2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 [and there has been a series of 7th Circuit cases regarding a prisoner in Wisconsin that have tried to state that atheism is a religion for purposes of Free Exercise, but the logic is strained beyond credulity in my opinion, Well, insofar as the freedom TO believe necessarily entails the freedom NOT to believe (even the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts this), there would appear to be at least some cohesiveness of the logic. But obviously, I know nothing of the specific case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Absolutely. ....and what I would like to know is why wouldn't that law affect people of color or women or whatever other group? If it's based upon Religion, then I can imagine some religions who don't like Inter-Racial marriages or who wouldn't want to do business with women... Incidentally this whole topic made me think about this scene from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert where a local mine worker had "nothing here for people like you"... Kinda funny scene, but that's what I thought of.... http://movieclips.com/78MDh-the-adventures-of-priscilla-queen-of-the-desert-movie-weve-got-nothing-here-for-people-like-you/ I said the exact same thing earlier and 1 poster said to me it seemed over the top . If a law is allowed like this, when and with whom does it stop. As a christian, can i refuse a Jewish person service because they don't believe in Christ as I would? People can hide behind religion for some very evil agendas. One has to only turn the news on to see this. Again, if allowed when and with whom does it stop. I also said , but i will repeat, IF a business feels that strongly about it, why not post that so the public can decide for themselves if they would support that business. IF a business is ready to publicly refuse service then they should have no problem standing behind letting people know. Edited March 30, 2015 by GUARDLING 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 ok... to summarize for those that came in late to this thread discussion and don't want to read dozens of pages on this topic so far : 1) Indiana elected officials in the Indiana State Legislature recently passed a law thru the their legislative Chamber, sent it along to the State's duly elected Gov., who then signed the bill into law . The new law in Indiana pleases religious zealots, and displeases homosexual activists. It allows persons of Faith to have some leverage in not providing service if they believe such service violates their personal religious faith beliefs. Some see this as a genuine protection of their religious liberties, while others see this as nothing more than a cynical ploy to practice homosexual discrimination. 2) DCI chimed in and publically said in a press release in essence that they" support inclusion ", and will do everything they can to be certain their marchers feel as safe and secure at Championships in Indianapolis as they have ever been. 3) Some posters mentioned the inconsistencies with championing the elimination of sexual discrimination policies, while seeing no hypocrisy for themselves in allowing DCI Corps to continue to practice gender discrimination at will. 4) others pointed out that many of the religious of faith are " rednecks ".. or " are on the wrong side of history", etc while others likened Homosexual Civil Rights causes to that of the ending of Slavery, Emancipation, and the MLK Civil Rights Movement, etc. 5) The Executive Director of the Madison Scouts issued a press release today in which he reminded DCI fans that( among other things ) that the Madison Scouts have a long history of being color blind, are for tolerance, and supports inclusion, etc., and enjoy the hospitality of Indiana and its people. 6) Some posters demanded DCI drop Indy as a venue for Championships. Others then chimed in and said this won't happen. 7) Some posters said they would boycott DCI Championships this summer... another said he had already bought tickets, but won't be going. Others chimed in and said such tactics would only hurt DCI and the Marchers. Others responded, they don't much care about that, as they are personally offended by what Indiana passed into law for themselves there. I might have missed some other important things.. others can add... can't list them all, as its now dozens of pages long, including Court case history cites to bolster ones positions on any number of angles on this issue in which religious liberties run up against sexual orientation liberties. great recap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 After actually READING the new law I think this is more of a "tempest in a tea cup" than anything else. How many businesses are going to turn away business? Perhaps I am making light of this because these laws are in many other states and I don't see the business community throwing business away for religious reasons. The other thing is that if you don't like the law, vote people in that will change it. Crying about something like this doesn't do much save add drama that may or not be warranted. People should NEVER be forced by the US government to do something under the threat of that oppressive hammer to do things they don't want to do save those things that are life threatening (which is covered I believe in law). I have fired MANY a customer for other reasons than sexual orientation etc..(not paying on time etc). Should I be forced to keep them? Certainly not. Time will tell how this all shakes out. Personally, I think it will be a big nothing at the end of the day with certain factions pointing out the remotest examples of being wronged to make a case. But that's just my opinion. never be surprised what businesses will turn away. look how many willingly lost business in order to not serve African Americans for decades 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Please explain how that would be any different that refusing to perform a wedding of two people of differing races... This has been answered by 2muchcoffeeman, but I think it's worth someone whose views are closer to your own chiming in to say that on this particular point, he's right. No minister can be forced by the government to marry anyone. Edit: Because there wasn't anything about DCI in this post, I'll get there in a roundabout way by saying that I am struck by similarities to the debate between C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on the subject of religious vs. civil marriage. Fascinating stuff. And speaking of Lewis and Tolkien, I've read that Donald Swann wrote an opera based on the former's fine novel Perelandra, which I haven't heard, although I have heard Swann's The Road Goes Ever On cycle setting some of Tolkien's poems to music. Add to those selections the music from Swann's At the Drop of a Hat, and I wonder if a corps could do an all-Swann show. Edited March 30, 2015 by N.E. Brigand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 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? If my religion says I believe in Christ, so I do not serve Jews or others who do not believe, if my religion says races should not marry or mingle, so I do not serve a biracial couple, if my religion says abortion is bad, so I ask every female upon entering my store if she has had one or is 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. As garfield emphasized in responding to your post, citing jsagre's posts, there are indeed precious few cases where such discrimination has happened. That said, businesses will not be able to use their religious viewpoints to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender, because those are already protected classes. Sexual orientation is not. Not yet. So such discrimination could happen. And while some states that previously passed such laws made sure that sexual orientation was protected, here is what it says in the Indianapolis Star article that was recently linked here (the one that included a second picture from the governor with a different set of supporters of the bill): "Democrats in the General Assembly tried several times to add language to the measure that would have provided explicit protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation, but those efforts were rebuffed." But again, despite the law almost certainly having been passed to justify discrimination against LGBT individuals, its deeper purpose, in my view, is to bolster the conservative credentials of its advocates, and probably no one involved in DCI will ever be directly affected in the few years it remains on the books as written, before being consigned to history's junk pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 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? I totally get where you're coming from. DCI nor any other organization can respond to every greater or lesser outrage committed in the world. As I said early in this thread, I don't think this errant law requires anything from DCI more forceful than the statement they've issued. But surely you can contemplate situations where DCI, and DCI fans, would be right to respond much more strongly? If we were talking about Bull Connor's Birmingham or P.W. Botha's Johannesburg, I bet you'd be more open to a boycott. "Ain't Gonna Play Sun City", right? If the moral concern is clear and large, then morality must trump the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 This thread has done nothing to change my perspective. But it has told me a lot about a few of the posters in this forum. A lot of disappointing stuff. I am shocked, shocked to find that the different posters here hold very different political views. Or not so much. Who hasn't noticed before that some otherwise innocuous news items linked here by DCP members sometimes come from right-wing sources like The Blaze and sometimes come from left-wing sources like HuffPo? It's good to know that drum corps has support from all kinds of people. As far as the implication that some DCP contributors are yet unenlightened on the subject of sexual identity, we would each of us be found wanting, for one reason or another, by the standards of the future. In this case, the future is impinging on the present too quickly for some people. As I said earlier in this thread, the idea of gay marriage was all but unimaginable just 25 years ago. Homosexual acts were criminalized by some states until a Supreme Court ruling as recently as 2003! And sexual identity, despite the recent claims of some contributors to this discussion, is not a protected class (someone linked to an early analysis of Windsor v. U.S., but, at least as I understand it, that reading was in error, and that case was determined on different grounds), which is why there is so much concern about Indiana's religious freedom law. But it is a blip, a momentary setback in what has been a very rapid period of change in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 As garfield emphasized in responding to your post, citing jsagre's posts, there are indeed precious few cases where such discrimination has happened. That said, businesses will not be able to use their religious viewpoints to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender, because those are already protected classes. Sexual orientation is not. Not yet. So such discrimination could happen. And while some states that previously passed such laws made sure that sexual orientation was protected, here is what it says in the Indianapolis Star article that was recently linked here (the one that included a second picture from the governor with a different set of supporters of the bill): "Democrats in the General Assembly tried several times to add language to the measure that would have provided explicit protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation, but those efforts were rebuffed." But again, despite the law almost certainly having been passed to justify discrimination against LGBT individuals, its deeper purpose, in my view, is to bolster the conservative credentials of its advocates, and probably no one involved in DCI will ever be directly affected in the few years it remains on the books as written, before being consigned to history's junk pile. I hope you are right. Ive seen and taught to many young people , torn apart over the years. Thank Goodness times , at least in drum corps and 30 plus states has been changing. Funny thing is , talk to many young people on this or race and many dont get why there is an issue at all.In fact many have said " Oh Thats my parents or thei generation , who cares "..lol..of course i said it isnt all from these other generations. Times are and will continue to change and inclusive of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I know you deeply want to equate gay rights with civil rights, but I don't see that it's even close. Well at least that's finally out there. It took 37 pages for someone to say this explicitly. There are two basic points upon which contributors to this thread are divided One is the question of whether this law really is intended to allow businesses to use religious grounds to discriminate against gays. Everyone should read the two letters, each signed by a bevy of legal experts and taking up the opposite side of the case. The other is the question of whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic like race or gender--and therefore deserving of the same protections. Lots of people in this thread have claimed that it is. Yours is the first post to clearly claim that it is not. I'm pretty sure that no argument made here can convince you to change your mind, not even if I posed a standard question: when did you choose to be straight, and do you really think could you just choose to be gay now? Or another: if an Indiana business decided on religious grounds not to serve heterosexuals, why would that be OK? No, only time will make the difference. Either further experience of knowing gay people will heighten your sympathies, or you'll never come around to that position, and that change will be left to your descendants. Either way, you, like the rest of us, are part of a trend whose end, I think, is foreknown. Nothing DCI can do, no statement they make or action they take concerning Indiana's misguided law, will have any immediate impact on such an opinion as yours seems to be. What DCI can best do is continue to do is be welcoming and tolerant. Edited March 30, 2015 by N.E. Brigand 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts