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

Rip It · Post #261 » by **Rip It** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:07 pm

All the focus has been directed towards the faux discrimination against homosexuals. Let's look at the other side for a moment and let me ask everyone a question:

Is it ever not okay to force a business owner to promote a message they disagree with? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, then can you give some examples?

catsfan · Post #262 » by **catsfan** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:14 pm

Rip It wrote:All the focus has been directed towards the faux discrimination against homosexuals. Let's look at the other side for a moment and let me ask everyone a question:

Is it ever not okay to force a business owner to promote a message they disagree with? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, then can you give some examples?

i see where you are going but your question is wrong and will be proven such. in this specific instance it is in relation to the RELIGIOUS sacrament of marriage. if it is against your religious beliefs to support or take part in a marriage other than between a man and a woman, the business owner should not be forced to provide their service and/or product. this is pretty clear law much of this fuss is about nothing. can a srict kosher jewish baker be forced to make a cake that has bacon as an ingredient? does a muslim catering company have to provide alcohol?

Pointgod · Post #263 » by **Pointgod** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:23 pm

Rip It wrote:All the focus has been directed towards the faux discrimination against homosexuals. Let's look at the other side for a moment and let me ask everyone a question:

Is it ever not okay to force a business owner to promote a message they disagree with? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, then can you give some examples?

Faux discrimination? Are you that stupid? The discrimination is real. Where does it say in the bible that you should serve pizza to gays? Businesses are in the business of making money. If they're not then they are welcome to close down and give back any incentives that they've received from the government.

KayDee35 · Post #264 » by **KayDee35** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:30 pm

Rip It wrote:All the focus has been directed towards the faux discrimination against homosexuals. Let's look at the other side for a moment and let me ask everyone a question:

First, you're dodging a very simple question. I will answer your question below but let me ask you again: Do you think segregation and the Jim Crow laws should have been allowed to stand? Do you think establishments should have been able to deny service to blacks?

Second, this "faux discrimination" you speak of is very real as gays as being denied services that others are afforded. You calling it something else does not change the facts of the matter.

Now, I'll answer your question.

Is it ever not okay to force a business owner to promote a message they disagree with? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, then can you give some examples?

The business owner is not being asked to promote a message but rather provide the same service as they would to other customers. If someone serves an interracial couple a burger or bakes a cake for them, they are not 'promoting' interracial marriage. They are simply serving them as they do the rest of their customers.

A business owner can deny a service if the customer does not comply with the rules of the establishment (No shirt, no service). They can deny service if the customer demands things outside the bounds of their service: If the customer requests fondant icing but the business does not have it or make it, if the customer requests delivery but the business does not deliver. They can also deny service if the customer breaks laws or creates a scene or distraction: Rude, loud, or belligerent customers can be refused service.

But a business denying service based on race, gender, or sexuality is discriminating and that should not be allowed.

Neutral 123 · Post #265 » by **Neutral 123** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:44 pm

Looks Like it's all over. Anti discrimination language will be added to the law. Another L for bigots.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=30061619

KayDee35 · Post #266 » by **KayDee35** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 2:52 pm

Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Neutral 123 · Post #267 » by **Neutral 123** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 3:08 pm

KayDee35 wrote:Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Looks like capitalism works... :lol:

RIPskaterdude · Post #268 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 3:14 pm

Well I learned nothing from this thread

heatwillbeback · Post #269 » by **heatwillbeback** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 3:37 pm

All you need is the threat to the business.

The NCAA wouldn't want to move it from Indy. Indy is perfect with its basketball history, venues and central location to host the final four. They should be part of a regular rotation.

But this had to be fixed and the NCAA and other business exerted some economic pressure. The system worked.

DoubleLintendre · Post #270 » by **DoubleLintendre** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 3:42 pm

Super late add-in, but denying people the ability to do something other people can do is wrong. If instead the issue was not gay marriage, but interracial marriage there would be many people today who'd switch sides immediately to support that marriage issue. That's because today we've all accepted that racial discrimination should not be tolerated. But a few decades back and people saw interracial marriage as how gay marriage is being perceived now.

I got a headache from reading some of the (idiotic) posts in this thread about allowing institutional discrimination for businesses. "Nobody should tell someone who they can serve with their business." Once you allow one business to discriminate who they serve, where else should that apply? Why couldn't then you choose who you can hire for your business as well, based on whatever (racial, age, sex, sex orientation, religious) criteria you want? I mean it is your business, right?

Once you allow discrimination within institutions you allow prejudice, hate and ignorance to build and breed within communities and then greater society. Only someone who wants to live in a primitive, morally absent world could want something like that. It's an inherently destructive idea.

Now even though the problem has been "fixed" for now, I don' think it would be fair to the people/communities involved the Final Four to suddenly change locations to protest legislation. If anything a protest could be organized as a major continuing part of the Final Four presentation without having to disrupt things for the people/businesses who've committed time and resources to attend/support the Final Four proceedings. Moving the event also could have unintended consequences such as a blacklash from people feeling slighted by the sudden move.

