Should Final Four be relocated from Indiana to protest recent anti-gay legislation?

KayDee35 · Post #221 » by **KayDee35** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 8:40 pm

There's a precedent for these bigoted pizza joint owners: When Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes for the crowd, he told his followers to pass out the food to everyone, except the gays.

KayDee35 · Post #222 » by **KayDee35** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 8:58 pm

Rip It wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/AllianceDefends/status/583360366715002880[/tweet]

Nice try. The ACLU does not support discrimination. It does not support the Indiana or Arkansas RFRA laws. It supported the federal RFRA because that was worded to protect religious practices.

DavidSterned · Post #223 » by **DavidSterned** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:00 pm

The Civil Rights Act protects a "private" club's rights to discriminate based on all sorts of reasons.

http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html

The issue is what constitutes a "private" business versus a public one.

I think an individually run, sole proprietorship should be granted more flexibility in their business dealings, as long as the services being provided aren't life necessities. Of course, determining what is and isn't a life necessity can also be tough.

Lots of subjectivity in this issue, but what's clear is that neither this law and or other law on the books does not apply to bigger, public owned businesses where protected classes are just that and discrimination against them violates the law.

Rip It · Post #224 » by **Rip It** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:13 pm

Tarik Black wrote:Well if FreeMarketJay ( a known religious conservative) tweets its cool.. then it must be ok.

He's not wrong. Conservatives rarely are.

Post #225 » by **LLcoleJ** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:24 pm

Rip It wrote:
Tarik Black wrote:Well if FreeMarketJay ( a known religious conservative) tweets its cool.. then it must be ok.

He's not wrong. Conservatives rarely are.

hehe... thanks for the laugh.

Peja Stojakovic · Post #226 » by **Peja Stojakovic** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:29 pm

what's the link b/t march madness and the stupid law someone passed? or is the plan to just boycott indiana a state where a few million people live and work just b/c an idiot state rep pandered to anti-gay people

Peja Stojakovic · Post #227 » by **Peja Stojakovic** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:31 pm

Gunny wrote:
RoundMoundOfReb wrote:Not at all. Would people be so up in arms about say a law allowing women's only gyms....ie gyms that refuse service to men? Would they call it an "anti-male" sexist law.

In fact, I agree with the general premise of the bill. Businesses should be "allowed" to refuse service to anybody based on whatever basis they like'. Yes - INCLUDING RACE (I say this as a minority). Any business stupid enough to openly refuse service to people based on race/sexuality would hurt their own bottom line through bad press/public outrage.

This is a good point. If I went into a bakery with my girl to ask for a wedding cake and the person behind the counter goes, "We don't give service to Indians/interracial couples," that would make the decision easy for me. I'll give my hard-earned money to someone who isn't a racist jerk. I'm sure another bakery would love to provide the service to me.

The only entity getting hurt here is the business owner, as it's hurting their bottom line.

i'm sure this logic applies to whites only country clubs as well. sometimes the product being sold is homogeneity and that **** sells

Torgeir Bryn · Post #228 » by **Torgeir Bryn** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:34 pm

It's incredible how far behind the US is on these kind of issues.

Land of the free, just not for everyone...

KayDee35 · Post #229 » by **KayDee35** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:45 pm

Peja Stojakovic wrote:what's the link b/t march madness and the stupid law someone passed? or is the plan to just boycott indiana a state where a few million people live and work just b/c an idiot state rep pandered to anti-gay people

The stupid law is discriminatory. And bigots are going to use their cherry-picked beliefs from mythology to refuse service to others mostly based on sexual orientation. They won't refuse service to divorcees or people having pre-marital sex even though that goes against their mythology.

The plan is not to let discrimination fly.

BenoUdrihFTL · Post #230 » by **BenoUdrihFTL** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 9:51 pm

Wow sports is where I go to get away from politics. Not anymore, I guess.

MiltownHawkeye · Post #231 » by **MiltownHawkeye** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 11:02 pm

Torgeir Bryn wrote:It's incredible how far behind the US is on these kind of issues.

Land of the free, just not for everyone...

No, it should be totally okay for a minority person to have to wonder if a given business will serve them if they walk in. You know, because freedom.

