Indiana's New Law

[JimF-LowBari]

Thanks jasgre2000 for explaining. Couldn't tell if that was all directed at me or meant generally. Weird part is I shared office space with a guy who was basically a hermit at home and thought anyone "Different" was out to get him and tear down the country. Put up with hearing his ideas because I had never been exposed to it before and was strangely interesting. Then he found out I had a non-white doctor and he freaked out and had his desk moved.

And HockeyDad who is saying you should celebrate anything? Sorry but sounds like when there is a gay story in the on line local newspaper and there are posts "why are you pushing this in my face".

Wonder if DCI got any "why are you even saying anything" response to their message and how nasty.

Edited March 29, 2015 by JimF-LowBari

[HornTeacher]

Yes but simplistic. What happens when you living your life bumps into me living my life? When our desires conflict?

The results of individual conflicting desires, when addressed between respective, respectful, and respectable individuals can (usually) be resolved. If not, at least they will most likely come to a mutual misunderstanding...and the willingness to proceed onward in a positive manner. It is only when "MY life, and MY desires trumps any- and every- thing you want, desire, and/or stand for" is felt or expressed that problems arise.

Heck...all "perfect world" scenarios be darned...we're dealing with human nature here. Is there an answer? If there is, and if we, the diverse assemblage of DCP contributors, were to achieve it...then we'll all meet in Stockholm as co-recipients of a single Nobel Peace Prize. But we're not fellow contestants in the "Miss America" contest...so the best that we can do is toss our ideas back and forth...heck, when all is said and done, all we are is fellow, ardent Drum and Bugle Corps fans and lovers. Vive la difference!!!

[jasgre2000]

Yes but simplistic. What happens when you living your life bumps into me living my life? When our desires conflict?

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.

[HornTeacher]

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.

No offense here, jasgre2000. It all comes down to individual beliefs...and the freedom to make those beliefs expressed in a respectful manner...which you have done without error.

[jmc5682]

I think religion is poison, but people have the right to believe whatever they want. As a gay man myself with a husband (in California) who I have been with for 16 years, I can only show by example that we are not scary people and are not out to convert anyone. I feel like there has been so much change for the good in the LGBTQ community we sometimes forget that there will be setbacks. Should we punish DCI, the corps and the marching members when it would be, in my mind, impossible to move Finals at this late date? I would say no. I would say look at the entire picture after Finals and see if Indianapolis is still the best choice for everyone involved.

[2muchcoffeeman]

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.

I think it's precisely on-target. There's a reason why religion is the first freedom specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. A person must first be free to determine truth (the definition of religion) according to his or her own conscience. If that right is not secure, none of the further rights -- speech, press, assembly -- are possible.

People of belief who use this law as license to act out of bigotry do offense to the command to love others as yourself, and in my own experience, the vast majority of people of faith understand this. Yet it is the paradox of freedom that the only way to have a hope of ending bigotry -- other than at the end of a gun -- is to allow each person the freedom to be a bigot if they choose. Love can't be demanded; it can only be chosen. To prospectively deny any individual his or her own conscience is to cut off the source of liberty, and preserving liberty is the most compelling state interest of them all. It's why the Constitution exists.

[2000Cadet]

Yes but simplistic. What happens when you living your life bumps into me living my life? When our desires conflict?

Then we agree to respectfully disagree, and we don't forcefully impose our views on each other. Everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, but respecting each other as a human being should be key.

[Pes49]

So what happens when a number of DCI's major supporters announce that they will no longer, like some other major corporate entities, support an activity that infuses money into the economy of Indiana? Probably won't happen, but it could. So what should DCI do?

[JimF-LowBari]

So what happens when a number of DCI's major supporters announce that they will no longer, like some other major corporate entities, support an activity that infuses money into the economy of Indiana? Probably won't happen, but it could. So what should DCI do?

Great question as some of those sponsors probably are promenantly displayed at that week in IN. (Never made DCI week but not that big of a guess) Think of DCI week with no corporate sponsorship or even mention. Final 4 might be interesting for this too.

And just to explain my earlier posts. Why is discrimination against one group allowed under this law and not other groups? If discrimination against groups other than gays disturb you then you might understand how some of us who don't like gay discrimination feel. Very selective "Protection Of Religious Freedom" IMO...

Or to put it another way, US law is supposed to be evenly applied to all. But here we are saying if your beliefs say it is OK to discriminate based on LGBT lines, the state of IN will back you up. But if your beliefs say it is OK to discriminate based on race, religion or other things that is illegal. Someone explain why this is different. To use jasgre2000s post, this goes against "force people to act in violation of their sincerely held beliefs".

Edited March 29, 2015 by JimF-LowBari

[FlamMan]

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.

Well said & spot on.