I do like the idea of relocating the event as a political statement, but it's too late to make a change that big in that short of a time. Logistically moving the location would be a nightmare. It could be so time/energy/money consuming that by the time everything is settled there's no energy left to give any additional support to the issue. The Final Four is a national, televised event. If anything there are many public avenues for the organizers to show their universal support for marriage equality/anti-discrimination through the event itself. I think that would be the best, most effective way to go about voicing concerns with the legislation.

Star-Lord · Post #271 » by **Star-Lord** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 3:47 pm

Rip It wrote:All the focus has been directed towards the faux discrimination against homosexuals. Let's look at the other side for a moment and let me ask everyone a question:

Is it ever not okay to force a business owner to promote a message they disagree with? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, then can you give some examples?

This is **** stupid, because it posits that somehow, by selling a gay person or couple something, you're endorsing them in any way, as opposed to simply providing a service for a fee. The only people who seem to be having trouble grasping this very simple concept are podunks and you.

JohnnyNightrain · Post #272 » by **JohnnyNightrain** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 4:10 pm

News out of the city this morning is that they are changing to wording of the bill to protect people from being discriminated against based on sexual orientation, which should have been done in the first place. It has to burn those homophobes standing behind Pence that their reactionary law is being changed to protect the very people they were trying to discriminate against. The best kind of irony possible... the law they wanted passed to harm gay people is going to end up affording them even more protections. Ha ha.

As I've mentioned, I'm in PR and I'm just finishing up my master's and we had a good time discussing this in class yesterday. This case is going to be used until the end of time as "what not to do" in PR. Just utterly unbelievable from every aspect and angle. Pence committed career suicide with this one. He, literally, did everything wrong. Crazy.

Neutral 123 · Post #273 » by **Neutral 123** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 4:47 pm

JohnnyNightrain wrote:News out of the city this morning is that they are changing to wording of the bill to protect people from being discriminated against based on sexual orientation, which should have been done in the first place. It has to burn those homophobes standing behind Pence that their reactionary law is being changed to protect the very people they were trying to discriminate against. The best kind of irony possible... the law they wanted passed to harm gay people is going to end up affording them even more protections. Ha ha.

As I've mentioned, I'm in PR and I'm just finishing up my master's and we had a good time discussing this in class yesterday. This case is going to be used until the end of time as "what not to do" in PR. Just utterly unbelievable from every aspect and angle. Pence committed career suicide with this one. He, literally, did everything wrong. Crazy.

What specific mistakes do you think he made, beyond trying to get this passed in the first place of course?

Purch · Post #274 » by **Purch** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 5:03 pm

Hawkeyes wrote:It'd be better if politics stayed the hell away from basketball.

Thisssssssssss

I_Never Lied · Post #275 » by **I_Never Lied** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 5:03 pm

KayDee35 wrote:Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

KayDee35 · Post #276 » by **KayDee35** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 5:28 pm

I_Never Lied wrote:
KayDee35 wrote:Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Care to explain your reasoning for the bolded part? Is it scientifically based? Is it based on sociological and economic implications? Is it just your opinion? Is it based on your religion?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "Gay love is OK"?

Frank Dux · Post #277 » by **Frank Dux** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 5:59 pm

I_Never Lied wrote:
KayDee35 wrote:Wow! That was quick!

The state was looking at losing $40 million or so per year for the next 6 years. The more rational heads prevailed and bigotry had to take a backseat to decency and profits.

Go America!

Nah, really is was just a bunch of cry babies and squeaky wheels that got it done. Gay love is OK. Gay man intercourse is not.

Dude, who cares where someone sticks it?

Charizard · Post #278 » by **Charizard** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 6:13 pm

Anyone have a link I can read proving that one is born gay? Because my Bio class couldn't even do it. I'm neutral on the issue but have a lot of liberal and conservative friends and listening to their arguments are hilariously rhetorical.

HotelVitale · Post #279 » by **HotelVitale** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 6:27 pm

catsfan wrote:i see where you are going but your question is wrong and will be proven such. in this specific instance it is in relation to the RELIGIOUS sacrament of marriage. if it is against your religious beliefs to support or take part in a marriage other than between a man and a woman, the business owner should not be forced to provide their service and/or product. this is pretty clear law much of this fuss is about nothing. can a srict kosher jewish baker be forced to make a cake that has bacon as an ingredient? does a muslim catering company have to provide alcohol?

Analogy is way off there. It's talking about discrimination with products--which anyone is free to do--while the issue is about discrimination about people. A kosher deli is free to offer or not offer any product they want to the public, but they have to allow equal access to the public for whatever they do sell. I'm not sure how you can't see the ugliness of a world in which people refuse service to whomever they feel isn't worthy of their product

KayDee35 · Post #280 » by **KayDee35** » Thu Apr 2, 2015 6:28 pm

Charizard wrote:Anyone have a link I can read proving that one is born gay? Because my Bio class couldn't even do it. I'm neutral on the issue but have a lot of liberal and conservative friends and listening to their arguments are hilariously rhetorical.

Genetics is more complex than previously thought and we rarely find a single gene that is responsible for a psychological trait. However, the flexibility of sexual orientation appears to be limited in most cases. It's not like being in the mood for pizza but the restaurant has only burgers available so you eat a burger.

Here's something to get you started with more links in the article: http://www.livescience.com/50058-being- ... hoice.html