Indiana's New Law

[JimF-LowBari]

Speaking of such Garfield, noticed something I want to bring up and not trying to stir up the muck.

Notice a few times when someone posts a legal opinion that disagrees with you, you say that's just their opinion or don't put much credence in it. Too many pages to find the exact word but that's the general idea IIRC. But when you post legal items it's presented as fact. For example four posts above it's "what this law actually means".

Not just you but things like that always make me do a double take.

[Channel3]

This controversy puts one more item in the "Negatives" column for this venue, venue, venue. (That was the stadium echo.)

[skevinp]

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?

If they are willing to harm the activity by forcing it into such a position then they are not really "major supporters" as far as I can see. Do people want DCI to replace the welfare of the activity with the demands of the loudest voicest and the deepest pockets in making all its decisions? What happens when BOTH sides of an issue threaten to boycott? How much time do the small number of people who run this organization have to spend researching every nuance of every legal issue they get a letter about?

[2muchcoffeeman]

This controversy puts one more item in the "Negatives" column for this venue, venue, venue. (That was the stadium echo.)

Oh, I don't know. This is a touchy subject, to be sure, but the debate in this thread has kept its cool, for the most part. Believe me, if you head over to places like BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, DailyKos, TPM, Brietbart, Reddit, etc., you need to strap on armor before wading into the discussion. At least here, everyone has a common interest: the health and vitality of the drum corps activity. The Mods have let this thread run, I'm sure, with some anxiety, but I think everyone here has conducted themselves within the house rules.

That said, I for one would not hold it against management if it said Okay, we've let everyone have their say, and it's time to close this one and return to drum corps.

[Lincoln]

That said, I for one would not hold it against management if it said Okay, we've let everyone have their say, and it's time to close this one and return to drum corps.

I agree - I think the thread has run it's course.

[garfield]

Speaking of such Garfield, noticed something I want to bring up and not trying to stir up the muck.

Notice a few times when someone posts a legal opinion that disagrees with you, you say that's just their opinion or don't put much credence in it. Too many pages to find the exact word but that's the general idea IIRC. But when you post legal items it's presented as fact. For example four posts above it's "what this law actually means".

Not just you but things like that always make me do a double take.

Sorry, Jim, and to whomever may have been the recipient you're referencing. I don't recall except where one poster was, in my view, misinterpreting the letter of the law - the actual words (I think it was about the exemption).

I'll do my part to put the thread to bed.

[HockeyDad]

That's it. DCI is leaving Indy and moving the championships permanently to Camp Randall Stadium.

Said no DCI official ever.

But they should.

[xandandl]

Hockey Dad,

Your solution would give undue influence and favors Midwesterners, especially Wisconsinites, thus violating a zillion subtext laws you will have to figure out with Garfield.

These comments seem pertinent to the serious reflections. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana-gov-mike-pence-controversial-religious-freedom-law/story?id=29985752

While no official statement of an invitation has yet been made by DCI, several posters on DCP gave mention of a particular musical group doing the featured exhibition for this year's championships.

Due to the nature of the group, will the exhibitionists be boycotting and if not, will that lead to a counter boycott, perhaps partial, by others?

The whole situation, solution, and development becomes muddled easily and only underscores the wisdom of the moderators to keep the conversation to drum corps.

Edited March 29, 2015 by xandandl

[GUARDLING]

Without going back and reading all I missed since last night ( forgive me if this has been said already ) So just as far as the law as we may understand it, I think the big question is when a law like this is allowed, WHEN DOES IT STOP, AND WITH WHOM.

My religion says I believe in Christ, SO I DO NOT SERVE JEWS OR OTHERS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, My religion says races do not marry or mingle, , SO I DO NOT SERVE A BI RACIAL COUPLE, My religion says abortion is bad , SO I ASK EVERY FEMALE UPON ENTERING MY STORE IF SHE HAS HAD ONE OR ON BIRTH CONTROL, without 100 more examples you all know where i went with this.

So a bigger question is " WHERE DOES IT STOP ) and with whom?

If people believe that a law like this stops with a certain group, then I would give that a second look.

I could be wrong BUT I don't think you will find much happening at championships ( regarding the law ) but to even open the door to it ,for me is disturbing.

i do think any business who may turn away a customer for this or any reason should be forced to have a sign in their window expressing their belief so people can choose to enter or not, seems fair. I can bet tunes will change.

Edited March 29, 2015 by GUARDLING

[garfield]

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.

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.

Without going back and reading all I missed since last night ( forgive me if this has been said already ) So just as far as the law as we may understand it, I think the big question is when a law like this is allowed, WHEN DOES IT STOP, AND WITH WHOM.

My religion says I believe in Christ, SO I DO NOT SERVE JEWS OR OTHERS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, My religion says races do not marry or mingle, , SO I DO NOT SERVE A BI RACIAL COUPLE, My religion says abortion is bad , SO I ASK EVERY FEMALE UPON ENTERING MY STORE IF SHE HAS HAD ONE OR ON BIRTH CONTROL, without 100 more examples you all know where i went with this.

So a bigger question is " WHERE DOES IT STOP ) and with whom?

If people believe that a law like this stops with a certain group, then I would give that a second look.

I could be wrong BUT I don't think you will find much happening at championships ( regarding the law ) but to even open the door to it ,for me is disturbing.

i do think any business who may turn away a customer for this or any reason should be forced to have a sign in their window expressing their belief so people can choose to enter or not, seems fair. I can bet tunes will change.