Indiana's New Law

[Bsader]

Indiana the State of ISIS-Lite?

Edited March 27, 2015 by Bsader

[Tim K]

My guess, like all other once All Male Drum Corps before them, eventually the Cavaliers and the Madison Scouts will voluntarily end their decades long discriminatory exclusion of Females in their ranks... and within short order of that discrimination barrier coming down, we'll all wonder what took them so long to move into the 21st Century ".

The last all male corps to go coed that had a significant national presence was Kilties in 1978, and Kilties only went coed to try and save the corps. Most were gone prior to DCI or within the first few years of DCI's founding. Cavies and Madison have survived for 37 years since that time with few recruitment problems, especially in the case of Cavies. Personally I am glad drum corps can boast of two all male corps filled with college age young men who appear to be gentlemen and do not act like some of the over privileged frat boys chanting racist songs or on constant sexual escapades that seem to make the news on a regular basis.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Tim K

[garfield]

Indiana the State of ISIS-lite.

Let me help: ISIS Pharma has been a slam-dunk winner.

The fastest way to shut down this thread and lose our convenient platform is to resort to this kind of language.

Your choice.

Or would you just as soon shift your burden to the rest of us by continuing your actions? (Hint: Read the law.)

Edited March 27, 2015 by garfield

[Lincoln]

Edited

Edited March 27, 2015 by Lincoln

[bill]

After a lot of money is spend needlessly, the Supreme Court will probably declare this law unconstitutional, but in the mean time DCI should make their voice heard. What would DCI be without the LGBT community. A BIG FAT NOTHING!!!!!

And potentially risk the lose of their non-profit status?? And then what?

What many may not realize, it does not fair well (at all) for a non-profit with a defined purpose to venture out of their sphere of interest of their charter.

In short and as example, taking a formal stand in anyway political, religious, etc. in nature---can be deemed a legal cause for revoking the non-profit status of an organization; if it violates the specific intent and mission statement in accordance with the organization's purpose.

[JimF-LowBari]

And potentially risk the lose of their non-profit status?? And then what?

What many may not realize, it does not fair well (at all) for a non-profit with a defined purpose to venture out of their sphere of interest of their charter.

In short and as example, taking a formal stand in anyway political, religious, etc. in nature---can be deemed a legal cause for revoking the non-profit status of an organization; if it violates the specific intent and mission statement in accordance with the organization's purpose.

Interesting point (trying to move the locked clock back a notch).

Doesn't DCIs Mission Statement include "education" in their somewhere? If so, then DCI could argue that this law could impact DCIs ability to provide the same education for all members. IOW - hard to provide education/services for all members when some members are not allowed in certain places. Or this law could make it harder for DCI to provide education as might be harder for corps to find what they need (housing/supplies/whatever).

Edit: Just goggled and NCA appears to be tax exempt. Lot of sounds coming from that area.....

Edited March 27, 2015 by JimF-LowBari

[seen-it-all]

The fastest way to shut down this thread is to resort to this kind of language.

I agree. But flippant remarks like that aren't helping either. Just sayin's all. So far, the commenters in this thread have shown (IMO) remarkable restraint, politeness, and respectfulness. It would be nice to keep it that way.

(Some of the show threads during the middle of the DCI season have been more heated and nasty than this. Well done, DCP!) :)

Edited March 27, 2015 by JohnZ
quote edited

[garfield]

Here is a letter signed by dozens of legal scholars - including several IU law professors I know personally - which, among other things, explains why the Indiana RFRA differs from the state and federal RFRAs of the 90s. Though I recommend reading the entire letter you can jump to page 5 for the relevant information.

I had already read the whole letter but thanks for posting it. More impassioned people should read it while they keep in mind that it's 30 lawyers; I'd bet you could find another 30 who'd argue the other side of the argument.

The commonality between the two laws is that both attempt to keep the focus on not "shifting the burden" of ones beliefs onto another. One commenter here suggested that the Supreme Court will likely rule SB101 unconstitutional, but I disagree.

In the end, the court will rule for the greater burdened, so the decision will come down to a case-by-case examination of who carries the greater burden. Simply and anecdotally: forcing a bakery-owner to change his religious beliefs or forcing a potential customer to go buy his cake at a different bakery.

Edited March 27, 2015 by garfield

[garfield]

I agree. But flippant remarks like that aren't helping either. Just sayin's all. So far, the commenters in this thread have shown (IMO) remarkable restraint, politeness, and respectfulness. It would be nice to keep it that way.

(Some of the show threads during the middle of the DCI season have been more heated and nasty than this. Well done, DCP!) :)

Yes, you're right of course. Apology provided and text edited.

[Bsader]

No fun!