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

[Duffman100]

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.

I was going to chime in, but don't think I could have summarized as perfectly as you did. Amazes me that some people fight so hard against some discrimination but can't seem to draw parallels to other forms.

[soxfan2003]

As someone with libertarian tendencies, I have supported "civil unions" for heterosexuals and homosexuals since the 1980's. I knowingly rented a portion of a house from a gay couple in the 1990's for 4 years. I can't say I have had many "gay friends" but I have supported relatives and coworkers that are gay.

That being said given, a person who bakes cakes or photographs weddings SHOULD have the right to discriminate against gays, whites, blacks, heterosexuals, short people, tall people, skinny people, overweight people or whoever he or she wants to discriminate based upon sincerely held religious beliefs at least.

I don't reach the exact same conclusions as this author in the link below since I have more of a libertarian streak but the author gets the hypocrisy involved with all of the Indiana protests.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ts/389273/

For the NCAA and other people to complain about Indiana's recent law is a joke when they knowingly have much less of an issue with states that deny gays marriage or civil unions!!! Why not refuse to have the NCAA tournament or NCAA games in any state without gay marriage or civil unions???? For Hillary Clinton and Democrats to attack Republicans on gay marriage is an absolute joke when she wasn't exactly a leader on the issue at all!

It is up to people to vote with their feet when they see things from private institutions that they think are wrong. For example, I tend to think Islam has an under reported element that is violent and the media doesn't report 1/4 of the damage militant Islam has done worldwide. It has taken ISIS atrocities to finally get some attention to atrocities that have been going on for at least 25 years in Africa. Almost a full decade before 911, I happen to have lived in Northern Europe with 2 extremely bright people who worked for the UN in Africa in leadership positions. Two of the most progressive people I have ever met. They were from Scandinavia and ok and even happy with 75% tax rates and would make San Francisco progressives seem conservative. But one of them that I got to know extremely well said she did not want ANY person from Africa who is Islamic in her country. She basically said Islam with how it was practiced was incompatible with woman's rights. She felt they would not integrate since the two cultures were polar opposites. She told me the horrors that she heard first hand reports of people cleaning up the dead bodies from Islamic atrocities that had absolutely next to nothing to do with the US, UK et cetera. People brutalized and killed just because they didn't want to follow Islam. I trusted her informed opinion on radical/militant Islam but even before the gulf war 1, I was upset when my church I used to routinely go to had a (new to me) priest that in a "one sentence" soundbite said that George H.W Bush had his approval for the UN authorized first gulf war and justified it on religious grounds. The first gulf war can be justified different reasons but a priest in the US justifying on religious grounds("they believed in a different god") I felt appalling.

It was the last time, I went to that Catholic Church which I had probably been forced to go 500+ times by my parents. I also stopped going to Catholic church because I simply didn't agree with its positions on woman priests, homosexuality, and contraception.

But that being said, if the gay rights movement and opponents opposed to marriage being redefined had more "common sense", they would have been pushing "compromise" such as "civil unions" for all. And let private institutions define "marriage". Perhaps small businesses like with under 10 employees allowed to discriminate on religious grounds.

Truth is not many "big businesses" with shareholders are going to discriminate in a manner that doesn't make business sense. They don't want to lose the sales.

If I knew of a shop that didn't bake any cakes for gays or some other minority group, I simply wouldn't go to it. If I knew of a shop that treated gays with respect but simply didn't bake wedding cakes for them, fine. I would go to it unless their was a shop just as good/friendly that did.

I actually think gays are making a mistake in pushing this agenda. It is not a way to make friends out of reasonable people. They absolutely deserve to be treated the same under the law when it comes to taxes, visitation rights. The only significant issue that should have been up for debate is really adoption but it is really up to the mothers putting their children up for adoption to determine whether she wants to go with a private organization that supports gay parents or one that doesn't.

NCAA is the organization that should be boycotted. Coaches and athletic directors should not be paid more than 250k per year.... If it is amateur sports and academics come first, why the heck are college coaches making much more than professors? That is the real social injustice. Basketball/football players are being used by the major colleges. Give them nice stipends and pay for it by drastically cutting the salaries of the coaches/athletic directors.

[Duffman100]

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.

My dad, who is gay, summarized in the most perfect way for me.

Why would he have chosen to be gay? Why would he have chosen to grow up hiding his sexuality, be incredibly depressed to the point of suicide. Why would he have chosen a path that's harder, that involves persecution and discrimination?

[HotelVitale]

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.

Why would the burden of proof be on that side? There's absolutely no evidence for the other side, either, precisely because sexuality is such an evasive and little-understood thing.

Assuming that there's no compelling proof on either side, you have to throw out an argument from biology. Anecdotal evidence says that people from every walk of life and every background end up identifying as homosexual, and on a smaller scale we've all know people who do the same. Plus it's obviously cruel and harmful to be denying people the identification that they claim to feel overwhelmingly, and it's not cruel or harmful to do the opposite. The arguments on the other side are mostly logical fallacies: allowing gay people means anything is permitted (slippery slope), the Bible says it's wrong (selective enforcement of an authority). Or else they're just hysteria that skips argument altogether: we need to have clear social order with no deviation, it's physically disgusting, etc.

[Hardcore6erFan]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

[JohnnyNightrain]

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?

Well, so many...

When he was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos he was asked, six times total, in yes or no format, if the law would allow discrimination against homosexuals and he did not answer by skirting the questions. That's the worst mistake you can make in public relations, short of saying "no comment."

He held the signing in a private ceremony and refused to name the people standing next to him. Secrecy is another huge no-no. It just makes it look like you know you're doing something wrong.

He had different versions of the picture taken at the signing released, too. The picture showing him with the homophobes was actually leaked. The first "official" picture just showed various religious leaders/people.

Then, having a press conference where you have to "clarify" your own bill just shows he didn't think it through and rushed it in the first place. Of course, he is never going to admit it was a bill targeted at gay people (it was), but having to clarify a rushed piece of law is not good. Not to mention his heavy breathing during the press conference. Little things like that might not seem like much, but there are political experts and analysts who monitor body language and general ethos. When you are breathing heavily to the point of being called Darth Vader all over Twitter... also not good.

Then, the economic damage he has caused by his own ineptitude... phew. Indiana is now a joke and he was warned this would happen beforehand. Arrogance is another huge mistake in PR. Despite mass amounts of people protesting and saying they would take their business elsewhere well before the law was signed, he still did it. I guess he thought they were bluffing.

He also failed to realize that gay is not a partisan issue, despite the way right-wing nutjobs play it. As if only liberal people are gay and he would have full support of the people who voted him into office just because they are also Republicans. Society doesn't work that way anymore. Unless you are some backwoods hilljack, or just willfully ignorant, you probably know a gay person. He definitely did not think that one through.

Finally, and this is probably not known to a lot of people outside of our state, but this is his second PR disaster in three months. Earlier in the year/late last year Pence announced a plan to launch a state-run news service. You know, like they have in Communist China. It was to be called Just IN and the government was going to write the news stories about... the government. They were going to send these stories to smaller towns like Terre Haute, Muncie, etc. and run them in their local papers. That is a complete and total insult to anyone of us who are in journalism (I'm in PR, but it is a journalism degree). Thankfully, it blew up in his face so quickly that he cancelled it. Again, how damn stupid can one person be not to have any foresight.

So, yeah, in forty years when people read PR textbooks, there is going to be a case study on Pence and his horrid handling of PR; especially if he doesn't get re-elected.

And just to be fair, he could have been getting great PR advice from his people, but just chose to ignore it. As practitioners we can only give the advice; we can't force anyone to take it.

[Charizard]

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.

My dad, who is gay, summarized in the most perfect way for me.

Why would he have chosen to be gay? Why would he have chosen to grow up hiding his sexuality, be incredibly depressed to the point of suicide. Why would he have chosen a path that's harder, that involves persecution and discrimination?

And that's why I always assumed one was born gay. Why go through that if you dont have to? But at the same time, identifying with a certain religion results in persecution and discrimination, some places to the point of death. In other ways, peoples actions made out of choice result in persecution, so it doesn't prove much.

I've known people who identify as gay tell me they choose it because they prefer it, however they were technically bisexual. A guy I used to play poker with said he hated the not a choice argument because your technically agreeing with it being wrong.

[KayDee35]

That being said given, a person who bakes cakes or photographs weddings SHOULD have the right to discriminate against gays, whites, blacks, heterosexuals, short people, tall people, skinny people, overweight people or whoever he or she wants to discriminate based upon sincerely held religious beliefs at least.

So you're against the Federal Civil Rights laws? You think segregation and Jim Crow laws should have remained in place? You think it should be legal for people to deny others food, gas, employment, housing, mortgages, and other goods/services based upon race or other characteristics?

For the NCAA and other people to complain about Indiana's recent law is a joke when they knowingly have much less of an issue with states that deny gays marriage or civil unions!!! Why not refuse to have the NCAA tournament or NCAA games in any state without gay marriage or civil unions????

I get the point but just because there are worse laws elsewhere does not mean we should leave bad legislation alone. This is also known as the Fallacy of Relative Privation.

But that being said, if the gay rights movement and opponents opposed to marriage being redefined had more "common sense", they would have been pushing "compromise" such as "civil unions" for all. And let private institutions define "marriage".

This has nothing to do with "common sense" but is rather a statement that gays should be comfortable with a separate but equal term for their marriages. That does not work when the government recognizes "marriage" on legal grounds. Heterosexual couples can still have their "Muslim marriages" and "Christian marriages."

Perhaps small businesses like with under 10 employees allowed to discriminate on religious grounds.

That's like 99% of the businesses in many small towns. So a black family could be denied food, gas, and lodging while driving through large parts of the U.S.?

I actually think gays are making a mistake in pushing this agenda. It is not a way to make friends out of reasonable people.

This is just as much an "agenda" as a woman's right to vote or for people to marry those of another race. "Reasonable people" did not support those things in their time. They had to be dragged into the future with legislation that they opposed. Now we look at those things as a given but they were controversial issues back then. The same goes for gay marriage. People will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about and all this talk about an "agenda" will be forgotten or dismissed as thinly veiled bigotry.

[tha_rock220]

Why does it need to be relocated? If people feel strongly enough about this they won't go. The NCAA doesn't need to sacrifice so you can feel good. Make the sacrifice yourself.

The logical move would be to boycott the NCAA. Anyways, these people will cave. It's a conservative trait. Just give it a few weeks.

That was kind of my point. If money becomes an issue the NCAA won't be back in Indian in six years.

Good old capitalism did not solve segregation. Good old capitalism did not give women the vote.

Government has a monopoly on voting and a near monopoly on education son. Since capitalism requires private ownership, what effect could it have?

Good old capitalism did not create public education and outlaw child labor.

Ummm, the Fair Labor Standards Act was largely in response to unemployed adults not wanting to compete with children during the depression, so free market forces prompted a response that led to a government response.

[dorkestra]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Duffman100]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

Much like black people not wanting to be shot by cops because they are black? Accept me as black otherwise I won't accept this society? Same kind of idea?

It may be shocking to you, but gay people don't care if you agree with what they're doing, they really don't. They just want all the same rights that straight people have.

[KayDee35]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

The same could be said of interracial marriage. How dare they force us to accept their lifestyle of loving one another but they don't accept the "lifestyle" of others who want to discriminate against them?

Also, discrimination at the level of a business is not a lifestyle.

[HotelVitale]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

That might be true if the LGBTQ community were saying that the Christian Right wasn't allowed to go to its bookstores or cafes or bars even if they were respectful and non-inflammatory customers.

If you're saying that lots of LGBTQ people seem not to tolerate or respect Christian Right anti-gay speech/action, that's likely because it causes direct and very serious harm to those of their community that have lived through it. On the opposite side, 'respecting' gay lifestyles doesn't impose any harm on Christian communities. It just asks them not to impose their beliefs on people that they might have a negative effect on. There's nothing actually at stake with doing that.

[KayDee35]

[

Good old capitalism did not solve segregation. Good old capitalism did not give women the vote.

Government has a monopoly on voting and a near monopoly on education son. Since capitalism requires private ownership, what effect could it have?

You did not explain how the all-powerful invisible hand of the free market solved segregation.

[Nebula1]

No. I don't want sports organizations dictating legislative policy. These are two very separate arenas and should stay separate.

[Nebula1]

These are the same nuts that won't pay players lol

[tha_rock220]

[

Good old capitalism did not solve segregation. Good old capitalism did not give women the vote.

Government has a monopoly on voting and a near monopoly on education son. Since capitalism requires private ownership, what effect could it have?

You did not explain how the all-powerful invisible hand of the free market solved segregation.

It was effectively ended by Brown. Brown began as an educational matter. Since education is largely a government endeavor, read publicly owned, endeavor, and capitalism is defined as private ownership, capitalism couldn't really do much. I don't believe I said much about segregation and the free market.

[MiltownHawkeye]

There is no more oppressed group in today's society than people who want to oppress others.

[Charizard]

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.

Why would the burden of proof be on that side? There's absolutely no evidence for the other side, either, precisely because sexuality is such an evasive and little-understood thing.

Assuming that there's no compelling proof on either side, you have to throw out an argument from biology. Anecdotal evidence says that people from every walk of life and every background end up identifying as homosexual, and on a smaller scale we've all know people who do the same. Plus it's obviously cruel and harmful to be denying people the identification that they claim to feel overwhelmingly, and it's not cruel or harmful to do the opposite. The arguments on the other side are mostly logical fallacies: allowing gay people means anything is permitted (slippery slope), the Bible says it's wrong (selective enforcement of an authority). Or else they're just hysteria that skips argument altogether: we need to have clear social order with no deviation, it's physically disgusting, etc.

Well it was Bio for business students, ie the scientific method. And how would one prove you aren't born gay? I feel if any breakthrough in the scientific community happens, it would be supporting the gay at birth side. Until then, we have anecdotal evidence.

[DanTown8587]

I haven't been following this whole Indiana but I just want to say that the LGBT community is the epitome if hypocrisy. Accept my lifestyle, but I'm not going to accept your lifestyle of not accepting my lifestyle.

"Allowing discrimination" is quite a far stretch from "acceptance", no?