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

[LuxTheGoat]

People are so lucky they can say "leave it the way it is, sports shouldn't have anything to do with politics". Easy to make such statements when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

I wonder what the responses in here would be if the law was discriminating against blacks instead.

[Neutral 123]

Sorry; when I use 'lifestyle', I mean it in the sense of choice. Some people view homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle; that's what I meant.

It's odd to me that a 'freedom of religion' law would attempt to infringe on the freedoms of others. They are entitled to view homosexuality as a choice, when sexuality is viewed as something that is inherent and not chosen. Allowing them to discriminate based on that view is another matter, and is denying others their freedoms.

I wonder about these people though, if they feel sexuality is a choice, then are they telling us that they will just snap their fingers and decide to be with the same sex? It seems like such an absurd argument because I know personally, I'm not choosing to be attracted to women. I'm not fighting any urge to be with men, or can be with a man as easily. That's a choice. We aren't talking about whether I'm going to drink apple, or orange juice today. These arguments are wrong not just because they are inherently hateful, intrusive, and restrictive of freedoms, but mostly because they are illogical and stupid. The idea that sexuality is a choice has to be one of the dumber things I've heard. It's amazingly stupid.

The fact is that that issue is extremely controversial and obfuscated in psychology. Ultimately, sexuality falls into the realm of behavior, not strictly biology, and the behavioral sciences have no consensus as to precisely how it functions.

The position that sexual orientation is inherent has been advanced aggressively in the last quarter-century, in part as a function of its sociopolitical import, but the state of the matter in the psychological disciplines is a lot more complicated.

No sexuality gene has been found. But there is little debate on whether or not sexuality is predetermined and generally fixed. Whether one acts out on their sexual preference is behavior. Who one is attracted to is not. This is simple though. If sexuality is a choice, then logically, a straight person can choose to be attracted to the same sex from day to day, hour to hour. I know I'm not bisexual, have no attraction to men whatsoever. That isn't going to change. I am not making a choice. But like others have stated, even if it were a choice, if one believes in freedom, then why do they care? These are adults who willingly engage in these relationships.

[tidho]

Those involved in support of the law, quite a few of them are clearly anti gay, and have offered anti gay propaganda in various forms. You cannot have freedom when some groups are basically being blackballed and blocked from having equal access, equal opportunity, equal freedom.

I feel like you need to unpack some of these terms. When you talk about equal access, what do you mean? Access to what? To my cakes? They're MY cakes. Why would the issue come down to YOUR access to them?

Equal opportunity for what? For MY cakes? The public doesn't own them; your taxes didn't pay for them to be made. I made them. My right to do what I please with them is at LEAST as important as your right to want to buy them.

^somebody gets it.

[E-Balla]

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not protected in Indiana. So despite this law, business owners are NOT allowed to discriminate based sex, race, religion, even with this law. They can potentially discriminate against gays though.

Well damn. I'm off the fence. I understand that race and sex are different but religion, like sexuality, is a "lifestyle" topic. To allow to (wrongly) discriminate against one and not the other is very hypocritical before even dipping into how wrong it is...

If it really is a "freedom issue" why protect anything outside of race and gender? Let some people deny Christians and Muslims service too if it's such a big freedom issue.

LOL, this is a 'freedom of religion' law. It is passed with the idea of not allowing discrimination based on religion. The idea ironically is that it would allow people to discriminate against gays, and then hide behind their religion as a reason to do it. So essentially, their lifestyle choice is being used as a weapon against others.

Exactly but there's a ton of Muslims out there that probably wouldn't want to serve Jewish people or homosexuals but they're only allowed to discriminate against homosexuals? Even coming in from their side of the argument the law makes no freaking sense...

Because there is a history of people choosing to discriminate and take the freedoms of certain groups. We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about groups of people. Groups of people who have been jailed, killed, discriminated against, for being a part of a certain group.

Well, of course. Nobody's arguing that jailing or killing someone because of his sexual orientation isn't wrong; but selling someone a cake is hardly comparable.

Those involved in support of the law, quite a few of them are clearly anti gay, and have offered anti gay propaganda in various forms. You cannot have freedom when some groups are basically being blackballed and blocked from having equal access, equal opportunity, equal freedom.

I feel like you need to unpack some of these terms. When you talk about equal access, what do you mean? Access to what? To my cakes? They're MY cakes. Why would the issue come down to YOUR access to them?

Equal opportunity for what? For MY cakes? The government didn't make them; your taxes didn't pay for them to be made. I made them. My right to do what I please with them is at LEAST as important as your right to want to buy them.

This argument makes sense but if you aren't allowed to discriminate for other reasons but you are allowed to discriminate for someone's sexuality the fundamental reasoning behind the law becomes extremely bigoted (I get that you are playing Devil's advocate to a point but just expanding on what I said above).

[Neutral 123]

People are so lucky they can say "leave it the way it is, sports shouldn't have anything to do with politics". Easy to make such statements when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

I wonder what the responses in here would be if the law was discriminating against blacks instead.

Why the hell would you ask that? Discrimination against blacks, has, and is still far worse than it has been against gays. At least gays have had the option of hiding to avoid persecution. Blacks, overwhelmingly, didn't have that option.

[E-Balla]

People are so lucky they can say "leave it the way it is, sports shouldn't have anything to do with politics". Easy to make such statements when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

I wonder what the responses in here would be if the law was discriminating against blacks instead.

I hate this line of thinking. It's completely different and you know it...

[Neutral 123]

Exactly but there's a ton of Muslims out there that probably wouldn't want to serve Jewish people or homosexuals but they're only allowed to discriminate against homosexuals? Even coming in from their side of the argument the law makes no freaking sense...

You got it. Don't like the example, but you got it.

[Darko Miliminutes]

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.

Was more talking post ww2 era kinda...i don't know. Not talkin middle ages or old west.

Yeah, but the **** u spewed doesn't register with me. 350 million people in this country. A ton of them are going to die badly, after living sadly, after being treated most unfairly. Infants will be murdered, women raped and killed, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers. All ridiculed, abused, shamed, mistreated, murdered.

Because the nature of human beings is really cruel and horrible. You happy little fix everything, for everyone types, will not change that ever ever ever. Thankfully we also have love, so we get a lot of beauty too.

Getting away from survival of the fittest is what screws us more and more. The weak die, so you find/learned about strength. Because you didn't want to die. Now you just call some agency, have them take care of ya...

Again, true free market would fix every human ailment you just whined about

[trustykilo]

They can't tell your sexuality if you're buying a cake or going to a business. Businesses do not ask for your sexuality. If you want them to personalize it with John and Steve getting married, get your own damn icing and put it there yourself. Let's be honest, they aren't being denied, it's just them trying to push their agenda. They have the freedom to buy their cake elsewhere too.

[Yoshun]

Was more talking post ww2 era kinda...i don't know. Not talkin middle ages or old west.

Yeah, but the **** u spewed doesn't register with me. 350 million people in this country. A ton of them are going to die badly, after living sadly, after being treated most unfairly. Infants will be murdered, women raped and killed, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers. All ridiculed, abused, shamed, mistreated, murdered.

Because the nature of human beings is really cruel and horrible. You happy little fix everything, for everyone types, will not change that ever ever ever. Thankfully we also have love, so we get a lot of beauty too.

Getting away from survival of the fittest is what screws us more and more. The weak die, so you find/learned about strength. Because you didn't want to die. Now you just call some agency, have them take care of ya...

Again, true free market would fix every human ailment you just whined about

You're a glass half empty guy aren't you?

[-Sammy-]

No sexuality gene has been found. But there is little debate on whether or not sexuality is predetermined and generally fixed.

That's my point; there's MUCH debate on whether or not sexuality is predetermined and genetically fixed. That debate doesn't make it into the public square very often because sexual orientation is such a sensitive social issue (and, frankly, because of sociopolitical factors as well), but it is very much a controversy in hard/academic psychology.

The fact is that sexual orientation is a behavioral issue, and the behavioral sciences, for all their progress in the last century, are still very much in their infancy, in terms of understanding how and why humans operate the way we do.

But like others have stated, even if it were a choice, if one believes in freedom, then why do they care? These are adults who willingly engage in these relationships.

I agree, but for many, it's part-and-parcel to their religious views, and that's why it becomes a religious-freedom issue as much as it's a gay-rights issue.

[Neutral 123]

Because there is a history of people choosing to discriminate and take the freedoms of certain groups. We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about groups of people. Groups of people who have been jailed, killed, discriminated against, for being a part of a certain group.

Well, of course. Nobody's arguing that jailing or killing someone because of his sexual orientation isn't wrong; but selling someone a cake is hardly comparable.

If I kill you, I am actively doing something TO you, which is an obvious impingement on your freedom. If I refuse to make you a cake, I'm not DOING anything to you; I'm choosing NOT to do something FOR you. That's not a limitation on YOUR freedom; it's an expression of MINE.

In other words, your freedom ends where mine begins.

Those involved in support of the law, quite a few of them are clearly anti gay, and have offered anti gay propaganda in various forms. You cannot have freedom when some groups are basically being blackballed and blocked from having equal access, equal opportunity, equal freedom.

I feel like you need to unpack some of these terms. When you talk about equal access, what do you mean? Access to what? To my cakes? They're MY cakes. Why would the issue come down to YOUR access to them?

Equal opportunity for what? For MY cakes? The public doesn't own them; your taxes didn't pay for them to be made. I made them. My right to do what I please with them is at LEAST as important as your right to want to buy them.

You are taking a micro view when this is a macro issue. You bring up the issue of a cake, when the U.S has a history, of companies denying people access to real estate in certain areas, access to mortgages, access to employment. And I say access because we are not talking about a single individual, but often a coordinated effort, a culture of discriminating against certain groups. So no, this is not about a single cake. The U.S is not far removed from an apartheid system of separate and unequal. And here we have the government, with the support and influence of people who have made anti gay statements, using the government as a weapon to discriminate against certain groups.

We have to stop playing games and being honest. These types of laws are not about freedoms. They are about denying and limiting groups seen as different and less desirable.

[LuxTheGoat]

People are so lucky they can say "leave it the way it is, sports shouldn't have anything to do with politics". Easy to make such statements when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

I wonder what the responses in here would be if the law was discriminating against blacks instead.

Why the hell would you ask that? Discrimination against blacks, has, and is still far worse than it has been against gays. At least gays have had the option of hiding to avoid persecution. Blacks, overwhelmingly, didn't have that option.

I'm referring to this particular law. An entire state loudly declaring they have the right to refuse serving blacks (or any other race) based on religious freedom.

[-Sammy-]

Well, of course. Nobody's arguing that jailing or killing someone because of his sexual orientation isn't wrong; but selling someone a cake is hardly comparable.

Those involved in support of the law, quite a few of them are clearly anti gay, and have offered anti gay propaganda in various forms. You cannot have freedom when some groups are basically being blackballed and blocked from having equal access, equal opportunity, equal freedom.

I feel like you need to unpack some of these terms. When you talk about equal access, what do you mean? Access to what? To my cakes? They're MY cakes. Why would the issue come down to YOUR access to them?

Equal opportunity for what? For MY cakes? The government didn't make them; your taxes didn't pay for them to be made. I made them. My right to do what I please with them is at LEAST as important as your right to want to buy them.

This argument makes sense but if you aren't allowed to discriminate for other reasons but you are allowed to discriminate for someone's sexuality the fundamental reasoning behind the law becomes extremely bigoted (I get that you are playing Devil's advocate to a point but just expanding on what I said above).[/quote]

Well, the idea behind the reasoning is that for a business who would reject someone's business because he or she were gay, that business is exercising its religious right to disagree with the premise that sexual orientation is an inborne trait.

[Neutral 123]

No sexuality gene has been found. But there is little debate on whether or not sexuality is predetermined and generally fixed.

That's my point; there's MUCH debate on whether or not sexuality is predetermined and genetically fixed. That debate doesn't make it into the public square very often because sexual orientation is such a sensitive social issue (and, frankly, because of sociopolitical factors as well), but it is very much a controversy in hard/academic psychology.

The fact is that sexual orientation is a behavioral issue, and the behavioral sciences, for all their progress in the last century, are still very much in their infancy, in terms of understanding how and why humans operate the way we do.

But like others have stated, even if it were a choice, if one believes in freedom, then why do they care? These are adults who willingly engage in these relationships.

I agree, but for many, it's part-and-parcel to their religious views, and that's why it becomes a religious-freedom issue as much as it's a gay-rights issue.

Right, except freedom can be clearly defined. True freedom is for everyone, so your right to do as you please ends at infringing on someone else's freedom. So yes, you are free to feel that sexuality is wrong, let's get real here again, because that is the heart of the matter, but you are not free to limit someone else based on that opinion.

[Yoshun]

What's with all the "buying cakes" arguments in this thread? This isn't just about walking into a bakery. That's insanely overly simplistic.

[Neutral 123]

People are so lucky they can say "leave it the way it is, sports shouldn't have anything to do with politics". Easy to make such statements when you aren't the one being discriminated against.

I wonder what the responses in here would be if the law was discriminating against blacks instead.

Why the hell would you ask that? Discrimination against blacks, has, and is still far worse than it has been against gays. At least gays have had the option of hiding to avoid persecution. Blacks, overwhelmingly, didn't have that option.

I'm referring to this particular law. An entire state loudly declaring they have the right to refuse serving blacks (or any other race) based on religious freedom.

The idea that blacks are better protected and treated in this society than gays is stupid. That's why I disagreed with the comparison.

[KayDee35]

Yeah, but the **** u spewed doesn't register with me. 350 million people in this country. A ton of them are going to die badly, after living sadly, after being treated most unfairly. Infants will be murdered, women raped and killed, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers. All ridiculed, abused, shamed, mistreated, murdered.

Things are better today than they ever have been. Things aren't perfect but neither science nor history backs up the argument that things were better in the past. They were better for the elite few but not for the majority.

Because the nature of human beings is really cruel and horrible. You happy little fix everything, for everyone types, will not change that ever ever ever. Thankfully we also have love, so we get a lot of beauty too.

It always strikes me as odd when someone talks about 'love' while wanting to discriminate against others.

Getting away from survival of the fittest is what screws us more and more. The weak die, so you find/learned about strength.

Wow! You have such a poor understanding about evolution and group selection that I wouldn't know where to begin. At least you're not talking about intelligent design so I commend you on that.

Again, true free market would fix every human ailment you just whined about

This argument is demonstrably false. There is no "true free market" because there will always be laws and those with power get to influence them. And the "true free market" does not solve discrimination based on race, gender, etc.. It would only make it worse.

[FrieAaron]

They can't tell your sexuality if you're buying a cake or going to a business. Businesses do not ask for your sexuality. If you want them to personalize it with John and Steve getting married, get your own damn icing and put it there yourself. Let's be honest, they aren't being denied, it's just them trying to push their agenda. They have the freedom to buy their cake elsewhere too.

They're awful gay agenda of wanting to being treated like everybody else. Oh, those monsters. Why can't they consider the feelings of us straight people who have to hear about discrimination against them all the time? I mean, like, it's really annoying, right?

It's really easy to say they can always go to another cake shop. What if it's the only one in town? Well then they don't have to eat cake, I guess. And what if the only grocery store in town refuses their services because they find out they're gay? I suppose then they can always move to a different town, right? Surely that's always a solution.

[trustykilo]

It's simplified because you can't understand basic logic. When's the last time a mortgage company or employer asked about your sexuality? When's the last time they denied a mortgage because you said you were gay. You already have those protections in place. Mortgage services already discriminate based on people's income and wealth. They do refuse people without income too.

Businesses should have a right to refuse service.