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

[flying_mollusk]

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.

Not sure why the federal government is involved. But your take is incorrect. Indiana has a law banning adults from having sex with 12 year olds. That's not complicated. But the new law says if any, ANY, law infringes on a religion belief, it cannot be used against that religious belief, correct? So if my religious belief is to have sex with a 12 year old, I, in theory, cannot be prosecuted for pedophilia under Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

These laws are dumb as ****, and they give religious nuts more protection that ordinary reasonable people. The crazier your are, the more protection you get. That's why all those fundamentalist Christians were behind him.

[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.

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

Completely different from your original thought, which was "sport has nothing to do with it." I said, yes they do, as it is part of a community issue.

Also, I already addressed your second though, too. I said it's too late to do anything now, but if the law is passed, I think the NCAA will get their lawyers, renegotiate their contract and won't return in a few years.

Even so, "screwing people" is of far less importance than assuring that people get equal treatment in our country and are not discriminated against.

[-Sammy-]

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



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

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_ ... e_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.

Not sure why the federal government is involved. But your take is incorrect. Indiana has a law banning adults from having sex with 12 year olds. That's not complicated. But the new law says if any, ANY, law infringes on a religion belief, it cannot be used against that religious belief, correct? So if my religious belief is to have sex with a 12 year old, I, in theory, cannot be prosecuted for pedophilia under Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

These laws are dumb as ****, and they give religious nuts more protection that ordinary reasonable people. The crazier your are, the more protection you get. That's why all those fundamentalist Christians were behind him.

The Muslim man couldn't do what you described because, in order for him to marry the child, the child has to give consent. Both federal and state laws maintain that a 12-year-old cannot give such consent; therefore, it could never happen, unless of-age laws were changed to recognize a 12-year-old as fit to consent to marriage.

In other words, laws that define what a person is necessarily preface laws dictating how persons can behave. We can think of consent laws as first-order laws in that sense. They 'come before' religious-freedom laws.

[nomansland]

For people who think that, it means exactly what it says.

Well it is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice. It is what it is, and you are who you are since birth. People who are ignorant to this should not be protected in anyway whatsoever. They need to be dragged into modern times because in this case, it is not a subjective thing. It's objective. This is basic human rights.

That's my point. Not everyone believes that, and people have a right to not believe that. There's no consensus in hard/academic psychology as to the nature or origin of sexual orientation; it's a controversial topic in those fields, though that fact rarely 'trickles down' to public thought because of the sociopolitical nature of the issue.

There's no consensus about the cause of sexual orientation, but it's widely accepted that it's not a choice.

From the American Psychological Association's website:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=43168574#start_here

This was found in just 20 seconds via Google. I'm sure there's a lot more about it. But if you think it's a choice, perhaps you're inherently bi-sexual? I dunno.

[Hero]

It shouldn't be relocated. Should we start relocating everything from Indiana? What nonsense.

[JohnnyNightrain]

AND this is exactly what this law is going to allow to happen....

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/04/indiana-pizzeria-gay-couples

They aren't the first business to come out like this in the state, either. Here it is in black and white. It's just going to cause people to more openly be bigots because the law will embolden them.

Though, like Pence, she just signed her death note by granting this interview. Have fun living under a bridge when your business goes under.

[nomansland]

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.)

You could find towns where the majority of people deny service to a customer because of their sexual orientation. Would it be right if someone couldn't get insurance, a car, an apartment, medical care, groceries, etc. etc.? It goes way beyond a stupid cake.

[-Sammy-]

Well it is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice. It is what it is, and you are who you are since birth. People who are ignorant to this should not be protected in anyway whatsoever. They need to be dragged into modern times because in this case, it is not a subjective thing. It's objective. This is basic human rights.

That's my point. Not everyone believes that, and people have a right to not believe that. There's no consensus in hard/academic psychology as to the nature or origin of sexual orientation; it's a controversial topic in those fields, though that fact rarely 'trickles down' to public thought because of the sociopolitical nature of the issue.

There's no consensus about the cause of sexual orientation, but it's widely accepted that it's not a choice.

From the American Psychological Association's website:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=43168574#start_here

This was found in just 20 seconds via Google. I'm sure there's a lot more about it. But if you think it's a choice, perhaps you're inherently bi-sexual? I dunno.

I didn't say I think it's a choice; I said that the nature and origin of the behavior aren't well-understood and that it's a subject of controversy in the behavioral sciences. Maybe you should do MORE than 20 second of research on Google before you get flippant. Start with what the DSM-IV has to say about it. If you don't know what that is, take another 20 seconds on Google.

[flying_mollusk]

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.

Not sure why the federal government is involved. But your take is incorrect. Indiana has a law banning adults from having sex with 12 year olds. That's not complicated. But the new law says if any, ANY, law infringes on a religion belief, it cannot be used against that religious belief, correct? So if my religious belief is to have sex with a 12 year old, I, in theory, cannot be prosecuted for pedophilia under Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

These laws are dumb as ****, and they give religious nuts more protection that ordinary reasonable people. The crazier your are, the more protection you get. That's why all those fundamentalist Christians were behind him.

The Muslim man couldn't do what you described because, in order for him to marry the child, the child has to give consent. Both federal and state laws maintain that a 12-year-old cannot give such consent; therefore, it could never happen, unless of-age laws were changed to recognize a 12-year-old as fit to consent to marriage.

In other words, laws that define what a person is necessarily preface laws dictating how persons can behave. We can think of consent laws as first-order laws in that sense. They 'come before' religious-freedom laws.

Youre kind of saying the same thing. The person is using the religious freedom law as a defense. He is saying that by requiring him to get consent, and saying 12 year olds cant do it, you are violating his religious goal of having sex with a 12 year old. The consent law itself is violating his religion. The religious freedom laws carved out an exception to every other law, including consent laws. They did not limit the religious freedom laws.

But really, no laws come before other laws. There are no first or second order laws. Not sure where you are getting this. In order to do that, they would have to say, in the actual text, that the religious freedom law is second to the consent law. They made no distinction.

And basically you've kind of validated my point. You understand that the consent law SHOULD trump the religious freedom law. Religious freedom should not trump other valid laws. That's basically what the gay folks are saying.

They are saying don't let the religious freedom law trump local anti-discrimination laws. Anti-discrimination laws should be considered first order laws.

You are saying don't let religious freedom laws trump consent laws. Consent of children laws should be considered first order laws.

[JohnnyNightrain]

Ha ha. The comments. She is done. How dumb can one person be?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Memories-Pizza/289745361236608?fref=ts

[Neutral 123]

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.



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.



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.

It's been defeated legally. It isn't legal to discriminate against protected classes. Gays will gain that distinction in Indiana because they need it. This law may actually stay in place, but it will not supersede the rights of gays as a protected class.

[Neutral 123]

It shouldn't be relocated. Should we start relocating everything from Indiana? What nonsense.

Yes. Keep it up Indiana.

[-Sammy-]

Youre kind of saying the same thing. The person is using the religious freedom law as a defense. He is saying that by requiring him to get consent, and saying 12 year olds cant do it, you are violating his religious goal of having sex with a 12 year old. The consent law itself is violating his religion.

The consent law doesn't override the child's law of dominion of her her person; that's a first-order law that necessarily preexists any laws about what she, as a person, can and cannot legally do.

In other words, I can't claim that my religion REQUIRES Jennifer Aniston to marry me, so she HAS to marry me. Her dominion over her person overrides my religious claim. The same is true of the 12-year-old. The man's claim that his religion REQUIRES him to marry her doesn't override HER dominion over her person, and since the law states that a 12-year-old CANNOT give consent to marriage, it's impossible. Trust me; people have tried to do this a billion times. Why do you think there aren't 15-year-olds marrying their 18-year-old boyfriends every day under religious pretexts? Because the law governing consent overrides religious-freedom laws.

But really, no laws come before other laws. There are no first or second order laws. Not sure where you are getting this. In order to do that, they would have to say, in the actual text, that the religious freedom law is second to the consent law. They made no distinction.

They don't HAVE to make the distinction. You have to understand this in terms of logical progression. In the eyes of the law, before one can say 'this PERSON wants to MARRY', the laws needs to define what a person IS and what marriage IS. Fortunately, those terms have already been defined, such that by the time one says 'this PERSON wants to marry', the law will reply by asking 'does the person in question fit the legal definition of adult personhood?' Since in the case of the 12-year-old, the answer is 'no' (because the law defines an adult person as someone who is older than 12), the 12-year-old will be recognized as a child, and the law states that a 12-year-old cannot give consent to marriage.

This is exactly why homosexuals couldn't marry for the longest time; because the law had defined what marriage is. The right-to-marry legislation that's swept the country in recent years was all about changing that definition.

What I mean by orders of laws is that laws that define an entity are properly basic laws, so they necessarily come before laws that concern how defined entities can operate.

In other words, you have to define something before you can talk about what it's capable of, and by defining a 12-year-old as a child, the proposition of the 12-year-old marrying necessarily becomes impossible in the eyes of the law.

This is why you don't hear about the freaks from 'To Catch A Predator' trying to marry their 13-year-old girlfriends (ha ha).

[Zane]

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.).

So do you guys agreeing with him actually think gay people have "more rights" then everyone else, or that they are attempting to have "more rights" then everyone else? Or that the "homosexual lifestyle" is being advertised out of control? Could you provide examples of how any of that is happening?

[nomansland]

That's my point. Not everyone believes that, and people have a right to not believe that. There's no consensus in hard/academic psychology as to the nature or origin of sexual orientation; it's a controversial topic in those fields, though that fact rarely 'trickles down' to public thought because of the sociopolitical nature of the issue.

There's no consensus about the cause of sexual orientation, but it's widely accepted that it's not a choice.

From the American Psychological Association's website:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=43168574#start_here

This was found in just 20 seconds via Google. I'm sure there's a lot more about it. But if you think it's a choice, perhaps you're inherently bi-sexual? I dunno.

I didn't say I think it's a choice; I said that the nature and origin of the behavior aren't well-understood and that it's a subject of controversy in the behavioral sciences. Maybe you should do MORE than 20 second of research on Google before you get flippant. Start with what the DSM-IV has to say about it. If you don't know what that is, take another 20 seconds on Google.

"For many, homosexuality is a lifestyle, which puts in firmly into the category of things with which one can disagree."

- BombsquadSammy


Please elaborate on the differences between a lifestyle and a choice.

[-Sammy-]

There's no consensus about the cause of sexual orientation, but it's widely accepted that it's not a choice.

From the American Psychological Association's website:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=43168574#start_here

This was found in just 20 seconds via Google. I'm sure there's a lot more about it. But if you think it's a choice, perhaps you're inherently bi-sexual? I dunno.

I didn't say I think it's a choice; I said that the nature and origin of the behavior aren't well-understood and that it's a subject of controversy in the behavioral sciences. Maybe you should do MORE than 20 second of research on Google before you get flippant. Start with what the DSM-IV has to say about it. If you don't know what that is, take another 20 seconds on Google.

"For many, homosexuality is a lifestyle, which puts in firmly into the category of things with which one can disagree."

- BombsquadSammy


Please elaborate on the differences between a lifestyle and a choice.

A lifestyle is the style in which one chooses to live.

[NotaHypeJob]

The comparison between blacks and gays is always stupid, a person can't hide their blackness.

You're right. Gays have the great fortune of being able to live their lives in fear hiding who they are so they don't find themselves victims of fate. Sad that any group of innocent people should have to rely on such a mechanism.

whomp whomp whomp

what do you think is easier to spot in public, a black guy or a gay guy?
Somebody who wants to discriminate against blacks ain't gonna have to do research about if the guy is black or not, they're gonna know almost immediately

[KayDee35]

I didn't say I think it's a choice; I said that the nature and origin of the behavior aren't well-understood and that it's a subject of controversy in the behavioral sciences. Maybe you should do MORE than 20 second of research on Google before you get flippant. Start with what the DSM-IV has to say about it. If you don't know what that is, take another 20 seconds on Google.

It's not a subject of "controversy" in psychological science. They don't know enough about its auses but lack of knowledge does not make a topic or behavior controversial.

The DSM position on 'disorders' that aren't the social norm always evolves. Furthermore, the DSM has nothing to say about the origin of disorders. Lastly, we're at DSM-V.

[-Sammy-]

I didn't say I think it's a choice; I said that the nature and origin of the behavior aren't well-understood and that it's a subject of controversy in the behavioral sciences. Maybe you should do MORE than 20 second of research on Google before you get flippant. Start with what the DSM-IV has to say about it. If you don't know what that is, take another 20 seconds on Google.

It's not a subject of "controversy" in psychological science. They don't know enough about its auses but lack of knowledge does not make a topic or behavior controversial.

I used the term 'controversy' in the sense of a dispute about which there are varying theories, not in the sense of quarrel or strife.

The DSM position on 'disorders' that aren't the social norm always evolves.

Agreed. That actually was my point.

Furthermore, the DSM has nothing to say about the origin of disorders.

Correct. Also speaking to my point.

Lastly, we're at DSM-V.

Right, and the first-ed DSM-V doesn't address the issue we're discussing, which is why I didn't direct him there.

[Neutral 123]

There's no consensus about the cause of sexual orientation, but it's widely accepted that it's not a choice.

From the American Psychological Association's website:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=6&p=43168574#start_here

This was found in just 20 seconds via Google. I'm sure there's a lot more about it. But if you think it's a choice, perhaps you're inherently bi-sexual? I dunno.

I didn't say I think it's a choice; I said that the nature and origin of the behavior aren't well-understood and that it's a subject of controversy in the behavioral sciences. Maybe you should do MORE than 20 second of research on Google before you get flippant. Start with what the DSM-IV has to say about it. If you don't know what that is, take another 20 seconds on Google.

"For many, homosexuality is a lifestyle, which puts in firmly into the category of things with which one can disagree."

- BombsquadSammy


Please elaborate on the differences between a lifestyle and a choice.

It goes beyond that actually. The real problem is that people feel homosexuality is wrong. They just use the idea that it must be a choice to justify feeling it is wrong, evil, against God, blah blah blah.

What these people want, is similar to the goals of ISIS, which is to live by strict, fundamentalist Christian law. This is about pushing ones ideas of right and wrong, founded in their brand of religion on others.