BKing10 · Post #232 » by **BKing10** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 11:53 pm

MiltownHawkeye wrote:
Torgeir Bryn wrote:It's incredible how far behind the US is on these kind of issues.

Land of the free, just not for everyone...

No, it should be totally okay for a minority person to have to wonder if a given business will serve them if they walk in. You know, because freedom.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that that is not what this bill does or what it's intended to do? It's a super unneeded bill, but at least take a second to read up on it if you are going to form an opinion

young_frogger · Post #233 » by **young_frogger** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 11:53 pm

I find it so ironic that Charles said this yet he did that stupid 'In-the-Anapolis' commercial with Spike Lee and Samuel L. Jackson and forced people to endure watching it about 100 times a game.

MiltownHawkeye · Post #234 » by **MiltownHawkeye** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 12:03 am

BKing10 wrote:
MiltownHawkeye wrote:
Torgeir Bryn wrote:It's incredible how far behind the US is on these kind of issues.

Land of the free, just not for everyone...

No, it should be totally okay for a minority person to have to wonder if a given business will serve them if they walk in. You know, because freedom.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that that is not what this bill does or what it's intended to do? It's a super unneeded bill, but at least take a second to read up on it if you are going to form an opinion

I'm not talking about the bill specifically, I'm talking about the people in this thread saying businesses should be allowed to discriminate against constitutionally protected groups because the free market will take care of it anyway.

young_frogger · Post #235 » by **young_frogger** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 12:05 am

tidho wrote:I'm a fan of freedom, and believe businesses should have the right to not make a cake for gay wedding if they don't want to. The public certainly has he right not to buy cakes from that business if they so choose.

....so no, I believe its absurd to think the NCAA should breach contracts with all parties involved with the final 4. Which if you think about it, sounds a lot like not serving a basketball market because you don't agree with their political views on social issues.

By this logic we could go back to having restaurants refusing to seat black people. Businesses do not have the right to discriminate against customers. The only thing that the customer needs to do is pay the business for whatever goods/services that he/she wants.

Pointgod · Post #236 » by **Pointgod** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 1:07 am

young_frogger wrote:
tidho wrote:I'm a fan of freedom, and believe businesses should have the right to not make a cake for gay wedding if they don't want to. The public certainly has he right not to buy cakes from that business if they so choose.

....so no, I believe its absurd to think the NCAA should breach contracts with all parties involved with the final 4. Which if you think about it, sounds a lot like not serving a basketball market because you don't agree with their political views on social issues.

By this logic we could go back to having restaurants refusing to seat black people. Businesses do not have the right to discriminate against customers. The only thing that the customer needs to do is pay the business for whatever goods/services that he/she wants.

Why stop there? Businesses should be able to discriminate against who they hire as well. Cuz FREEDOM! MURICA!

Insomniaac · Post #237 » by **Insomniaac** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 1:23 am

Peja Stojakovic wrote:what's the link b/t march madness and the stupid law someone passed? or is the plan to just boycott indiana a state where a few million people live and work just b/c an idiot state rep pandered to anti-gay people

It was the governor, not a state representative. And the point is to not give Indiana the large amount of a business a Final Four generates when a law like this is in effect

andyhop · Post #238 » by **andyhop** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:37 am

Peja Stojakovic wrote:what's the link b/t march madness and the stupid law someone passed? or is the plan to just boycott indiana a state where a few million people live and work just b/c an idiot state rep pandered to anti-gay people

As it has no chance of happening it is an easy option for people who want to show off how great they are at zero cost to themself

He Filled it Up · Post #239 » by **He Filled it Up** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:40 am

Rip It wrote:
Tarik Black wrote:Well if FreeMarketJay ( a known religious conservative) tweets its cool.. then it must be ok.

He's not wrong. Conservatives rarely are.

Neutral 123 · Post #240 » by **Neutral 123** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 3:19 am

BKing10 wrote:
MiltownHawkeye wrote:
Torgeir Bryn wrote:It's incredible how far behind the US is on these kind of issues.

Land of the free, just not for everyone...

No, it should be totally okay for a minority person to have to wonder if a given business will serve them if they walk in. You know, because freedom.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that that is not what this bill does or what it's intended to do? It's a super unneeded bill, but at least take a second to read up on it if you are going to form an opinion

That's precisely what it does, and there's plenty to suggest that is what it is intended to do.