Indiana's New Law

[2000Cadet]

I'm moving to Pluto. This planet is ridiculous.

[2muchcoffeeman]

In almost all cases, state laws actually trump the Federal law and, by precedent therefore, local law could trump the state law.

Whoa. Not according to the Constitution. Article VI, Paragraph 2, commonly known as the Supremacy Clause. "It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions."

There is the Tenth Amendment, of course, which reserves to the states powers not specifically assigned to the federal government. But this is not a blank check to the states. You may recall that spot of trouble when a group of states, invoking the 10th Amendment, announced they would not heed federal instruction on certain matters. We fought a civil war over that, settling the question of who has the Last Word.

As for local law "trumping" state law, that's . . . inventive thinking. Many states do recognize the concept of "home rule," but that is a carve-out provision giving municipalities room to adopt their own ordinances on matters that otherwise would be left to the state. But that is not permission to ignore state law.

Edited March 27, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman

[Slingerland]

DCI moving from Indy ain't gonna happen. For a long, long time. Take it the bank. If the contract extension isn't already signed, it will be soon. In reality, there were no other suitors, and it's unlikely that another package could have been found anywhere else.

==

I find it interesting to see the defense offered of "difference of opinion" regarding the specific law, given that if I put homosexuality (along with skin color, hand domination, hair color) on one side of the Reality Scale, and "religious beliefs" on the other side of the scale, the genetic characteristics side slams down firmly each and every time. Not surprising, given that it's the only one of the two sides that, in fact, carries the weight of reality.

So to say that a person who believes that homosexuality is an abomination should be able to use that otherwise indefensible position as a basis for doing actual harm to real people is a little bizarre. At what point does the crazy "opinion train" stop?

You can have an opinion that the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't mean that "your opinion" - individual and protected as it may be - should be forced into science textbooks as a valid alternative theory to the theories based on actual exploration of the lunar surface.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Slingerland

[skevinp]

Practically speaking, it is hard for me to believe this law would have any significant impact on DCI, its members or fans.

Discrimination on travelled paths seems likely to be rare. Businesses can't afford to turn down any customers these days. And once known to discriminate, they would likely lose so many of the rest of them they would go out of business and be replaced by non-discriminating business.

All I can do is suppose, but If I am a LGBT in a corps, I would think this will not be among my top concerns on finals week. First, I'm in a frickin corps for god's sake, strong enough not to be fazed by having to go an extra two doors down to get a drink. Second, if somebody doesn't want to serve me for any reason I can't respect, they are not the kind of person I want to give my money to anyway. Third, the last thing I want is to harm my activity by harming it financially.

Finally, I think I would be insulted by all the people assuming that all LGBTs think alike and must believe the same thing.

[Narrow]

I don't think it's fair to stop supporting DCI unless they outright say they support the discrimination law. The DCI community is full of LGBT and supporters of the LGBT that wouldn't be able to do this activity without your support for DCI, so backing out on DCI means backing out on the people we should be protecting, all members of the DCI community. DCI also has an interest in trying to avoid controversial real world politics because they rely so much on the public as a non-profit, but this arguably shouldn't be controversial and publicly exclaiming support for respecting all individuals including LGBT would be a positive move that I'd hope they'd make. Also, whoever is stating that local law rules over higher rulings of government are incredibly ignorant of how our government works.

[skevinp]

I'm moving to Pluto. This planet is ridiculous.

They don't accept our kind there.

[Eleran]

This law is not directed at the LGBT community (as many have already pointed out it's genesis is directed at Amish, American Indians...). This law is directed at those whose religious beliefs are harmed by governmental action. Nothing more.

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

Edited March 27, 2015 by Eleran

[84BDsop]

So a corps stops at a quickie-mart, and the redneck homophobic ignorant owner won't let anyone purchase anything because some may be LGBT?

Not a good business plan.

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.

[dcsnare93]

Nvm, 2muchcoffeeman basically stated above what I just did (what I get for not reading to end of the thread)

Edited March 27, 2015 by dcsnare93

[ScoutMello]

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.

There is also the concern that this legislation increases the risk for performing members (and staff/spectators) to end up in hostile, potentially dangerous situations. Thats a concern I hope DCI is voicing to whomever they interact with at the local/state level in Indiana.