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

[heatwillbeback]

I am fine using economic loss as a deterrent for crap bills like this, but its too late to move it for this year.

As for future years though, punish them economically and the constituents will get the crap law changed. I'm for it, but I could see how you lean politically could change that.

[babyjax13]

I seriously doubt they will, but only because the mayor of Indianapolis has made it absolutely clear that he does not support the legislation and will do everything in his power to prevent discrimination against the fans attending events in his city. That will give the NCAA sufficient cover to go along as planned. If there was a reasonable prospect of businesses within Indy turning down gay customers they might treat the situation differently, but apparently the city is not going to stand for that nonsense. Any anti-Indiana boycotts in the form of cancelled events would hurt Indy most of all, they're a major convention town, and the mayor knows it. Indy is working overtime to make clear their city is not in step with this foolishness.

As for this law being similar to past laws, it's quite a bit different from the Clinton-era federal law but similar in certain ways to *some* of the other state laws. The federal law was put in place to allow native americans to use peyote as sacrament without losing their jobs, it protects an individuals right to exercise their religious freedom. This law is more focused on allowing businesses leeway in who and who not to serve based on the belief systems of the business owners, it's a fine distinction but a very important one. Other states have similar laws, or in Arkansas' case are considering similar laws, but for whatever reason the Indiana legislation has caught the national attention most. Likely because, as mentioned earlier, Indy is a major convention town. If Mississippi discriminates the nation just shrugs and goes "yeah, well, they're always the worst", they oddly are somewhat shielded from criticism because their reputation has created the expectation of bigotry. Indiana does not have that expectation (although, if you study civil rights history, perhaps it should) and does much more business with national and multinational corporations. Another important distinction that may differentiate this legislation from other states (not all, but some) is that "protected classes" are exempt from the law. Protected classes universally include race and gender, some states have extended that definition to include sexual preference and political beliefs. Any state that has this sort of law but include homosexuals in the "protected classes" is an entirely different situation.

And I just have to laugh at the argument that this legislation is not specifically targeted at homosexuals. Just check out who Pence chose as his guests at the signing event:



Pretty obvious what's going on here. If you don't care for gay rights, fine, but let's at least be honest with each other.

This. I wish your post were on the first page to combat the ignorance in this thread. As someone who is gay, and who is a sports fan, the prospect of states allowing businesses to not serve me specifically because of my orientation is just repulsive. As a political science major, it is incredibly reminiscent of Plessey v. Furgeson. IE. gay people can seek out photographic services, food service, bus service, whatever...but only from vendors that will serve them. It is de jure approval of a law that segregates people based on sexuality (rather than race).

But should they move it this year? No. The logistics make it impossible and it is incredibly unfair to the fans that have spent money to attend. Plus, the law doesn't go into effect until July 1st - although this type of discrimination is technically legal in any state that doesn't have some sort of anti-discrimination legislation, or that has had a state supreme court ruling with an equivalent effect.

[babyjax13]

Except that is not what the law allows. The law requires that not only must the owner of the business be able to show that they have had the religious beliefs for a long period of time(thus proving that the convictions are truly held) and that there is a less burdensome method to address the governments concerns(in other words if the government has a compelling interest it can override the religious objections but must do so in a way that does not SUBSTANTIALLY burden the person involved and must do so in the least burdensome manner to accomplish the goal)

Combine that loose language with the fact that judges in the US are voted in and the states that support these kinds of laws are inherently religious, judges would be going against the majority who pay for their campaigns in NOT enforcing this law and you have a dangerous combination.

Unless the LGBTQ community collects money and buys a judicial appointment like other groups.

My explanation may make the languages seem loose but the actual law is defined by precedents on what things mean and precise terms. BTW judges in Indiana are not elected, several are nominated by a judicial panel and the governor appoints from the nominees from the panel.
Also liberal Connecticut has a law that favors the religious rights even more than Indiana's Other state with RFRA's are Illinois, Arizona, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

The fact that other states have RFRAs that allow more latitude in what constitutes "substantial burden" is in no way pertinent to the discussion about Indiana's law. Furthermore, most were passed prior to there being wide spread approval for LGBT rights [which also doesn't make them OK].

[Rip It]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

"GAH! If you don't let me punch you . . . why . . . YOU'RE DISCRIMINATIN'!"
--Whiny, Privileged, MSNBC-Watching Libtards

[tha_rock220]

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

[gustofwind]

First, thanks to everyone who provided thoughtful and helpful comments in this thread. I can see many of you, if not the vast majority of you, seek to engage in a productive discussion and do not seek to insult others in doing so. Some credit, I'm sure, must go to the moderators of this forum for creating an environment conducive to respectful discussion.

I hope some of you, who had not already read about the issue, took the time to read some of the links I posted in the first post. I think they are helpful in illustrating the different sides to this discussion. I certainly acknowledge the complexity of the legislative debate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately, in view of recent political developments, I do believe that this legislation is threatening to the LGBT community.

I also think, upon reflection, that it is OK to use the public stage given by sports to vocalize opinions about these issues. If I was in Indiana, I would gladly protest these issues in any public forum I had, including sports events. We should also consider whether the venue for the next Final Four should be moved.

But, I will say that we should still honor the role that sporting events provide for our communities to move beyond cultural differences. Thus, I do believe we can protest before and after events, and think about where we hold our sporting events as long as we don't inhibit the players from playing.

Politics can coexist with sports, therefore, as long as it does not cross the line by preventing sports events from happening altogether. I think the US took things too far in the past when they prevented athletes from participating in the Russian Olympics thirty some years ago.

Just my two cents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, for those who care about grammar: I apologize for making two inconvenient grammatical mistakes in my initial post for this thread (which I have since corrected - I hope!). One was a typo, the other was a complete lack of parallel construction in the final sentence. I did not read the post over carefully and caused myself some embarrassment. Perhaps, I wasn't ready for the volume of responses this thread would receive. Ultimately, I think most people don't care. Hopefully, my general meaning was clear.

Thanks again for your responses everyone. I think it's a fruitful topic for discussion, and I do think it is a pertinent topic to huge sports events like the Final Four.

[Torgeir Bryn]

It's incredible how far behind the US is on these kind of issues.

Land of the free, just not for everyone...

No, it should be totally okay for a minority person to have to wonder if a given business will serve them if they walk in. You know, because freedom.

Of course, like the golden Jim Crow days. Progress!

[Hawkeyes]

It'd be better if politics stayed the hell away from basketball.

[MiltownHawkeye]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

"GAH! If you don't let me punch you . . . why . . . YOU'RE DISCRIMINATIN'!"
--Whiny, Privileged, MSNBC-Watching Libtards

Yes, not discriminating against gay people is equivalent to letting them punch you in the face. Brilliant stuff right here.

[Neutral 123]

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

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

[Prokorov]

you have to keep it there. and it might be a better protest to keep it there. i men you move it, its covered on espn and in the papers and thats it.

you keep it there and now you have players wearing tshirts in warmups bashing indiana and show support for equality... and the same with fans in the stands and im sure some of the announces and color guys

[Neutral 123]

I'm going to refer to the state as Indiano from here on out.

[smallgains]

The "pro gay" people don't want to use go old capitalism because it shows what people really think and care about, instead of fake words.

No need to move it, let people "vote" with their attendance.....

[Neutral 123]

The "pro gay" people don't want to use go old capitalism because it shows what people really think and care about, instead of fake words.

No need to move it, let people "vote" with their attendance.....

This presumes the NCAA has sided with the hate mongers. Nothing suggests that, which is why many big corporations in Indiano are pressuring these clowns to change the law.

[KayDee35]

The "pro gay" people don't want to use go old capitalism because it shows what people really think and care about, instead of fake words.

No need to move it, let people "vote" with their attendance.....

Good old capitalism did not solve segregation. Good old capitalism did not give women the vote. Good old capitalism did not create public education and outlaw child labor. Good old capitalism is not the cure-all that some people think it is.

Of course, this Indiana RFRA bill is not good old capitalism but it's supporters won't point that out. It's an attempt to legalize bigotry and denial of service to a minority group that is not harming others.

[MiltownHawkeye]

The "pro gay" people don't want to use go old capitalism because it shows what people really think and care about, instead of fake words.

No need to move it, let people "vote" with their attendance.....

Good old capitalism did not solve segregation. Good old capitalism did not give women the vote. Good old capitalism did not create public education and outlaw child labor. Good old capitalism is not the cure-all that some people think it is.
.

It is if you're 17 and just finished the unit about the USSR in your history class.

[Rip It]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

"GAH! If you don't let me punch you . . . why . . . YOU'RE DISCRIMINATIN'!"
--Whiny, Privileged, MSNBC-Watching Libtards

Yes, not discriminating against gay people is equivalent to letting them punch you in the face. Brilliant stuff right here.

Being forced to promote something which goes against your deeply-held beliefs may actually be worse than being punched in the face.

If your simple little one-track mind could think of something other than, "don't dascreemonate 'ginst 'da gays!" you might be able to see that.

[MiltownHawkeye]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

"GAH! If you don't let me punch you . . . why . . . YOU'RE DISCRIMINATIN'!"
--Whiny, Privileged, MSNBC-Watching Libtards

Yes, not discriminating against gay people is equivalent to letting them punch you in the face. Brilliant stuff right here.

Being forced to promote something which goes against your deeply-held beliefs may actually be worse than being punched in the face.

If your simple little one-track mind could think of something other than, "don't dascreemonate 'ginst 'da gays!" you might be able to see that.

I hope you're just a high school student or something, it would explain a lot.

[KayDee35]

Being forced to promote something which goes against your deeply-held beliefs may actually be worse than being punched in the face.

If your simple little one-track mind could think of something other than, "don't dascreemonate 'ginst 'da gays!" you might be able to see that.

So you think segregation was just fine because its supporters had deeply held beliefs (which they often invoked religion to support). But the people in favor of integration and civil rights with their simple little one-track minds could not think of something other than, "don't dascreemonate 'ginst 'da blacks!"

Is that really your position?

[Neutral 123]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

"GAH! If you don't let me punch you . . . why . . . YOU'RE DISCRIMINATIN'!"
--Whiny, Privileged, MSNBC-Watching Libtards

Yes, not discriminating against gay people is equivalent to letting them punch you in the face. Brilliant stuff right here.

Being forced to promote something which goes against your deeply-held beliefs may actually be worse than being punched in the face.

If your simple little one-track mind could think of something other than, "don't dascreemonate 'ginst 'da gays!" you might be able to see that.

They wouldn't be forced to promote anything. People have all sorts of deeply held beliefs that are hateful and harmful. Time to evolve. It's funny because you should recognize by now that this is a losing battle.