skevinp Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 For people equating support for a boycott with a moral position, or suggesting that anyone who doesn't thimk it is a good idea just doesn't care enough about people, I would ask why they would want to harm the 99.9% of businesses that are non-discriminating, including those with LGBT owners and employees, by hurting the economy of the state they live in. And why do they want to harm the corps and fans who are in no way responsible for this law? Including LGBT members and fans. And it has been said that drum corps is a very positive and helpful place for a young person who is LGBT. I would like that experience to continue to be available to them, as much as possible, in the years to come. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I was not trying to address anything other than should or would DCI pull out of Indy in response to the new law. My conclusion was and remains a resounding "no" for the reason I mentioned (contract and the likely costs associated with attempting to break it). Whether DCI loves the law, vehemently opposes the law or is somewhere in between - their contract with Indy and their duty to the activity precludes them from leaving Indy as doing so could very likely be a suicidal act for them. Surely no one at any part of the spectrum of viewpoints on this issue wants that. I agree -- from a practical point of view DCI won't be leaving Indy. My point was that they could have been much stronger in their statement without crossing that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I'm sorta amazed at the source of this, but here is a pretty good -- and accessible -- explanation of the the unknowns surrounding the practical application of law and why Indiana is unique among other states in this issue. To me, here is the money part: In Indiana, fear-fueled misconceptions helped garner support for the law and pitted others so vehemently against it. The rhetorical hyperbole — perhaps more so than the law itself — has galvanized two constituencies while further dividing Indiana. And it raises another question: Will the political maneuvering on both sides continue to obscure people's understanding of the practical effects of the law? If that happens, it begins to matter less what the law actually does than what people "think" it allows them to do — whether that is to openly discriminate against gay people or unfairly cast all Christians as intolerant. WARNING: The USA Today website will start playing video when you load the page, so mind your volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) That is just sad. The story you relayed about someone moving their desk because of your doctor is almost as sad. Well I have worked for over 30 years in a building that holds about 500 people (OK it's a converted warehouse) so figure how many opinions I have heard. And within a 10 or so mile radius we go from inner city to dang near hillbilly country so get a lot of types of people. Part of it is probably my fault as I let people talk for a bit before I tell them to stop.... Between that and being 5' 6" some people have gotten the idea that they might convince me that they are right. IOW short = easily swayed or pushed around... But with a sick kind of pleasure it was nice to ask the person talking about Handicapped = Gods punishment, "Now can you tell me about 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'". And I shouldn't make light of the in law of the in law and her views on homosexuality. Before I met her, her brother told the family he was gay and she kind of lost it. Not sure if it's still true but she was convinced "they" converted him and "they" want to make the whole world gay. On any other sybject nice to talk to and pleasant but on this subject the spittle would fly. Just a lesson you can't tell peoples opinions or why they have their opinions by outward appearances. Bravo to the Mods, we have strayed at times but we're still here. Edited March 30, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Seriously, Jim, please read more on what this law actually means, because it is not what you've posted here. Maybe THIS article will help your understanding: "So why are so many people saying that Indiana's law is an unprecedented attack on gay people? We shouldn't hold Ashton Kutcher and Miley Cyrus entirely responsible for their ignorance. Their job, after all, is to make bad music and bad movies, not report the news. Bad journalism is to blame here. See this CNN headline that says the law "allows biz to reject gay customers," or this New York Times story that makes the same claim while ignoring the fact that many other states and the federal government have the same law on the books. Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited (sic. I'm confident the author meant "permitted") discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash." But since we're parsing the Standard article, the link they provide in the sentence I've bolded doesn't work, because it points to the result of selecting from an interactive map on the Human Rights Campaign's website. However, we can retrace the Standard's steps: if you go to HRC's website and select Resources, and then Maps of State Laws and Policies, and then pick the option for Statewide Public Accommodations Laws & Policies, you'll get a map showing "States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" or "States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only". Reviewing that map you'll find that only 21 states prohibit such discrimination. This means that the confidence expressed in your statement that I've underlined is misplaced: the Standard author really did mean "prohibited" not "permitted", although he seems to have counted wrong, coming to a total of 28 such states rather than 29.* (If I have miscounted in turn, someone please say so.) That is to say: Indiana has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. As noted earlier, Democrats tried to include language with such a prohibition in the new law, but Republicans rejected it. *From that map, I read those 21 states to be, working from left to right: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine. Trivia question: in which of the other 29 states will DCI not have competitions in 2015? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Actually, I meant it not in a sense of being forced to do the ceremony, but in the sense of refusing to do it without any prompting....it's still discrimination, because instead of joining to people in marriage, you're saying they;re not worthy of it. If you're a Catholic priest and someone wants you to do a Jewish marriage ceremony? That's easy to say no to,..it's not in your afrea of expertise...same as someone coming to me at a fencing tournament and asking me to repair their firearm....I'm not THAT kind of armorer. But refusing to do it because you doin;t belive in their right to marry? Your call, but you're a #### fool for doing it. If you're a Catholic priest and you conduct a wedding mass for two people of the same sex, you will no longer be a Catholic priest. The bishop will see to it, pronto. Allow me, if you please, to gently suggest that some deeper understanding of the church is in order. The Catholic church does not forbid SSM because it hates gays. It affirms OSM-only, because the church understands it to be a God-created institution, with a God-created formula: Man and Woman. To the church, matrimony is not a lifestyle arrangement, it is not a contract, it is not a ceremony, it is not a legal status whose purpose is to provide access to certain civil advantages -- it is not even two people pledging to love each other for the rest of their lives. To the church, matrimony is a sacrament, meaning that, like all sacraments, a marriage is nothing less than the living presence of Christ in the world. To suggest that a priest should be expected to join a woman and woman together in matrimony is to suggest that he ought to baptize a dog, or provide the Eucharist to a satanist, or offer anointing of the sick to a rock. Conferring the sacrament of matrimony is not a matter of public relations, or even of civil rights. It is a matter of faith. The struggle in Indiana, and across America, is a struggle to provide room both for people to devote themselves to whomever they wish, and for people to live out their faith. Edited March 30, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 But with a sick kind of pleasure it was nice to ask the person talking about Handicapped = Gods punishment, "Now can you tell me about 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'". And I shouldn't make light of the in law of the in law and her views on homosexuality. Before I met her, her brother told the family he was gay and she kind of lost it. Not sure if it's still true but she was convinced "they" converted him and "they" want to make the whole world gay. On any other sybject nice to talk to and pleasant but on this subject the spittle would fly. Just a lesson you can't tell peoples opinions or why they have their opinions by outward appearances. I've not heard that comment about God's punishment before. I'm going to refrain from commenting on it further because I am shocked that this is an actual belief that some people have. To be honest, some of the discussions/opinions going on here sound like my father and one of my brothers. I think my father really tried his best in his later years but his attitude was a product of his generation just as young kids today don't seem to care like the generation before them My brother on the other hand....well, I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Reading varied sources: Good advice. Accepting only certain sources: Not so good advice. Claiming correctness only via accepted practices: You decide. Please, endow us with at least some of your "correct" information and do, please, only include information that you, singularly, have devised without the benefit of input from outside sources. All I see is an empty challenge (that someone else completed) and accusations. BTW, I have a subscription. Lots of Strawmen there Garfield So you pay for bad information, interesting Hopefully, you’ve read more and many of the critics of the article you were cribbing from (the Atlantic’s for example) you were throwing out so much wrong information at the start of this thread; where to begin and why bother, let the plebs chum each other My non-lifted, lifted take on it, the act will be deemed unconstitutional because it grants Religions Special Rights 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) If you're a Catholic priest and you conduct a wedding mass for two people of the same sex, you will no longer be a Catholic priest. The bishop will see to it, pronto. Can't remember the keywords to look it up but same thing year or so ago with a Protestant minister in SE PA (Lancaster County?). He officated at his gay sons wedding and was removed from his church. Forget if he was considered no longer a minister or just in limbo because he did not have a church posting (whatever the term is). Still being fought out in some form and just can't remember the denomination. IIRC lot of his former congregation spoke up for him at the hearings and that possibly made the hieracrhy dig in their heels more. And Lincoln think the "Gods punishment" is the flip side of if you are good God will bless you with material things/winning the big games, etc, etc. At the Super Bowl few years back one player said they won because God blessed him/them. My first thought was "Guess God thought the other team was a bunch of heathens". Edited March 30, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cf144 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I've not heard that comment about God's punishment before. I'm going to refrain from commenting on it further because I am shocked that this is an actual belief that some people have. I may be wrong, but I think this is a reference to the sicko church that shows up to protest at funerals of fallen soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen with signs that say things like "G-d loves dead soldiers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts