Mello Dude Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Thank you for enlightening me on your ability to use google. Although besides that I'm afraid your efforts were lost on me as fallacious reasoning was covered in the first stages of my Philosophy degree, but I digress... Unfortunately the straw man fallacy doesn't apply here, as you are making statements that are implying additional scrutiny. By stating that behavioral discrimination is somehow diminished in regards to racial discrimination you are implying that the specific behavior we are discussing is either somehow controllable or able to be mitigated by the person who's behavior is being discriminated against. Similar to your newest comment regarding human and animals, you're throwing out tangential implications all over the place and covering them up by hiding behind the fact that you're not plainly coming out and saying these things (ironically similar to this law and its creators). Your vague arguments are leaving you open for interpretation by those who you're addressing (which again, ironically is similar to the law we're discussing don't you think?). That being said, as I stated earlier there are many LGBT people who can not hide in plain sight, especially those with a gender identity that doesn't fit the norm. So yes that can be analogous to racial relations. Also, and most importantly by belaboring that point you are again implying that in order to avoid discrimination LGBT Americans should hide to avoid discrimination. That alone is a form of discrimination as no one should be forced to hide their own innate characteristics in order to avoid beatings, arrests, murder, etc. I am glad to have enlightened you. Real world application and all that as they say vs some Community College...but even I digress...... I have come out and clarified my posistion (even though it was never implied). My words AGAIN have been twisted to invent something that didn't exist until you tried to make it so and rather than amending your position after being called out on it, you continue to dig a deaper hole. That sir, is a strawman. Ah, and on one of your "strawman" fallacies, you brought up behavior I simply replied to that. If you want to go down that path I will be MORE than happy to do so. Having the mere ability to control impulses is a defining quality of being a human being. Do you not think that you have urges every day that you do NOT act on because of society? There are an ENDLESS list of urges we do not act on because society has dictated those rules. Now, personally, I believe that ANYTHING that doesn't hurt anyone (or anything) in anyway should NEVER be in that list. Be it gay, dope smoking whatever. But that is simply me and my views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 So HERE we have an Indiana business owner calling in to a radio show and admitting that he's discriminated against gays for religious reasons. He feels the number of customers coming into his Strictly HeteroTM restaurant will outweigh those he turns away, yet for some reason isn't willing to shout the name of his business from the rooftops to promote his Homosexual FreeTM dining experience. How does this law NOT protect what he's done? He did say this: "He told the radio hosts that he has already turned away people who seemed gay to him, but he made up a reason rather than tell them the truth. I have discriminated.I have said something was broken in the kitchen and said I couldn’t serve them,” Ryan said. “I told them that the fan was broken and they left.” So in his case he was discriminating before the law was signed. You could make a case that knowing the guy is a bigot sue to his religion (hmmmm....though I am not so sure on that) up front makes it easier for those of us who HATE that behavior to avoid his place of business. "He said that he supports the law, but continued to refuse to give the name of his business because, he said, “I’m not ready to come out with that.” Interesting chioce of words! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) He did say this: "He told the radio hosts that he has already turned away people who seemed gay to him, but he made up a reason rather than tell them the truth. I have discriminated.I have said something was broken in the kitchen and said I couldn’t serve them,” Ryan said. “I told them that the fan was broken and they left.” So in his case he was discriminating before the law was signed. You could make a case that knowing the guy is a bigot sue to his religion (hmmmm....though I am not so sure on that) up front makes it easier for those of us who HATE that behavior to avoid his place of business. "He said that he supports the law, but continued to refuse to give the name of his business because, he said, “I’m not ready to come out with that.” Interesting chioce of words! Ahhh.... but did he not want to serve gays because of religious beliefs or he just don't like 'em..... Which brings up the question of proving the denial comes from religious reasons. More I read about the new law, think it just makes it easier for people to claim religious reasons without backing proof. But if homosexual rights are not protected, just what the heck difference does it make why they are denied service? Unless people feel better if they can say they are being religious.... Choice of words: Reminds me of the South Park episode where Tom Cruise is hiding in a kids closet because he's hiding from the media. Kid "Mom! Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet!". Edited March 31, 2015 by JimF-LowBari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Ahhh.... but did he not want to serve gays because of religious beliefs or he just don't like 'em..... During his interview, he used the time-tested and wholly original, "Adam/Eve, not Adam/Steve" argument, so I'm going out on a limb that there are at least religious underpinnings to his view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Madison Scouts statement, also on news page: http://www.madisonscoutslive.com/mainsite/2015/03/madison-scouts-response-to-indiana-sb101/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) While I have been pondering, reflecting, and praying over the issues raised and debated about this legislation, about religion, and about people I search for good words to friends and others who have shared with me. This has challenged my memories of my experience in the marching arts. Unfortunately it has also re-triggered memories of conversations I have personally heard. Sadly I recall outrageous but not sarcastic nor humorous comments/statements made quasi-privately by men with much animousity about homosexuals. Each of the four is currently on the faculty of four different World Class drum corps and all head the program for the same section of the corps. I know one quit the corps he taught when he found out that the section leader he had chosen was homosexual. The director would not let him change his selection. This is about ten years back. Others may know more about it, but I would only state that these are top named people otherwise. Before we point the finger at Indiana or businesses or people of religious faith, might drum corps need to do some housekeeping and reflection of its own?? Edited March 31, 2015 by xandandl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Your choice to enter the discussion or stand aside and toss out invectives. Wrong factually or wrong-opinioned? Your welcome to PM me if you choose but probably best that you not get personal here in the thread. Invectives? Not seeing it, sorry if I did .are you now a victim because I pointed out some of your info is misleading, the conclusions drawn from the facts are wrong, awesome in the context Nothing personal on my end, your info has been mostly wrong, see no reason to PM anything, do you? I’m not too worried about this act other than what it means for DCI and its fan. It’s bad business all the way around and makes a mockery of what DCI claims it’s about Wonder how corps member would feel going out to dinner with their instructor and having them denied food service Perhaps I’ll offer a delivery service on carry-out Or let’s push it, send that picture of BD guards from last year to local churches in districts that house corps and explain this is a youth educational group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Interesting synopsis, comparison, and history from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/indiana-religious-freedom-law-mike-pence-presidents-obama-clinton/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 A better question might be: Does a purchased ticket to watch drum corps now come with a requirement of public proclamation of support for a social cause? Or even an awareness of what social causes that might affect it? Of course not Does it match the mission statement of the corps or DCI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 To argue that African Americans had it worse than the LGTB community therefore their struggle for civil rights takes precedence over another group’s struggle is alarming to me. First off, the Civil Rights movement wasn’t just an African American thing, although that group was in the forefront, but it was a struggle for the rights for all people. People weren’t just fighting for their group of citizens, but the struggle was for all of humanity to get along, accept one another, and be given the same rights as anyone else. Second, back then it was an acceptable practice by some to mistreat minorities in society, hence the hardships the African American community endured through the years. Since that time, things have evolved in society where any hate crime committed upon another is unacceptable. If the country had not evolved up to this point in time, do you think our LGTB community would not be facing those same hardships the African Americans and other nationalities endured? We still hear it in the news how someone was killed or assaulted because of his or her sexual orientation. It’s appalling to most of us today to hear that someone could commit such a heinous act. It’s still happening though and there are individuals who believe it is just, but can’t say anything because society now says that way of thinking is out of touch. So we come to today where there is a push back from certain groups, who do have their agendas, to protect the rights of those from being persecuted because their way of thinking does not mesh with the nation’s as a whole. I think most of us will agree that the law and Constitution should protect them. We can all take comfort that their way of thinking is ending and dying out with each generation. Their time and what power they have in society will end as well. They’re not going to let it go without a fight, but they also aren’t going to announce to the public that this is how we really believe. It’s subtler now and they use lawyers, the Constitution, and the teachings of our “Founding Fathers” to back them up in the laws that they make. We can try to up one another by pointing out facts, or providing links with expert opinion. For me, those things mean nothing to me. This is a matter of personal belief and how we feel we should treat each other on this planet. You can recite Constitution and the history of our country based on what the Founding Fathers wanted, but those people are not my Founding Fathers (I’m Native American). My culture and religion doesn’t teach to hate or discriminate. We do our ceremonies for all living and nonliving beings on this planet. For some it’s about the law and how our country loses itself should we cater into emotions and feeling (labeling liberals). Protect the country and its Constitution at all costs. The problem with that is we all have different interpretations of what that piece of paper covers. Some take the words as scripture; others say it’s up to interpretation and change. It’s no different than what we face in our drum corps community. Electronics, any key instrumentation, woodwinds, etc. Some argue we are losing our tradition and definition of who we are. Both sides argue this is or is not what the original founders of DCI would have wanted. It goes back and forth, but the wonderful thing is that we are passionate about our love of the activity the kids it serves. I’m happy we have this medium to share what our thoughts are. It’s been a great read and I respect all of your opinions on the matter. Keeping the drum corps perspective for this thread, I have faith Indy and the state of Indiana will do our drum corps community right. We all have that line in the sand that we will not cross and unfortunately DCI does not have the budget to just pick up and leave. So they wait it out and they hope that through time something will work itself out. Patience is a dying trait and I do believe we all need to show that and wait to see how things play out. I’m happy that the mayor of Indianapolis and companies/organizations are expressing their opinion on the matter. That’s their right, just as it was the right of the Indiana government to make this law. Every choice has a consequence and the governor is now feeling the effect of his choice to sign this bill into a law. DCI has chosen to stay and should any member or fan feel the brunt of this new law by being excluded, then they will have to face the consequences of how they will respond and what their next move is. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts