Whiskey Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 A shoe on the other foot? Interesting. I grew up in that area for many years back in the early 80's into the 90's. My brother went to school at Douglas County High School and I at a neighboring school. Both my brother and I faced some forms of discrimination at our schools (we're Native American) over the years. Back then, everyone was well aware there was a large KKK contingent in Castle Rock. It was not denied, it was factual. That place no matter how much it has grown and spiffied up has not really changed. I made some wonderful friends there through the years and we definitely disagree on things politically. We just choose not to discuss it when we're around together. We even have alumni when they reminisce about things talk negatively about certain neighborhoods they considered ghetto even though the houses were only worth $150,000 compared to their country club, ranch style homes. That region is very nice, but definitely has that old way of thinking. Just some personal thoughts from a person who lived in the area for over a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 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.) Thought one of the purposes was to allow owners to bar service to certain customers based on religious beliefs. Discrimination by my definition. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Thought one of the purposes was to allow owners to bar service to certain customers based on religious beliefs. Discrimination by my definition. I know, you keep saying this even though it's not true. The federal and IN laws recognize that religious freedom has the same weight in court as a claim of discrimination. They even lay out the judiciary applications basis for determining which discrimination carries the greater weight and prohibits the shifting of burden from one party to another. There is no evidence anywhere that DCI, corps, or fans on either side of the issue have faced such discrimination. In fact, all parties agree that IN and drum corps have been great to and for each other for decades. There is only speculation and fear and, of course, political posturing used as evidence of what might happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 As I said earlier maybe a business expressing their right needs to post it so that a patron can decide for themselves whether to support such a place 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) As I said earlier maybe a business expressing their right needs to post it so that a patron can decide for themselves whether to support such a place About 40 years before the ONLY case brought by a business-owner on specifically gay grounds, they used 5-point stars to identify people that were proven to be persecuted and killed for their beliefs. Is that what's wanted? I would not agree with your solution even if patrons also wore labels identifying their personal beliefs. Edited March 29, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 A shoe on the other foot? So by that line of reasoning, refusal to write a hate message on a cake is the the same refusing to serve a gay couple at their own wedding ( but serving them when they bought cakes for other people's wedding). All I can say is wow, very unexpected, and disappointing. In my mind, it doesn't matter what side of the issue one is on, there's no way to reconcile that these two examples are hugely different. Why in the world would someone even want to write something like that (hate words on a cake)? Imagine if race, age, national origin, or gender terms were put on the cake instead of sexual orientation... There would be an uproar. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) So by that line of reasoning, refusal to write a hate message on a cake is the the same refusing to serve a gay couple at their own wedding ( but serving them when they bought cakes for other people's wedding). All I can say is wow, very unexpected, and disappointing. In my mind, it doesn't matter what side of the issue one is on, there's no way to reconcile that these two examples are hugely different. Why in the world would someone even want to write something like that (hate words on a cake)? Imagine if race, age, national origin, or gender terms were put on the cake instead of sexual orientation... There would be an uproar. Your definition of a "hate message" is no less nor more valid than another's definition. Thank goodness the law ignores both. Your disappointment is duly noted. I will fight for minimal intrusion of, and equal application of, the law despite your disappointment. If 40 years of unflinching support and promotion of drum corps, including my own convictions regarding the law, religion, and gay issues, doesn't contravene your disappointment then nothing I say here will. I'm glad that DCI doesn't have such prerequisites of thought prior to accepting my ticket money, and it should be very careful, IMO, to not let itself be driven to do so. The unintended consequence of requiring "common thought" will surely leave the activity much different than it's been for 42 years. I shudder to think that it desires such. Edited March 30, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) 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.) Saying the law won't affect anyone negatively seems to assume that no one on the other side of the equation will ever choose to use the law, yes? Because the minute someone DOES use it to avoid doing business with someone they don't like based on "religious" rationale, it will be undeniable that SOMEONE was negatively affected by being told that they, effectively, can't eat at that particular lunch counter because the owner thinks there's something "wrong" with them. But if, as you presume, that's never going to happen, it leads one to wonder why such a law - one that won't affect anyone - was passed in the first place. 'course, most of us are adults - I think we can figure out the answer to that question. "Ch-ching. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and bring your checkbooks with you. The great revival meeting is about to begin..." Edited March 30, 2015 by Slingerland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Saying the law won't affect anyone negatively seems to assume that no one on the other side of the equation will ever choose to use the law, yes? Because the minute someone DOES use it to avoid doing business with someone they don't like based on "religious" rationale, it will be undeniable that SOMEONE was negatively affected by being told that they, effectively, can't eat at that particular lunch counter because the owner thinks there's something "wrong" with them. But if, as you presume, that's never going to happen, it leads one to wonder why such a law - one that won't affect anyone - was passed in the first place. 'course, most of us are adults - I think we can figure out the answer to that question. "Ch-ching. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and bring your checkbooks with you. The great revival meeting is about to begin..." You added a whole lot to my sentence, didn't you? I never said the law won't affect anyone. The law is written so that the government will affect everyone the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 This is charming.... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/anonymous-indiana-restaurant-owner-boasts-that-hes-already-discriminated-against-gays/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts