Whiskey Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I've been lurking on this thread as well. We can defend or oppose the law all we want, but this picture right here tells me all about the people who supported this bill. They can use the Constitution to their advantage, but I think much of us know what their agenda is based on the organizations they work for. I find it funny how it was immediately glossed over or dismissed by those who are right now arguing on behalf of this law. I'm just happy that just about about every DCI show that we consider classics was designed or had members who are a part of the LGTB community. We are much better organization and activity because of them regardless of our military roots. Even better, we have several generation of kids who have learned more lessons about life than just music and performance. I always say let these people have their time, like all things, their way of thinking will eventually come to an end. Our activity has shown that it's more than just about race, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. That I am proud of. And to those who don't see the LGTB community struggle for equal rights as being the same as the Civil Rights movement, there was once that way of thought back in the 50's and 60's. Any discrimination is too much discrimination no matter how it's veiled. I do believe in protecting the rights of those who do believe in bigotry. Like I said, their time will end, but they deserve to be protected by the Constitution as well. Laws like this won't be needed as the years progress. Maybe not in our lifetime, but they are already in the minority of there way of thinking. What I get scared of is when they know their power is coming to an end, what are they willing to do to protect it? There's a lot to say without this going into a political discussion. So I will stop there. Not forcing my thoughts on anyone, just sharing mine in this wonderful medium we are allowed by DCP. Now back to lurking. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Eleran and Whiskey's (thoughtful) response editorializes the actual signing by omitting and cropping what was actual. Eleran's photo is not the only one shown in the IndyStar of the signing of the Indiana act. The official photo (not above) is very different and shows nuns, rabbis, immans, and Protestant ministers, male and female. Rather than exclusion, the attempt is made at inclusion. We should all be honest, not seeming to trim things to our own perspectives. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) They can use the Constitution to their advantage, but I think much of us know what their agenda is based on the organizations they work for. I find it funny how it was immediately glossed over or dismissed by those who are right now arguing on behalf of this law. If it has been dismissed, perhaps it's because it's irrelevant. That's the thing about being a nation of laws, and not a nation of men: What matters is the language that actually gets written down and voted upon, not the agendas of those who vote on the laws. I am not so naive as to think that our politics is beyond the reach of manipulation, by various interest groups. But when something ends up in court, the question before the judge is what does the law say, not what is the agenda of the people who supported this law. About a year ago, Hawaii's governor signed a law permitting same-sex marriage. As you can imagine, it was controversial. Just as some may look at the picture of the bill-signing in Indiana and make conclusions about the intent of the people in the picture, opponents of the marriage bill looked at the photo of the bill signing in Honolulu and made their own conclusions of the people in the picture. And, just as opponents of Indiana's law are reading things into it that don't really exist, opponents of the marriage law read into it things that do not exist. They were convinced the "agenda" of the people behind the bill was to force Christian ministers into officiating same-sex weddings. In truth, the law does no such thing. I find it more productive to look at the black-and-white of the law, and to avoid making judgments about people in photographs. Edited March 29, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 The official photo (not above) is very different and shows nuns, rabbis, immans, and Protestant ministers, male and female. Rather than exclusion, the attempt is made at inclusion. We should all be honest, not seeming to trim things to our own perspectives. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/ Wonder why they did not have all the folks in one photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 for reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I wonder two things when I see the pic (too bad I can't think of a DCI reference): 1) What beliefs of theirs do they think need protected by a new law? 2) Do any of them or their groups think gays should be protected against discrimination? Or are they of one mind? And still waiting to hear what other group may be legally discriminated against by this and the previous laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luv4corps Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I would never claim to be an expert on this new law, or exactly what it could affect in the future, but I do think it goes in the wrong direction and is detrimental to our society, not just drum corps. In my hometown we had a case that serves as an example of how real life situations related to this topic can play out. A quick google click shows me that there are similar cases in other parts of the country. An engaged lesbian couple requested a wedding cake from a locally owned bakery business. Due to religious beliefs, they were refused service. In my state there is no legal allowance for businesses to cite religious beliefs as a reason to refuse service to anyone. The couple sued and won. The Fox News types are of course outraged but as these cases play out, it forces our nation to have the much needed conversations, as is happening here on DCP. Here is a fairly recent article about the Oregon case showing up in the NY Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oregon-bakery-pay-gay-couple-refused-cake-article-1.2103577 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I wonder two things when I see the pic (too bad I can't think of a DCI reference): 1) What beliefs of theirs do they think need protected by a new law? 2) Do any of them or their groups think gays should be protected against discrimination? Or are they of one mind? And still waiting to hear what other group may be legally discriminated against by this and the previous laws. The crickets you hear are your answer. There are no groups that can be legally discriminated against by this law. ("Previous laws" is too broad to address.) Edited March 29, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 A shoe on the other foot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 A shoe on the other foot? is this the shoe on the other foot :? or refusal to write a hate message. I see a huge difference asking for a wedding cake and creating hatred..jmo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts