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

E-Balla · Post #41 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:42 pm

Honestly the law is wrong but I have no issue with it. If you don't want my money I'd rather not force you to take it. I mean I wouldn't want to help anyone who actually uses this law to discriminate against people by buying their products.

It's a law that would've been harmful 20 or so years ago but right now it does nothing but make a mockery of Indiana.

E-Balla · Post #42 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:43 pm

carl_english wrote:Ban clubs too cuz they segregate

Pointgod · Post #43 » by **Pointgod** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:45 pm

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.

Replace gay wedding with interracial or Jewish wedding and realize how ludicrous the argument sounds.

Post #44 » by **-Sammy-** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:46 pm

Darko Miliminutes wrote:
Kahn_2001 wrote:Is this a joke? What do gay rights have to do with basketball? There are far more important issues in the world than gay rights, should we cancel every event because some people get offended? Gay people should have the same right as everyone else, not more. Its getting out of control the way the homosexual life style is being advertised and you're demonized if you don't agree with it. I personally don't care either way, but this is getting ridiculous.

+2

+106

Keep the politics out of basketball, and don't penalize everyone counting on the Final Four proceeding as planned (businesses, the schools, the fans, etc.).

Post #45 » by **-Sammy-** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:48 pm

E-Balla wrote:Honestly the law is wrong but I have no issue with it. If you don't want my money I'd rather not force you to take it. I mean I wouldn't want to help anyone who actually uses this law to discriminate against people by buying their products.

It's a law that would've been harmful 20 or so years ago but right now it does nothing but make a mockery of Indiana.

This actually speaks to the intended point of the law. The government can't force you, the consumer, to buy goods or services from a business with whom you disagree; the business should have the same right of refusal.

TommyTBolt · Post #46 » by **TommyTBolt** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:52 pm

Neutral 123 wrote:
TommyTBolt wrote:no it should not and the new law isn't "anti-gay" either. just as stupid as when the nfl was talking about moving the superbowl because of legislation over illegal immigrants in arizona.

its so stupid. those who dont believe in the conspiracies should wake up and realize that the media is pushing these angles for a reason. using billion dollar business who are federally approved monopolies and use their popularity and media to push states and coerce states into doing what the big government statists and globalist want.

states rights used to be a good thing about America. not so much anymore. people complain about the government coercing and extorting citizens and think its "wrong" but dont see the same thing happening to states (have done the same thing with drinking laws, are doing it right now with obamacare and other things)

frankly its bs and unamerican. then again this board isnt the place to poll but i bet the majority of dissenters dont even understand what a "republic" like ours is supposed to be about in the first place.

There's so much wrong in this thread, but I'll start with this gem here. THIS is your issue with the media, globalists, big corporations? Really? Instead of people allowing these issues to act as wedges and dividing people, how about supporting laws and policies that stop the top down class warfare that has left worker wages stagnant for the last 4 decades, while the grip and power of corporations continue to rise? Nah, we'd rather complain about these people when they protest against a stupid law that was clearly meant to divide people.

Yeah, we can argue over this, allow these morons to antagonize gays, while we are all being robbed blind.

what is your deal bro. I never said THIS is my issue I was showing how it is ANOTHER example. Big Globalist Government is breaking people down by classes at EVERY level. Title of this thread is "anti-gay legislation" it didn't say anything about the economy or economic class warfare. WHY WOULD I POST OFF TOPIC THEN GENIUS. You allude to my comments being wrong when in fact they are absolutely right. If you want to debate politics pm me a link to another thread where it is on topic buck. This is so asinine getting called out about not understand international corporations and globalism on a thread about A STATE LAW IN INDIANA.

wake up pal. you say this law is meant to divide people. NO IT IS NOT. It is meant to protect PERSONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. If my religion say homosexuality is wrong then I shouldn't have to sell wedding flowers, cakes, hold receptions, let them use my facilities ect to get married. "Right to refuse service" is a right and its sad our culture is becoming so "politically correct" (a communist term / ideal - look it up) that we have to put laws like this in the books in the first place to protect against the masses of drones that dont even understand what the words "individual liberty" mean.

E-Balla · Post #47 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:52 pm

Pointgod 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.

Replace gay wedding with interracial or Jewish wedding and realize how ludicrous the argument sounds.

It isn't ludicrous. If I find myself a nice white woman you should have the right to openly refuse service so I don't accidentally pay a racist. Helps us all...

KayDee35 · Post #48 » by **KayDee35** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:52 pm

It's too late to boycott or move an event that happens next weekend and requires a lot of planning. But people who believe mythology should not be used as a justification for laws should boycott future events in Indiana.

Neutral 123 · Post #49 » by **Neutral 123** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:55 pm

BombsquadSammy wrote:
E-Balla wrote:Honestly the law is wrong but I have no issue with it. If you don't want my money I'd rather not force you to take it. I mean I wouldn't want to help anyone who actually uses this law to discriminate against people by buying their products.

It's a law that would've been harmful 20 or so years ago but right now it does nothing but make a mockery of Indiana.

This actually speaks to the intended point of the law. The government can't force you, the consumer, to buy goods or services from a business with whom you disagree; the business should have the same right of refusal.

A business can refuse to serve people they 'disagree with'. They just can't do it based on things like creed, religion, race. They can refuse to serve someone because they think they're a jerk though.

Darko Miliminutes · Post #50 » by **Darko Miliminutes** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 1:56 pm

I miss the attitude that used hold so much weight, in past generations. The one where you kinda just new that world does not give a fudge about your sensitivities. You just learned the places you wanted to go, and the places you didn't want to go. You just figured it out.

Now there's organizations, that help you find appropriate organizations, that will teach the proper way to whine about anything at all, to the proper people/media.

A true free market would fix this, as it would most other problems. Free market's been dead for decades now though. So, i guess we just go back to whining about everything...

tidho · Post #51 » by **tidho** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:02 pm

Pointgod 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.

Replace gay wedding with interracial or Jewish wedding and realize how ludicrous the argument sounds.

Actually i don't find the idea of two men marrying any more or less ludicrous than any other two humans no matter how you choose to identify them. The point is those couples and/or groups have the platform of social media to make their voices heard, and through the free market the offending business will feel the consequences.

I'm sure the 58th player selected in the NBA draft would love to have Leigh Steinberg represent him, does that mean we should force Leigh to do it, or is he allowed to say no?
Radio stations currently have the right to refuse selling advertising to, lets go with a white supremecy group...
A Catholic church has the right not to perform a wedding ceremony if one of the participants is not Catholic...
I can't get a hamburger at Wendy's if I'm not wearing shoes...
The United States military has restrictions based on physical attributes...
Affirmative action exists...

Let freedom reighn.

cl2117 · Post #52 » by **cl2117** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:02 pm

E-Balla wrote:
Pointgod 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.

Replace gay wedding with interracial or Jewish wedding and realize how ludicrous the argument sounds.

It isn't ludicrous. If I find myself a nice white woman you should have the right to openly refuse service so I don't accidentally pay a racist. Helps us all...

What if you decide to marry that nice white woman and she has always wanted to have her wedding reception at a racist's venue? But she can't because that guy is racist. She doesn't care that dude is racist, she just wants to have her perfect day she always dreamed of and now she can't because he doesn't like race mixing.

You still going to be cool with it because you didn't pay a racist? Or are you going to be pissed as hell your woman is getting screwed because of some racist prick?

Neutral 123 · Post #53 » by **Neutral 123** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:04 pm

TommyTBolt wrote:
Neutral 123 wrote:
TommyTBolt wrote:no it should not and the new law isn't "anti-gay" either. just as stupid as when the nfl was talking about moving the superbowl because of legislation over illegal immigrants in arizona.

its so stupid. those who dont believe in the conspiracies should wake up and realize that the media is pushing these angles for a reason. using billion dollar business who are federally approved monopolies and use their popularity and media to push states and coerce states into doing what the big government statists and globalist want.

states rights used to be a good thing about America. not so much anymore. people complain about the government coercing and extorting citizens and think its "wrong" but dont see the same thing happening to states (have done the same thing with drinking laws, are doing it right now with obamacare and other things)

frankly its bs and unamerican. then again this board isnt the place to poll but i bet the majority of dissenters dont even understand what a "republic" like ours is supposed to be about in the first place.

There's so much wrong in this thread, but I'll start with this gem here. THIS is your issue with the media, globalists, big corporations? Really? Instead of people allowing these issues to act as wedges and dividing people, how about supporting laws and policies that stop the top down class warfare that has left worker wages stagnant for the last 4 decades, while the grip and power of corporations continue to rise? Nah, we'd rather complain about these people when they protest against a stupid law that was clearly meant to divide people.

Yeah, we can argue over this, allow these morons to antagonize gays, while we are all being robbed blind.

what is your deal bro. I never said THIS is my issue I was showing how it is ANOTHER example. Big Globalist Government is breaking people down by classes at EVERY level. Title of this thread is "anti-gay legislation" it didn't say anything about the economy or economic class warfare. WHY WOULD I POST OFF TOPIC THEN GENIUS. You allude to my comments being wrong when in fact they are absolutely right. If you want to debate politics pm me a link to another thread where it is on topic buck. This is so asinine getting called out about not understand international corporations and globalism on a thread about A STATE LAW IN INDIANA.

wake up pal. you say this law is meant to divide people. NO IT IS NOT. It is meant to protect PERSONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. If my religion say homosexuality is wrong then I shouldn't have to sell wedding flowers, cakes, hold receptions, let them use my facilities ect to get married. "Right to refuse service" is a right and its sad our culture is becoming so "politically correct" (a communist term / ideal - look it up) that we have to put laws like this in the books in the first place to protect against the masses of drones that dont even understand what the words "individual liberty" mean.

And you are allowing them to break you down. You are encouraging them to give 'others' the shaft. Instead of defending this foolishness, your time would be better spent fighting against laws and policies that allow them psychopaths to rob us blind.

This has nothing to do with 'individual liberty'. We live in a society, a community, and for that society to function, everyone needs to be treated fairly. The idea that this is the stance you'd take and you believe that 'Big Globalist government' is doing anything other than using people's hate to further divide and weaken the people, is embarrassing. It appears a lot of you guys are just too far gone. They already have you bro. You are here defending their right to divide and create discord amongst the masses. That's precisely what will weaken the masses, as they continue to pay less in taxes, up their surveillance, continue to war monger. They've won bro, I'm not convinced there's any coming back. A lot of people are just too ill mentally to even recognize otherwise.

Neutral 123 · Post #54 » by **Neutral 123** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:09 pm

cl2117 wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Replace gay wedding with interracial or Jewish wedding and realize how ludicrous the argument sounds.

It isn't ludicrous. If I find myself a nice white woman you should have the right to openly refuse service so I don't accidentally pay a racist. Helps us all...

What if you decide to marry that nice white woman and she has always wanted to have her wedding reception at a racist's venue? But she can't because that guy is racist. She doesn't care that dude is racist, she just wants to have her perfect day she always dreamed of and now she can't because he doesn't like race mixing.

You still going to be cool with it because you didn't pay a racist? Or are you going to be pissed as hell your woman is getting screwed because of some racist prick?

This probably isn't the best example. The real issue here is eradicating these types of attitudes. There was a time in certain places where dentists in certain places refused to treat black people. Chris Rock tells a story of his mother who lived in a place where blacks had to go to a vet for dental treatment because the dentists would not treat black people. Even then, the blacks had to go through the black door, because if whites found out that blacks were being treated, they wouldn't take their animals to that vet.

This is about more than not getting a cake or flowers, but eradicating the cancer that is hate, exclusion. It will spread beyond not getting served a sandwich from that one coffee shop.

E-Balla · Post #55 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:10 pm

cl2117 wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
Pointgod wrote:
Replace gay wedding with interracial or Jewish wedding and realize how ludicrous the argument sounds.

It isn't ludicrous. If I find myself a nice white woman you should have the right to openly refuse service so I don't accidentally pay a racist. Helps us all...

What if you decide to marry that nice white woman and she has always wanted to have her wedding reception at that racist's venue? But she can't because that guy is racist. She doesn't care that dude is racist, she just wants to have her perfect day she always dreamed of and now she can't because he doesn't like race mixing.

You still going to be cool with it because you didn't pay a racist? Or are you going to be pissed as hell your woman is getting screwed because of some racist prick?

Why the hell would I want to give him my money? Because she wants to pay him? I'd be angrier at her than him. If you feel you don't want me in your establishment or life I feel no need to butt in. If a grocery I went to everyday didn't like me and didn't want my business I'd drive 10-20 extra minutes every time I need milk to not give them my money.

Neutral 123 · Post #56 » by **Neutral 123** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:17 pm

E-Balla wrote:
cl2117 wrote:
E-Balla wrote:It isn't ludicrous. If I find myself a nice white woman you should have the right to openly refuse service so I don't accidentally pay a racist. Helps us all...

What if you decide to marry that nice white woman and she has always wanted to have her wedding reception at that racist's venue? But she can't because that guy is racist. She doesn't care that dude is racist, she just wants to have her perfect day she always dreamed of and now she can't because he doesn't like race mixing.

You still going to be cool with it because you didn't pay a racist? Or are you going to be pissed as hell your woman is getting screwed because of some racist prick?

Why the hell would I want to give him my money? Because she wants to pay him? I'd be angrier at her than him. If you feel you don't want me in your establishment or life I feel no need to butt in. If a grocery I went to everyday didn't like me and didn't want my business I'd drive 10-20 extra minutes every time I need milk to not give them my money.

What about an hour? 3 hours? What if you don't have a car? I'd all be for boycotting a place that was hostile, but they should not have the RIGHT to deny you service. Moreover, it legitimizes this type of outlook. It can, and will likely spread. Homosexuals have come this far in large part, because they have managed to shut down a lot of the homophobia that exists out there. That's why in less than 25 years, we've gone from the idea of gay marriage being laughable, to it being legal in a lot of places, and will be legal in the entire U.S soon enough.

Post #57 » by **-Sammy-** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:18 pm

Neutral 123 wrote:
BombsquadSammy wrote:
E-Balla wrote:Honestly the law is wrong but I have no issue with it. If you don't want my money I'd rather not force you to take it. I mean I wouldn't want to help anyone who actually uses this law to discriminate against people by buying their products.

It's a law that would've been harmful 20 or so years ago but right now it does nothing but make a mockery of Indiana.

This actually speaks to the intended point of the law. The government can't force you, the consumer, to buy goods or services from a business with whom you disagree; the business should have the same right of refusal.

A business can refuse to serve people they 'disagree with'. They just can't do it based on things like creed, religion, race. They can refuse to serve someone because they think they're a jerk though.

For many, homosexuality is a lifestyle, which puts in firmly into the category of things with which one can disagree. That issue is still very blurry and obfuscated, despite what the 'company line' for PC thought wants people to think.

Neutral 123 · Post #58 » by **Neutral 123** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:27 pm

BombsquadSammy wrote:
Neutral 123 wrote:
BombsquadSammy wrote:
This actually speaks to the intended point of the law. The government can't force you, the consumer, to buy goods or services from a business with whom you disagree; the business should have the same right of refusal.

A business can refuse to serve people they 'disagree with'. They just can't do it based on things like creed, religion, race. They can refuse to serve someone because they think they're a jerk though.

For many, homosexuality is a lifestyle, which puts in firmly into the category of things with which one can disagree. That issue is still very blurry and obfuscated, despite what the 'company line' for PC thought wants people to think.

What does homosexuality is a lifestyle even mean? Seriously..

E-Balla · Post #59 » by **E-Balla** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:30 pm

Neutral 123 wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
cl2117 wrote:What if you decide to marry that nice white woman and she has always wanted to have her wedding reception at that racist's venue? But she can't because that guy is racist. She doesn't care that dude is racist, she just wants to have her perfect day she always dreamed of and now she can't because he doesn't like race mixing.

You still going to be cool with it because you didn't pay a racist? Or are you going to be pissed as hell your woman is getting screwed because of some racist prick?

Why the hell would I want to give him my money? Because she wants to pay him? I'd be angrier at her than him. If you feel you don't want me in your establishment or life I feel no need to butt in. If a grocery I went to everyday didn't like me and didn't want my business I'd drive 10-20 extra minutes every time I need milk to not give them my money.

What about an hour? 3 hours? What if you don't have a car? I'd all be for boycotting a place that was hostile, but they should not have the RIGHT to deny you service. Moreover, it legitimizes this type of outlook. It can, and will likely spread. Homosexuals have come this far in large part, because they have managed to shut down a lot of the homophobia that exists out there. That's why in less than 25 years, we've gone from the idea of gay marriage being laughable, to it being legal in a lot of places, and will be legal in the entire U.S soon enough.

If it isn't government run I feel they shouldn't butt in. I'm allowed to boycott a place for disagreeing with their ideals just like they should be allowed to not serve me for their ideals. At this point it's basically them throwing away money and if they feel strongly enough about gay marriage to lose money that's their right.

KayDee35 · Post #60 » by **KayDee35** » Wed Apr 1, 2015 2:31 pm

Darko Miliminutes wrote:I miss the attitude that used hold so much weight, in past generations. The one where you kinda just new that world does not give a fudge about your sensitivities. You just learned the places you wanted to go, and the places you didn't want to go. You just figured it out.

I miss that time too, when women couldn't vote, when interracial marriages were disallowed, when schools and other institutions were segregated, when people used mythology to justify their irrational fears and hatred, when infant mortality was higher and lifespans were shorter, when illiteracy was the norm, when diseases rapidly turned into epidemics, when beating children was acceptable, when the lives and safety of workers were valued little, and when public schools were rare. :banghead: