seen-it-all Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) I do not expect DCI to relocate as a result of this legislation. I fully recognize that such action is practically unfeasible. I do hope that DCI makes it very clear to their contacts in Indianapolis that they have received significant feedback from their customer base about this legislation, that it puts DCI in a difficult decision, and it may have negative financial repercussions for both DCI and local Indianapolis businesses. Will it matter? Not on it's own. But it adds a voice to the chorus of those opposing this legislation. Speaking out matters. I agree that DCI is probably not in a position to move anywhere at the moment. But I also agree that speaking out matters. And that chorus you mention is growing, not only in individual voices of dissent and disapproval, but corporate voices of dissent and disapproval. GenCon, Salesforce, the NCAA (we can probably expect some demonstrations at the Final Four in Indy next week...not exactly something the Indiana legislators will be looking forward to as all eyes in the sports world will be descending upon Indianapolis). We're talking about millions upon millions of dollars in potential losses for the state, with more companies and their millions possibly on the way out the door. I wonder, will the NFL be next? They did, after all, boycott Arizona as a Super Bowl site until they finally agreed to honor MLK's birthday as an official state holiday. My guess is that if the NFL puts their hat in this ring and decides to, for example, move the NFL Combine out of Indianapolis, or -- could you imagine -- refuse to allow Indy to host any more Super Bowls?? This thing could get ugly pretty fast, and I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here. Edited March 27, 2015 by seen-it-all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) 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 Now not wanting to judge on appearance BUT anyone else find it a SCARY PIC.lol Edited March 27, 2015 by GUARDLING 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumManTx Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) . Edited March 27, 2015 by DrumManTx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seen-it-all Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Thoughts ? I think that, yes, there is a long-overdue discussion to be had about all of that. I also think it deserves its own separate thread where it can be given its own spotlight separate from the discussion about this particular Indiana law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutMello Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Thoughts ? I brought this up on Facebook in response to Dann Petersen. I also agree it merits it's own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 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! It dumbfounds me than anyone could think this is in any way comparable to the 1993 Federal law, which was passed nearly unanimously by a Democratic congress. The intent here is clear even though Pence was too chicken#### to come out and say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 It is kind of ironic to me ( and I'm sure others ) that a thread discussion on vestiges of alleged " discrimination " by a state legislature, will apparently find no irony at all in the long held ( and completely outdated, archaic ) clear discrimination policies that disallows the participation in 2 World Class Division Corps of marcher participants of the female gender, by virtue not of their talent, but by virtue of their gender, and gender alone.. Good grief, even the US Military itself has ended their gender discrimination practices. Setting aside the interests and the concerns of the LGBT Community for a moment here, what if the MUCH larger NOW ( National Organization for Women ) group made gender discrimination in DCI THEIR cause, and decided to elicit female marchers in DCI to boycott DCI itself until it ends its indefensible and undeniable discrimination of females from participation of 2 of its DCI World Class Division Corps. Yes, both these Corps go back to the 30's and 40's when Blacks were discriminated against. But those practices of discrimination ended decades ago. So I'm pleased that we are finally having this long overdue discussion on here about not tolerating vestiges of alleged discrimination that still remain. Perhaps we should broaden the discussion of exclusivity and alleged homosexual discrimination a bit, and include along with alleged homosexual discrimination, the very real and clearly identifiable gender discrimination that still remains in 2 DCI Corps to this very day as well. I'd be interested in all manner of responses to this from DCP'ers, as a matter of fact. Thoughts ? Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, whatever. There is nothing wrong with a boys or girls organization. Are you really obsessed with being so PC that you want to go after the Madison Scouts & the Cavaliers??? For the love of God, worry about more important things. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 They don't accept our kind there. I guess I'm out of options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I think I said before this happened to a BD member in 83 in the Deep South...a black member....not much of a difference in the stupidity,, really. I understand - I lived in Louisiana from 84-89. But, skin color is obvious - if shopkeeper is stupidly wrong & wants to discriminate against African-Americans, it is pretty obvious who the African-Americans are. Not so w/ the LGBT, again it is not like Germany in the 1930s-mid 40s when these individuals had to wear a pink triangle in their clothes. The point is - how does on identify the LGBT? If it is because of behavior like 'public displays of affection (PDA)', that is the instructors fault. If the members (straight or LGBT) are showing PDA, then they have too much time on their hands - they should be practicing music, or cleaning drill or guard work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I think that, yes, there is a long-overdue discussion to be had about all of that. I also think it deserves its own separate thread where it can be given its own spotlight separate from the discussion about this particular Indiana law. I brought this up on Facebook in response to Dann Petersen. I also agree it merits it's own thread. This topic has been discussed multiple times in the past. But that has never stopped DCP from beating a dead horse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts