT afforded the same defense as the Christian baker above, because his refusal has nothing to do with religion, despite being just as much an "act of conscience". And that is my problem with all of the RFR laws - all groups are NOT treated equally as long as religious people (only) get to claim special exemptions from laws that otherwise apply to all people.

My response didn't omit or crop anything. I stated up front that several religious people were invited, and stated that the photo I posted was released (tweeted) by one of the conservative lobbyists (who was NOT in the publicity photo released by the Governor that contained all the religious people). Rational readers can draw their own conclusions as to why the photo released by the Governor might contain one group of people, while the other photo released by the lobbyist might contain an entirely different group of people.

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.

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.?

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.

Garfield: As some others have attempted to point out, this statement strikes me as disingenuous, and incorrectly conflates case law over the past decades across the country with the current law in question (and many others like it), which are trying to ride the coat-tails of prior precedent to accomplish something entirely different. Gov. Pence signed the bill in a small private ceremony, with several invited religious personnel. But prominent among the others invitees to the ceremony were various conservative lobbyists who were behind this law, including Eric Miller, the founder and head of Advance America, whose website makes no bones about the real purpose: Churches, Christian businesses and individuals deserve protection from those who support homosexual marriages and those who support government recognition and approval of gender identity (men who dress as women). SB 101 will help provide the protection! Here are just three examples where SB 101 will help: Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage! A Christian business should not be punished for refusing to allow a man to use the women’s restroom! A church should not be punished because they refuse to let the church be used for a homosexual wedding! The below pic was tweeted from the ceremony by Micah Clarke of the American Family Associate of Indiana, another conservative lobbyist backing the bill. Eric Miller is directly behind the governor, and Micah is next to him, with glasses and beard. Their placement directly behind the governor is not accidental. These were the same lobbyists, mind you, that were the strongest proponents of Indiana's attempted ban on gay marriage last year. Edit: and I believe the gentleman behind Clarke is Curt Smith, leader of the Indiana Family Institute, another conservative lobbyist group backing the bill. 2nd Edit: and just for clarification, my personal distaste for this law (and others of its ilk) goes far beyond its potential affect on the LGBT community

I was reminded of the OTHER "Star" franchise ...

Sounds like a new corollary to Godwin's Law. Any word on whether SCV is keeping the same uniforms from last year?

I think they were channeling Dr. Who ...

Maybe not "loathe", but I don't disagree with your general assessment.

Well, if you want to be completely consistent, you'd have to move out of the USA entirely, since the Federal version of the law has been in place for a while. But then, if complete consistency was our ultimate objection, all 150 participants of a marching arts organization would actually march ...

Hmmm ... could use a little remedial hem-sewing on one or two left pant legs there

I don't mind them. Certainly liked them more than this:

I would provide a picture of myself in the most atrocious uniform imaginable, but I burned them all. Think ruffled tuxedo shirt, and gold lamé vest.

I'd respond to this, but apparently discussing the social/political ramifications of where DCI holds its premiere event each year might get this thread locked. #ain'tgonnaplayCircleCity

As you may know, the Indiana House, Senate and Judiciary Committee have all passed a bill that would permit private businesses to discriminate based upon their religious beliefs, which is now on the Governor's desk for signature. GenCon wrote a letter urging the Governor to consider his decision carefully, as he has previously indicate he will sign it, threatening to pull their conventions from Indianapolis at a cost of $50MM to the state. Does anyone know whether DCI's big-wigs are aware of this issue? Does anyone think they might have any concerns about this and future finals in Indy? What about individual corps who train there?

That Shostakovich will now be paced at 220 bpm ... That he will request DCI to increase the permitted number of players by two, so their tuition can cover his $6,165 habit ($4.50 for grande cafe latte x 10/day x 137 days until finals) ... That at least once he will get a cup marked like this: