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

[-Sammy-]

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.

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

Correct, this is the rationale. And of course it's a much simpler case to make when discussing a bakery. It gets a lot more complicated, as KayDee alluded to, when we start talking about private businesses that are getting closer to life necessities - grocery stores, gas stations, daycares, etc.

Agreed. It also gets more complicated when we think about the nature of the services offered from some of the businesses that have already been in the public eye over this issue.

Like the cake thing. For those who asked, I brought up cakes because a bakery came under fire recently for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. Another timely example is a minister who refuses to perform a same-sex wedding.

In cases like these, we obviously can't just say "It's nobody's business if they're gay", because their sexuality IS the heart of the issue. If I'm a minister who rejects homosexuality as a sin, and you ask me to marry you, you are asking me to actively denounce a religious precept. Now, you may not agree with that religious precept, but it would a violation of my religious freedom for the government to require me to denounce it.

The cake issue is a little more fuzzy, but in my view, the right of the baker to refuse service falls under the same rationalization, and he is equally justified in refusing service to that customer.

[flying_mollusk]

The moment someone uses this new law ground to open a wahhabist restaurant and refuses to serve womans because there are men in the same room, or without burka, or just cristians because well, because religion...

The law will just be revoked faster than the speed of idiocy.

You mean like this?

A school located in New York state apologized after receiving multiple complaints for allowing a student to recite the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic during a weeklong diversity event organized by the school’s foreign language department.

http://www.ibtimes.com/pledge-allegianc ... ge-1854718

Or when Muslims weren't allowed to build a mosque/rec center near ground zero?

They should call it the Christian Freedoms are Superior to All Others law.

[yoyoboy]

I can't believe it's 2015 and people still care what another man's sexual preference is. It doesn't affect you, so what gives you the right to dictate who they can and can't love? I would support a relocation of the game.

[flying_mollusk]

Nobody would ever use religion to justify discrimination against blacks:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

[Neutral 123]

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.

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

Like another poster stated, that gets more complicated when discussing life necessities, when options are limited. It's simple. No one is forcing you to be in business. There are rules involved in running any business. Some of them are related to how you affect the community around you. There's nothing ground-breaking here either. You cannot refuse to serve women, minorities, people have other religions etcetera. The principle you are arguing has already been shot down anyways.

[WorldBeFree]

I wouldnt, sport has nothing to do with it.

[-Sammy-]

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.

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

Nobody has true freedom to do whatever they want. I want to open up a crack cocaine store in Bloomington Indiana. They wont let me. I shouldn't be able to say, well my religion requires it, so you have to let me sell crack. Can I?

Well, there are really two levels of legal theory that have to be considered. In theory, you COULD open up such a store. You'd have to demonstrate that your religion was well-established (i.e., that you aren't the only practitioner who just started practicing last week), that it fit the legal definition of a religion (if it's not already recognized, you'd have to get religious-exempt status before anything else), and that you were legitimately required to sell crack in order to satisfy the requirements of the religion.

Then, anyone wishing to purchase from you would have to go through their own process with the government in order to be allowed to buy from you.

[Neutral 123]

When you elect to bake cakes and hold them out for sale in commerce, you are obligated to play by the rules. Until the right wingers in Indiana passed this new law, the rules were relatively clear: if you are operating in commerce you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc. So no, if you hold yourself out as a commercial establishment, you do not have the right to refuse service, except on economic grounds, i.e. the customer can't or won't pay. Folks who can't handle the fact that they are unable to discriminate should find another way to make a living.

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Have some of these folks who purport to be Christian forgotten it? If we always treated others as we would like to be treated ourselves, there would be no need for anti discrimination statues. Because "others" means everyone, not just the people you feel like treating well.

IMHO the NCAA should relocate the final four. There are plenty of other venues. Send a clear message.

And you get to choose how they make a living? You have the freedom to not partake in their business.

Yes, there are many rules and regulations regarding running a business. Most of which have nothing to do with sexual orientation. But this ground has already been lost. It's illegal not to serve people based on certain criteria, such as sex, race. This is mostly a waste of time and taxpayer money. This law won't stand as is.

[-Sammy-]

Like another poster stated, that gets more complicated when discussing life necessities, when options are limited.

I already responded to the necessities-of-life objection, but you may have missed it, since so many posts are flying in. Scroll back, if you're so inclined.

No one is forcing you to be in business. There are rules involved in running any business.

Yes! THIS is actually where the discussion needs to be had. The fundamental question in view here is: "How much say should the government have over how businesses operate?" And as we all know, that is a infinitely complex issue to sort out. But that's that issue at the heart of the discussion, in my view.

The principle you are arguing has already been shot down anyways.

No, it definitely hasn't. The fact that so many variants of this law exist in so many jurisdictions is proof of that, despite your contention that you're right and there is no other way to see it.

[JohnnyNightrain]

I wouldnt, sport has nothing to do with it.

You can say that as an outsider, but I am in PR and it's in every business' and every organization's best interest to be in tune with the community. Community reputation is very important. NCAA is serving a public and it would be very foolish for them to remain silent or go against the general feeling of the community and elsewhere... especially in a case where bigotry is involved.

[-Sammy-]

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

You're basically agreeing with segregation and discrimination as long as it is done by a private entity, which was the case prior to the Civil Rights movement. Is that correct?

What I'm saying is that my rights end where yours begin. As long as my actions don't impinge on ANYONE else's rights in ANY way, the government has no business telling me what I can and can't do.

[flying_mollusk]

Agreed. But my refusal to sell you my cake isn't a limitation on you in any way. Freedom is not defined as 'getting whatever you want simply because you want it.' You can't FORCE me to sell you something I don't want to sell you.

(Please note that I'm dealing strictly in the hypothetical. If I were a cake-seller and you wanted a cake, I would happily sell you one.)

Nobody has true freedom to do whatever they want. I want to open up a crack cocaine store in Bloomington Indiana. They wont let me. I shouldn't be able to say, well my religion requires it, so you have to let me sell crack. Can I?

Well, there are really two levels of legal theory that have to be considered. In theory, you COULD open up such a store. You'd have to demonstrate that your religion was well-established (i.e., that you aren't the only practitioner who just started practicing last week), that it fit the legal definition of a religion (if it's not already recognized, you'd have to get religious-exempt status before anything else), and that you were legitimately required to sell crack in order to satisfy the requirements of the religion.

Then, anyone wishing to purchase from you would have to go through their own process with the government in order to be allowed to buy from you.

Interesting. There is a provision in the Koran that some interpret to allow marriage to children:

And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

Some prophets have interpreted that to mean marriage to 12 year olds is ok:

It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger. A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.

We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls. We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women.[

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages#Permitted_in_the_Qur.27an

So if the 12 year old is Muslim, and a grown man is a Muslim (an established and practicing one at that!), he, a grow man, should be able to marry a 12 year old in Indiana? The anti-pedophile laws clearly substantially burden his religious views.

[WorldBeFree]

I wouldnt, sport has nothing to do with it.

You can say that as an outsider, but I am in PR and it's in every business' and every organization's best interest to be in tune with the community. Community reputation is very important. NCAA is serving a public and it would be very foolish for them to remain silent or go against the general feeling of the community and elsewhere... especially in a case where bigotry is involved.

People bought tickets, planed trips and so on. Just screw them?

[Pointgod]

When you elect to bake cakes and hold them out for sale in commerce, you are obligated to play by the rules. Until the right wingers in Indiana passed this new law, the rules were relatively clear: if you are operating in commerce you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc. So no, if you hold yourself out as a commercial establishment, you do not have the right to refuse service, except on economic grounds, i.e. the customer can't or won't pay. Folks who can't handle the fact that they are unable to discriminate should find another way to make a living.

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Have some of these folks who purport to be Christian forgotten it? If we always treated others as we would like to be treated ourselves, there would be no need for anti discrimination statues. Because "others" means everyone, not just the people you feel like treating well.

IMHO the NCAA should relocate the final four. There are plenty of other venues. Send a clear message.

And you get to choose how they make a living? You have the freedom to not partake in their business.

Yes, there are many rules and regulations regarding running a business. Most of which have nothing to do with sexual orientation. But this ground has already been lost. It's illegal not to serve people based on certain criteria, such as sex, race. This is mostly a waste of time and taxpayer money. This law won't stand as is.

This is what most people don't get. If you open up a business, it's to make money so you can't restrict service based on religion, race etc. If you don't like it then open up a private club and give away cakes for free. It the law shows just how completely stupid and pig headed people are. I'm sure there are ways of getting around discriminating against gay customers, but they want to be able to proudly boast that they're an ignorant morons.

[te887848]

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. There's nothing wrong with anti-gay legislation anyway. Believe whatever you want to believe. The Final Four should absolutely stay put in Indiana. Doesn't matter what the pro-gay community thinks.

[KayDee35]

I believe in the free market. If they choose to discriminate, they probably will get lots of hate and lose customers. If they survive (not going bankrupt), more power to them. Plenty of businesses already discriminate on other criteria. If you don't like it, move on or start your own.

Forcing a business to work with you when they don't want to is borderline slavery. Especially since they can't charge you different prices when the customer is rude and hard to deal with.

So you're against the Federal Civil Rights law? You think blacks should not have had access to food, goods, and services as long as the business did not want to sell to them?

[Neutral 123]

Like another poster stated, that gets more complicated when discussing life necessities, when options are limited.

I already responded to the necessities-of-life objection, but you may have missed it, since so many posts are flying in. Scroll back, if you're so inclined.

No one is forcing you to be in business. There are rules involved in running any business.

Yes! THIS is actually where the discussion needs to be had. The fundamental question in view here is: "How much say should the government have over how businesses operate?" And as we all know, that is a infinitely complex issue to sort out. But that's that issue at the heart of the discussion, in my view.

The principle you are arguing has already been shot down anyways.

No, it definitely hasn't. The fact that so many variants of this law exist in so many jurisdictions is proof of that, despite your contention that you're right and there is no other way to see it.

Variants exist only because sexual orientation as a protected class is a more recent civil rights battle, but the principle is already there. This protection will be granted because there is an issue with discrimination based on sexual orientation. The concept you are arguing is that it is ok for a business to discriminate for any grounds because that is freedom. THAT concept has already been shut down. That's my point here.

We both know how this will end. Honestly, at this point the only thing I'm arguing is preventing some from feeling like victims when this gets shot down. They aren't victims, and there is no right or freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

[-Sammy-]

Nobody has true freedom to do whatever they want. I want to open up a crack cocaine store in Bloomington Indiana. They wont let me. I shouldn't be able to say, well my religion requires it, so you have to let me sell crack. Can I?

Well, there are really two levels of legal theory that have to be considered. In theory, you COULD open up such a store. You'd have to demonstrate that your religion was well-established (i.e., that you aren't the only practitioner who just started practicing last week), that it fit the legal definition of a religion (if it's not already recognized, you'd have to get religious-exempt status before anything else), and that you were legitimately required to sell crack in order to satisfy the requirements of the religion.

Then, anyone wishing to purchase from you would have to go through their own process with the government in order to be allowed to buy from you.

Interesting. There is a provision in the Koran that some interpret to allow marriage to children:

And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.

Some prophets have interpreted that to mean marriage to 12 year olds is ok:

It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger. A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.

We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls. We should know that Shariah law has not brought injustice to women.[

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages#Permitted_in_the_Qur.27an

So if the 12 year old is Muslim, and a grown man is a Muslim (an established and practicing one at that!), he, a grow man, should be able to marry a 12 year old in Indiana? The anti-pedophile laws clearly substantially burden his religious views.

Yeah, in situations like that, it comes down to what the American legal definition of an adult is. If someone wanted to make it legal for a child to marry an adult, they'd have to lobby the federal government to consider legislation revising that definition.

[Neutral 123]

I wouldnt, sport has nothing to do with it.

You can say that as an outsider, but I am in PR and it's in every business' and every organization's best interest to be in tune with the community. Community reputation is very important. NCAA is serving a public and it would be very foolish for them to remain silent or go against the general feeling of the community and elsewhere... especially in a case where bigotry is involved.

People bought tickets, planed trips and so on. Just screw them?

I'd be fine with that. Frankly, they shouldn't be supporting the NCAA anyways.

[-Sammy-]

Like another poster stated, that gets more complicated when discussing life necessities, when options are limited.

I already responded to the necessities-of-life objection, but you may have missed it, since so many posts are flying in. Scroll back, if you're so inclined.

No one is forcing you to be in business. There are rules involved in running any business.

Yes! THIS is actually where the discussion needs to be had. The fundamental question in view here is: "How much say should the government have over how businesses operate?" And as we all know, that is a infinitely complex issue to sort out. But that's that issue at the heart of the discussion, in my view.

The principle you are arguing has already been shot down anyways.

No, it definitely hasn't. The fact that so many variants of this law exist in so many jurisdictions is proof of that, despite your contention that you're right and there is no other way to see it.

Variants exist only because sexual orientation as a protected class is a more recent civil rights battle, but the principle is already there. This protection will be granted because there is an issue with discrimination based on sexual orientation. The concept you are arguing is that it is ok for a business to discriminate for any grounds because that is freedom. THAT concept has already been shut down. That's my point here.

No, that's absolutely NOT what I'm arguing. I agree, though, that the concept has largely been defeated in the public square, but there's still much work to be done.

We both know how this will end. Honestly, at this point the only thing I'm arguing is preventing some from feeling like victims when this gets shot down. They aren't victims, and there is no right or freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

I'm only familiar with the law in its broadest terms, so I'm not fit to evaluate it, but if it reads the way I THINK it does based on my (admittedly very cursory) reading, then I think it needs some revision, but my revisions would probably look different from yours... ha ha.