N.E. Brigand Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) Madison and Cavies are not in violation of discrimination laws as all males corps. AAU athletic programs are private organizations and they have male only teams and female only teams. If Cavies or Madison had a rule about race, that would violate federal law. Since they are not religious organizations they probably cannot have a religious requirement. Thanks for chiming in. I imagine it would be otherwise had the Equal Rights Amendment passed in the 1970s. (That's on my mind after seeing an interesting story last night on the current schism in Phyllis Schlafly's organization concerning the presidential campaign.) Edited April 13, 2016 by N.E. Brigand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 DCI is a musical activity. Keep politics out of it. In this particular case, that may be the best course of action, but I think it's worth restating that sometimes ignoring politics is itself a political act. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) . In 20 years ( as someone else said ) we will actually be embarrassed by such laws which promote separatism . Hmnnn.... thats an optimistic view, and sure hope you are correct. But recently we have had laws passed that have had the unintended consequences of actually promoting " separatism" instead of inclusiveness. For just one example, some Cities today in the US are more " separate " than in the much maligned 1950's. And some regions of the country ( Florida, Arizona, Texas, Florida to name just a few ) are now chock full of " separate " enclaves... all filled with guarded gates at the entry. Gated communities everywhere in sight and for miles and miles. We did not have this level of " separatism " in previous decades. I think in 20 years.... hopefully.... the younger generation of today will not laugh at this level of " separatism ". I hope they are embarrassed that large segments of the US society feels so threatened today that many millions of them have chosen now to protect themselves and their families behind big walls, gates, and high tech security surveillance. Edited April 13, 2016 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketman Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I think it would certainly be ill-advised to do so. However, I'm not sure anyone looked at the other side, there may be people that decide to boycott going to shows because of the LGBT contingent within the corps activity! I think it would be stupid, but don't be surprised if it happens. Sadly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Holland Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I think unless it becomes an issue that directly affects the corps, say school districts no longer renting their fields or gyms to corps because they may have members that are LGBT, or asking outright "do you have any LGBT performers?" Which I believe is against the law DCI should not boycott shows as that would not be supporting the groups from that state. (Crown, Carolina Gold) Or if they kick a corps out of their housing due to them having members of that orientation, then it becomes a problem with the state. However, if Crown and Carolina Gold pull their shows from their own state and move them to another state, then I think DCI/DCA should take a stand with them and support their decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) DCI is a musical activity Keep politics out of it Yes, I agree. And while we are at it, we should all be thankful that the moderators here on DCP have decided to waive the rules of this forum on the prohibition of thread discussions on politics that have to do with issues taking place outside the realm of Drum Corps, DCI, DCA, etc. Its been an interesting, intelligent, civil dialogue so far regarding this hot button political issue thats taking place. My hope moving forward is that the moderators here will be as lenient to us all when we might have other discussion threads started that is of a political nature in the future. Edited April 13, 2016 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Hmnnn.... thats an optimistic view, and sure hope you are correct. But recently we have had laws passed that have had the unintended consequences of actually promoting " separatism" instead of inclusiveness. For just one example, some Cities today in the US are more " separate " than in the much maligned 1950's. And some regions of the country ( Florida, Arizona, Texas, Florida to name just a few ) are now chock full of " separate " enclaves... all filled with guarded gates at the entry. Gated communities everywhere in sight and for miles and miles. We did not have this level of " separatism " in previous decades. I think in 20 years.... hopefully.... the younger generation of today will not laugh at this level of " separatism ". I hope they are embarrassed that large segments of the US society feels so threatened today that many millions of them have chosen now to protect themselves and their families behind big walls, gates, and high tech security surveillance. Agree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Hmnnn.... thats an optimistic view, and sure hope you are correct. But recently we have had laws passed that have had the unintended consequences of actually promoting " separatism" instead of inclusiveness. For just one example, some Cities today in the US are more " separate " than in the much maligned 1950's. And some regions of the country ( Florida, Arizona, Texas, Florida to name just a few ) are now chock full of " separate " enclaves... all filled with guarded gates at the entry. Gated communities everywhere in sight and for miles and miles. We did not have this level of " separatism " in previous decades. I think in 20 years.... hopefully.... the younger generation of today will not laugh at this level of " separatism ". I hope they are embarrassed that large segments of the US society feels so threatened today that many millions of them have chosen now to protect themselves and their families behind big walls, gates, and high tech security surveillance. Gated communities merely ensure that people going into neighborhoods are invited guests of someone who lives there. How is that worse than the door security they have in apartment or condo buildings in cities everywhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) Gated communities merely ensure that people going into neighborhoods are invited guests of someone who lives there. How is that worse than the door security they have in apartment or condo buildings in cities everywhere else? Level of security. Millions that once lived in this comparatively low level of security, ie.. door security.... have moved out of there to gated enclaves where in addition to their own personal home" door security" at their door there ( with personal home alarms put in place ) they now have an additional layer they believe they need up the road where there is now a gate, a wall, a security cameras, and in some cases, 24 hour manned security at the gates. BIG difference. And as mentioned, signifying a new level of " separatism " and security that many millions of Americans believed was not necessary for their security protection and for that of their families in earlier USA.. Edited April 13, 2016 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 On the Male Only corps discrimination question I think that on the same basis one could ask why can a corps like Phantom have an all female guard. . Not the same. Phantom Regiment does not exclude females from ALL sections of the Corps. In addition, it is of recent occurance that Phantom has chosen to go with an All Female Guard, with no assurance that they might not return to a coed Guard they have utilized before, once again. The current All Male Corps have excluded women from maching for over half a century, in all sections, and from what we can gather, this women's exclusion policy is not about to change any time soon. So THATS the big difference here between what Phantom Regiment is currently doing with their Guard, and what these other 2 Corps have been doing in all sections of their Corps since and even before the Equal Rights Amendment became the Law of the Land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts