It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that as the NCAA was willing to wade into the murky waters of Confederate flagdom, it’s now preparing to take a stand on another culture war matter.
On the eve of next week’s Final Four in Indianapolis, the NCAA expressed concern about a new Indiana law that will allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers based on “religious freedom” and suggested future NCAA championships in the state could be impacted.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a measure that has created uproar in the state where the NCAA is located. Some conventions are threatening to pull out of Indianapolis. Greg Ballard, the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, broke with the Republican governor on the bill and said it would put the city’s economy at risk.
“The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events,” NCAA president Mark Emmert said in a statement Thursday after the bill was signed. “We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees. We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.”
I don’t know where the NCAA has been on this before now. It’s not as if Indiana is setting a trend here. Does this mean Emmert’s prepared to announce that the organization will prohibit championship games it sponsors in every one of those nineteen states (soon to be twenty, if Georgia’s proposed law passes) that allow individuals to discriminate against gays?
*************************************************************************
UPDATE: The Big Ten weighs in.
Get The Picture 
Senator, I realize this has been discussed here before, and I have no interest in rehashing it. However, I have a question: Is there a way to ensure people aren’t forced to do business with someone they don’t want to without legalizing discrimination?
LikeLike
Someone, as in a particular individual? Sure.
LikeLike
I’m thinking of the cake baking incident. I think it was in Oregon maybe? Anyway, a small business was sued because he didn’t want to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. I mean, the guy’s a bigot, sure. But should he be forced to do business with them if he doesn’t want to?
LikeLike
Where do you stop with that? Should Lester Maddox have been forced to serve blacks at his restaurant?
If a baker doesn’t want to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, get out of the wedding cake business. There’s plenty of other stuff to bake.
LikeLike
Apples and oranges comparing race to lifestyle choice. The law really just reinforces the right to association. This is no different than no shirt, no shoes, no service. The same sex couple is free to do what they wish, so must the baker. There are plenty of bakeries that will bake their cake so no undo burden is suffered. The market will determine if the business’s choice is wise for their bottom line or not, but at least the state is not forcing the business to conduct business it finds objectionable. We all do this all day long.
Let’s get back to football.
LikeLike
“Choice”. The only person with a choice here is the business owner. You imply that there is such a thing as “Lifestyle choice”, when countless studies have been done showing that homosexuality is almost certainly a genetic issue. So, because a man was born with a gene for homosexuality, the baker should be able to choose to not serve him? How is that different from a baker choosing not to serve a black or latino couple, who’s skin tone is due to genetic differences as well?
LikeLike
This is not true. There is no definitive sexual orientation gene, nor is there a scientific study that has accurately predicted one’s sexual orientation based solely on their genetic material. Anyone who is serious about the science of this subject without an agenda believes sexual orientation is based on many factors including genetics, but also including social environment, the brain, hormone levels, life experiences, etc.
Also, having a genetic predisposition to sociopathy does not make it okay that a person becomes a sociopath. Society expects sociopaths to fight that natural urge. There is more scientific evidence of that being based on genetics than homosexuality. Simply saying, “I was born this way,” or “It is just who I am” does not by default make it right. But, I suppose, that’s neither here nor there.
I personally think we should serve each other in life, in business, in whatever regardless of what sexual orientation, race, gender, team preference, etc. one may have. If your religion leads you to disassociate from people because of their sin, then you might ought to look at the tenets of your religion again. If you shun people in the name of Jesus (like the cake baker), then you are no different than the Pharisees. Jesus never, never, never shunned people. In fact, he purposefully associated with the people the religious leaders thought unworthy or sinful. He showed them love, mercy, and forgiveness. He didn’t beat them over the head with their sins, but He freed them from their sins. If your religion calls you to be like Jesus, that’s the example to follow. Not the Pharisaical one.
LikeLike
Just curious—if sexuality is a choice, when exactly in your life did you choose to be straight, and why? Along those same lines, if indeed its by choice, then every time you, say, see a cute woman wearing a sundress, you have to remind yourself that, hmm, oh yea, she’s cute!…in which you only then do you check her out a bit. Sounds like a crappy way to go through life to me. Too much work involved in constant reminders rather than relying on instinctual nature.
I personally don’t remember making that choice. I just remember how cute I thought this one girl was as a 1st grade classmate of mine. And Wonder Woman. Oh yea, a small percentage of animals species also are gay. Perhaps they spent too much time watching Queer eye for the straight guy growing up.
LikeLike
BTW, nice job comparing sociopaths to homosexuality.
LikeLike
That was unfair, but I wanted to highlight the idea that because a person is “born a certain way” does not make it, by default, right. Society, once upon a time, believed homosexuality was a psychotic disorder, so the link is not too far-fetched in that regard, but I do agree that the intent was muddied by the link.
I personally believe homosexuality goes against nature and is not an appropriate relationship. You do not. I believe sex, first and foremost, is the method of procreating. It also brings pleasure, deepens emotional bonds in relationships, is a means to exert power over another, etc., but it’s primary purpose through the evolutionary chain is procreation. It is the means by which the human race continues. If we agree to the premise that homosexuality is perfectly natural because its genetic and other animals do it, do we not also have to accept that nature is trying to tell you that your genetic material should stop with you if it has made you not want a relationship that would continue your genes?
I believe that man is full of natural urges and desires that are harmful to himself or others and are not in line with the divine will of God. We can fight those urges or not, but it is a losing battle either way. That is why the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary. To free us from our natural selves. I believe homosexuality is a sin (because the bible says it is), but not a worse sin than any I commit. I don’t have any moral superiority. I am full of disgusting thoughts and deeds that I need forgiveness for. That is why discrimination against homosexuals is not biblical. We all have our own issues that separate us from God and make us in need of a savior. None is better than another because we have all fallen short of the glory of God. If anyone rejects this, then that is their right. They should marry and love whomever they want. I wish them all the happiness this world can bring. I also wish them the freedom that Christ brings, but that is their choice, if you will.
LikeLike
Careful, Trey. When you start making thorough, rational arguments then people tend to ignore you.
LikeLike
Oops, spoke too soon. I think see a hole in 3rdandGrantham’s logic regarding the line between one’s subconscious thoughts and choosing to act on them. But good luck having that discussion online.
LikeLike
No hole at all on my end, only his. After all, he’s equivocating one acting out on their emotional feelings of love and attraction for another with a sociopath, who potentially might act out deleteriously on their emotions in regard to others (through harm, malicious intent, etc.) with no real redeeming qualities. A loving gay couple does not infringe on your life, liberty or property in any way whatsoever, so I don’t understand the resistance to their lifestyle. Sure, it might not seem normal to you, but it certainly is for them.
LikeLike
“No hole on my end, only his.” ??
Jus’ havin’ fun while listnin’ to the conversation. 🙂
LikeLike
“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, it is the sick. I have not come to call the righteous but the Sinners.” Luke 2:17
LikeLike
How does your burden work in a small town in, say, West Texas, where there’s only one pharmacy around for a hundred miles and the pharmacist won’t serve gays based on religious grounds?
By the way, the example he gave wasn’t one where the baker refused to serve gays at all. This isn’t about right of association; these bills are presented as religious freedom protection and that’s a very slippery slope once you start down that way.
LikeLike
It is slippery indeed. We are given specific protections for our free exercise of religion and our freedom of speech and when the state starts to remove those protections we begin to head down that slope.
LikeLike
No constitutional right is absolute.
And somehow I suspect you’d be singing a different tune here if somebody used the law as a justification to impose their beliefs under Sharia law on folks somewhere in this country. Or to justify polygamy. Or…
LikeLike
This. What these folks really want is to EXPAND their constitutional right to practice THEIR religion while simultaneously limiting others’ constitutional rights to practice their own. I find this whole episode disgusting, repugnant and sad. And then, there’s this: http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/politics/2015/03/26/gordon-klingenschmitt-longmont-stabbing/70489416/
LikeLike
True, my freedom of speech does not remove your freedom of speech an vice versa. I think the religious argument is weak. Frankly, as a Christian I think it sends the wrong message, we all are sinners and deciding to serve some and not others based on their sin is hypocritical. However, the fact is we all choose who we want to do business with and who we do not all day long. My argument is that it is wrong for the state to decide which beliefs have a greater value than others. Let the market decide.
As to your question, sharia law is political and I do not believe it would trump our constitution or pass in a legislature to begin with.
LikeLike
Two reasons you’re incorrect about that. One, it’s not political to an devout Muslim and two, this isn’t about a legislature passing a law, but an individual exercising his or her religious beliefs.
LikeLike
How serious about business can a business man be if he won’t serve gays, blacks, or any other group? If I was in retail I would be open 24/7 and serve everybody who could pay. Don’t ask, don’t tell! I don’t need any laws to discourage business.
LikeLike
Come on Senator the No Constitutional Right is absolute is what every despot from time beginning has used to get the ball rolling. The great Abraham Lincoln violated almost every one of the Bills of Right in the name of saving the Union so he sat a precedent for future Presidents to void the Constitution when they thought it was necessary. The Japanese-Americans during WWII certainly would support the fact that they had all of their Constitutional Rights violated by the Great FDR. There is only one quote that lawyers like yourself can use to challenge the Bill of Rights and it has been used and abused forever. You can’t yell fire in a theater, well you can yell it everywhere else. Getting off of High horse now.
LikeLike
I think you just made my point. Thanks.
LikeLike
One thing needs to be clear. This is purely a “gay marriage” issue, not a “gay” issue, correct?
If there’s a baker or pharmacist turning people away for a birthday cake or prescription drugs because he suspects or knows they are gay, that’s a huge problem. I don’t think reasonable people can disagree here.
If there’s a baker declining to do wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, that’s the tougher one. Reasonable people can and do disagree.
LikeLike
Not really. If the baker is offended selling wedding cakes to same-sex couples, don’t bake wedding cakes at all. It’s a choice.
LikeLike
Right. Particularly in the service/retail industry, which you certainly understand that you’ll be servicing all sorts of people from all walks of life. If you honestly believe that you’ll only be servicing a steady steam of June and Ward Cleavers all day long, then perhaps you deserve a bit of a rude awakening.
Either that, or move to Boise, Des Moines, or New England (sans Boston).That will buy you a 20-30 years of continued demographic types.
LikeLike
That’s one reasonable side of the argument, Senator.
I just wouldn’t use the “discrimination against gays” language. It makes it sound there are lots of non-wedding retail businesses out there turning gay people away at the front door or making them sit in separate sections.
In my mind, there’s a very wide chasm between “discrimination against gays” and “not supportive of gay marriage”…but I’m sure others disagree.
LikeLike
As a lawyer..do you not pick and choose who you “bake” for? On what criteria? If you’re offended representing..say a Klansman….then don’t do law at all.
LikeLike
I don’t pick my clients on the basis of belief, if that’s what you’re asking.
LikeLike
You seem to think this hypothetical pharmacy’s hypothetical decision not to serve any particular customer is wrong, and that all levels of government should “right” that wrong to keep each and every customer from being “burdened”.
Here’s a snark-free question for you: What happens if that pharmacy should decide to close? That would increase the “burdens” by several orders of magnitude. What should the government do about that?
LikeLike
Assuming your hypothetical is that the pharmacist closes out of objection to being forced to serve all, nothing. No one is compelled to keep a business running.
And again, this isn’t about a business person’s decision “not to serve any particular customer”. It’s about denying service that’s already being provided to a group of people solely because of their status.
LikeLike
I’m sure not everyone will believe this disclaimer, but here it is: I’m not the slightest bit interested in the marriage choices of consenting adults. My concern is the ever increasing mountain of regulations and legislation raining down on private citizens.
Having said that, I’ll just say that I don’t agree with the way you are framing the argument. If we believe that a private pharmacist’s refusal of service to any particular customer causes that customer some tangible harm…and if we further believe that harm is great enough that the pharmacist should be forced at the point of a gun (because that’s how government rolls) to provide that service…it isn’t a huge logical leap for someone to say that this pharmacy shouldn’t be allowed to close because of all the harm that would be done to their entire customer base.
Now, to be sure, I’m not accusing you of making that particular argument, so I’m not pretending you should defend it. But I don’t shy away from saying that some people could follow the argument to that sort of conclusion. And some of those people have proven an ability to get elected. We all have our slippery slopes, and that’s mine.
LikeLike
You’re right – I don’t. The OH NOES MY RIGHTS argument, as it relates here, is a bullshit facade for bigots. Point blank: the refusal of service is due to the customer being a member of a suspect class. That’s reprehensible and any argument about BIG GUBMINT is just noise.
LikeLike
Dear Mr, Law Daw:
Welp … I’ve just been called a liar and, apparently, a bigot. And what makes those accusations extra special is the fact that you couldn’t pick me out of a police lineup. You are one of the people who make internet discourse the wonderful bastion of reason that it is. Therefore, you can go fuck yourself. Other than that, though, your argument was quite compelling. Hell, you had even me convinced I was lying for a few minutes.
Oh, and before I forget… go fuck yourself.
LikeLike
Why don’t you really tell him how you feel, Gravely?
I have a question for all of you: How do you feel about a homosexual Center? Aside from the fact that he may get off a little everytime the QB places the ole hands there, do you really think it would affect the team? Certainly he is going to be the first one to the line of scrimmage if you have a long count with hand movements to fake the opposition, but would that matter if he was a lights-out blocker who opens the hole (football O-line hole, that is) for Chubb?
Excuse me, I’m getting all excited typing porn words like “Chubb”. I have to step out of this challenging conversation held by mature Dawg fans right now since I think I’m getting the vapors.
LikeLike
Unless you want show us all how one “chooses” to perform fellatio, it isn’t a “life style choice.” Sexual attraction is hard wired. Dealing with being different from your peers and a disappointment to your parents and dealing is difficult enough without also having to deal with discrimination from vendors. If you don’t to bake for everyone, get out of baking for money.
LikeLike
“Unless you want show us all how one “chooses” to perform fellatio”
I agree that sexuality isn’t a choice, but do you know what that word means?
LikeLike
I think it would be better to say that if being gay is a choice, well then show us. Whether or not to engage in sex with a man is not a choice for me. Its out of the question and not because I think God is against it. My johnson (among other things) is against it. As in all such matters, he speaks for me.
LikeLike
Good go, Derek. Personally, I prefer it done by a female with cold wine (white, just to be avant-garde) in her mouth. I mean, summa yall should try it. It’s better than hanging by a choking rope that doesn’t slacken when you black out in a closet. And it sho’ does relax you. Afterwards you are more prone to slowly and skillfully stuff a pearl necklace into a forbidden orifice and pull it out suddenly at the appropriate moment just to return her favor.
Think I’ll read Chapter 431 in The Kama Sutra tonight. Dang, I wisht we would talk this way more oftin’.
LikeLike
Please tell us you don’t honestly believe that people choose to be gay. You do realize and admit that its genetic and instinctive, right?
LikeLike
It’s hard to tell if you were responding to me with this but obviously being gay is NOT a choice. I know I didn’t choose to be heterosexual.
LikeLike
“Lifestyle choices.”
Yeesh.
LikeLike
What happened to liberty and your free market principles?
LikeLike
How does someone being discriminated against operate in a free market?
LikeLike
Without true liberty someone is going to be discriminated against either way.
LikeLike
Which, again, is why I say no constitutional right is absolute.
LikeLike
The right is absolute but it can not be exercised at the expense of another. In a case like this where someone would have their rights restricted either way, I would yield back to liberty.
LikeLike
That’s a marvel of hairsplitting. I bet you could explain to me how someone could become a little bit pregnant, too.
LikeLike
No just logic. Similar to the fact that someone has an absolute right to defend their self and their family but the method of that defense must be somewhat proportional to the threat.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you mean by logic. Absolute means absolute. If there are conditions, then it’s not absolute.
Don’t take it from me. The Supreme Court had a First Amendment absolutist, Hugo Black, on its bench for decades. It led him to take some embarrassing votes. It also never became a majority position.
LikeLike
The broader picture is someone should not be forced to do or not do business with any other party.
LikeLike
So you’d repeal the Civil Rights Act?
LikeLike
I would it was unnecessary. Also anytime you single an individual or group of individuals out for special rights it inevitably leads to discrimination as it has. Question: Is there any discrimination codified in law currently?
LikeLike
I see. The right of a black person to share a lunch counter with a white person is a special right.
LikeLike
You didn’t specify if this is a public or private lunch counter. You also didn’t answer my question. Is there any discrimination codified in law currently?
LikeLike
The CRA doesn’t apply to private counters. You know that.
I have no idea what all federal laws and the laws of the fifty states are. Sorry.
LikeLike
So, on what basis do you decide the limit of one’s constitutional right to freedom of religion? What is wrong with putting it on equal footing with freedom of speech and other guaranteed freedoms? I have read the proposed law. It provides that “Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” It further recognizes that ” government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination.” So, applying a compelling interest test to the exercise of freedom of religion, in my view, is not authorizing discrimination. To suggest, as many have, that the law allows unfettered discrimination against blacks, gays, etc. is simply not true. It
doesn’t appear to be the case in the 19 or so states that have these laws in place that I have seen.
LikeLike
Really? So why did the Georgia bill get pulled after Jacobs’ amendment?
LikeLike
I cannot interpret motives. I was simply looking at the proposed statute (before the amendment) To the amendment-Is the exercise of freedom of speech also subservient to state and federal laws of discrimination? What about my first question? How does one judge the limits of freedom of religion? Justice O’Connor wrote, “Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religious Clauses in a given case, but the goal of the Clauses is clear: To carry out the founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.” How do you suggest this be done? Is it an ad hoc determination by the court? If not the “compelling interest” test, what would you suggest?
*BTW- I am for gay marriage, gay families, etc. and would bake them cakes and officiate their marriages if I was qualified
LikeLike
Courts do it all the time. That’s what they’re there for.
Polygamy is illegal. People who murder abortion doctors in the name of religion are prosecuted.
It’s hard to remember unless you’re an old fart like me, but segregationists often raised religion as a defense for their position.
As for not interpreting motives, laws like this aren’t written in a vacuum. The motives behind the laws are critical to understanding their purpose. And their constitutionality.
LikeLike
Funny about that “but segregationists often raised religion as a defense for their position” because this old fart’s religious leap (when I was 12 going on 13) demanded that I be an integrationist in Sowega in the early 50s. My Sunday School teacher didn’t mean for me to take it that way, but what the hell.
LikeLike
OK….if an anesthesiologist believes abortion is murder should he be forced to administer the anesthesia? It’s a belief system, and if you don”t believe like a liberal minded person then your labeled as a hater and bigot. Blah blah blah I once loved this blog but no more.
LikeLike
Well, that’s your choice. 😉
LikeLike
Under what circumstances would an anesthesiologist not know he is preparing to administer anesthesia during an abortion operation? If he signed on at the place, hell yeah he is bound to administer anesthesia to the best of his ability.
Are you opting to chat with her first? Don’t think so, bub. Who in hell are you to place your religious position in front of a patient’s welfare? You aren’t there to judge on a morality ground. If so, you should administer your anesthesiology in a nunnery, but look out, sometimes they succumb to human desires also. You gotta look out for that so’s you can direct your life-responsible anesthesia operations to the correct person. On second thought, why don’t you take a whiff of your own shit.
LikeLike
No one forces anyone into business. You are free not to engage in business. You are free to sit at home and watch hee haw reruns under your confederate flag “cuz you a real uh-mercan” who hates fags and Mexicans and Africans and people who don’t like hee haw. However those who are in business are asked not to act as ignorant, bigoted assholes. They can think, feel and talk like ignorant bigoted assholes, but they can’t deny services to some people that are provided to everyone else simply because they are ignorant bigoted assholes. I would remind the religious freedom jackasses that slavery and segregation were both justified on religious grounds. The fact that the God who once told you to hate blacks and now really means it when it comes to “the gays” is of little significance. I’m sure that in the minds of some that denying a diner owner the privilege of calling someone a faggot and throwing them out forcibly because of the way he looks or talks is the end of America as they knew it. However, for most of us the idea that we can go about our business without facing threats and name calling is a far better america than you can find on an SAE fraternity bus.
LikeLike
With all due respect, by you showing unchecked emotion and anger, particularly in regard to all the name calling, doesn’t exactly make you look good either (and note that I’m on your side here). In fact, you’re engaging in the very same narrow minded labeling or prejudice as those who are in favor of such a law.
Assuming that you’re a progressive/liberal, or at least of a Libertarian bent, I’m continually amazed how progressives often espouse the very same narrow-mindedness and ignorance as those they pit themselves against (right wing conservatives, for example). Some liberals have this warped notion that diversity of thought and opinion is absolutely beautiful…just as long as those opinions still fit within the overall narrative of progressive thinking or ideals. If not, they quickly turn into the equivalent of an extreme right-winger with their very same hatred and rigid ignorance.
LikeLike
“Liberals”, as you say, are concerned that people not unjustly infringe on the rights of others. Diversity of thought is fine, so long as you don’t cause harm to another by holding your opinion. If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s all fine and good and you’re welcome to that belief. But if you try to enforce your belief on another, you’re doing them harm by taking away their natural rights. You find the association between two people that are wholly ‘Not-You’ to be offensive and apply rules to prevent them from happening. They want nothing more than the right you consider yourself to have been born with.
LikeLike
what I got from this screed was: you can’t enforce your beliefs on me, but it’s perfectly OK for me to enforce my beliefs on you, because I’m so much smarter and more tolerant. Tolerant means you agree with me. Bigot means you don’t agree with me.
Impressive.
LikeLike
81dog’s thoughts below were well said. As someone who is quite liberal on social issues myself, I’ll simply say that some of the most ignorant and intolerant people I’ve ever met have been outspoken ones on the left. If you don’t agree with all of their views, you are immediately cast as some sort of inbred, unintelligent rube, most likely with a confederate flag on the back of your car. Sure, they might not want to send you away to some far away island, but at the same time a majority feel that your opinion is worthless, in which you should be treated with ruthless contempt from that point forward.
The majority of those on the right that I know have absolutely no interest in enforcing their beliefs on others. They just want the right to quietly live their lives beholden to their beliefs without the aforementioned condemnation, labeling, and ridicule.
LikeLike
Except when they’re passing laws… 😉
LikeLike
Indeed! Fortunately for me, I don’t know the Indiana Gov. Or many politicians for that matter.
LikeLike
You are free to think and say whatever you want. And I’m free to call that stupid. Protecting the dignity of the discourse is not an interest of mine. That much should be obvious. Confort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Stupid makes me angry. There are smart people who take smart positions I don’t agree with. I can assure you fwiw that they are treated with respect. I don’t extend that respect to morons. Sorry if you prefer a different tone, but who made you the boss of drawing the lines of appropriate discourse? You, right? Who cares? Not me.
LikeLike
He who angers you, owns you. Let it go. With all due respect, when you come across with such a tone, people naturally are going to question your overall intelligence, as most mature and intelligent people remain calm and grounded during various discourse. The yellers, screamers, and name callers are immediately pegged as those from the unhinged fringe.
Just because someone doesn’t socially evolve a the same rate as you or others doesn’t automatically make them morons. Take Barrack Obama, for example. As recently as 2010, he was against gay marriage (and even took the marriage between man/woman stance in the ’08 election). The same goes for Bil/Hillary Clinton and other so-called progressive leaders. Does that make them morons and idiots up until that magic day that they changed their mind?
Some might argue that those only changed their positions when it became politically expedient to do so. After all, its only been within the past few years that Americans gradually have accepted gay marriage as a right. Knowing how phony politicians are on both sides, it certainly raises an eyebrow when one goes from being absolutely against gay marriage to suddenly being for it.
Heck, if anything, those who still are against it should be commended for adhering to their convictions, whether you agree or not.
LikeLike
To that point, the interracial marriage in this county was made legal in 1968.
However, the majority of Americans did not approve (via polling) of interracial marriage until 1997.
So should we have waited?
LikeLike
No, as we are a republic, not a democracy (in which majority supersedes the rule of law). I don’t quite get the gist of your comment and how it applies to what I said.
LikeLike
The implication is that people are changing their minds only because of political expediency.
Political expediency really has nothing to do with this argument regarding marriage equality. The real question should be whether the marriage equality is legal and right for citizens of this country.
If the US had waited until the majority of the public was accepting of interracial marriage, then it would have been an additional 30 years before it was made legal.
LikeLike
Yeh, but the question was “Who do you like at QB for the coming season?”. 🙂
LikeLike
Is Slingin Sammy Vaughn getting ANY reps in practice?
LikeLike
You’re bigoted against people who enjoy Hee Haw.
LikeLike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7INIhD9P0Pw
LikeLike
It absolutely pains me to type this…but good job NCAA. I realize that logistically its impossible given the Final four is next weekend, but I wish they had more time so that they could pull out of Indy altogether (similar to the NFL’s SuperBowl threat against Arizona recently).
Though I no longer live in Georgia, I spent the first 30 years of my life there and certainly am proud to be a native Georgian. With that said, if Georgia follows in Indiana’s footsteps, I’ll be utterly embarrassed of my home state, and it will only help to cement my decision to move to a more moderate state 5 years ago that, frankly, is more advanced in many metrics.
LikeLike
Sure. There’s always Texas.
LikeLike
You all are a doomed (and huggable) bunch. That we all have a common interest in the Dawgs only makes this site more special. May Joe Pesci bless you all.
LikeLike
Thanks, Scorp.
LikeLike
I can’t believe I’m typing this, but good job NCAA. It’s probably a money making (or saving, considering recent court decisions) decision, but it’s still ultimately the right one.
LikeLike
A Christian who feels that God wants them to disassociate from others because of perceived sinful behavior is sadly mistaken. We are instructed to show love and compassion to everyone – period. I will now get off of my soapbox.
LikeLike
If some of you are just now understanding much of the Indy and state cult there, welcome to Indiana, the Florida of the north. “Indiana Wants Me” was never a song of inclusiveness. The top business in Indy keeps this going through their leadership that ran many professionals out who I was acquainted with in the 70s. Nice to see their basic sick politics haven’t changed at home or nationally.
LikeLike
It’s a very interesting state. They have a group of several hundred Native Americans there that are all insomniacs. Some claim they were born that way..and some claim it is learned behavior. They’re known as the as the Indian nap-less five hundred.
LikeLike
Sorry to have reviewed this so late. Way to go, Ug. Pun us to death. 🙂
LikeLike
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
LikeLike
This law in Indiana virtually mirrors the Federal RFRA legislation. The only differences are that it incorporates new language matching recent Supreme Court cases. Has the Federal law caused unimaginable horrors on the LGBT community?
LikeLike
Forgot to copy this review: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/03/26/comparing-the-federal-rfra-and-the-indiana-rfra/
LikeLike
Indiana has more of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate groups than Mississippi.
LikeLike
Just to be fair the Southern Poverty law Center is a hate group.
LikeLike
Hating haters is all the same hate ain’t it? I always thought that mlk should have been held to task for being anti-white. I mean the white man had gone to quite a bit of trouble to put things the way they were and he comes along all hatin’ on it. Mlk was racist to racists!!! I call that a wash at best. Through in the communism and the adultery and clearly Lester Maddox and George Wallace should have come out on top.
Just for 3rd’s enjoyment: you’re a friggin retard!
LikeLike
Thanks! Your ability to level ad hominem attacks in avoidance of debate speaks volumes.
LikeLike
Just because I am curious, who exactly does the SPLC hate?
LikeLike
Abigail Turner and her shipmates.
LikeLike
It’s a good place to donate your money to, Jack.
LikeLike
Derek, you’re attitude is wrecking your message. MLK was a great man and as an older white male, I can tell you that most everyone believes that. Of course, you can always find bigots on both sides of the fence if that’s all you’re interested in doing. I’ll tell you this..I never head MLK call anyone “a friggin retard” or any other name. He was a devout Christian. I would love to see his “dream” come true, but as long as we all worry about the splinter in other’s eye without first dealing with the tree limb in our own eye, we’ll always be “hatin”..Try looking ahead and working with others, accepting their faults…and your own.
LikeLike
Mlk was trying to win so calling names wasn’t part of the plan. I assure you that he thought there were plenty of friggin’ retards. As for me, I’m not trying to right 400 years of abuse and set my people on a path to freedom. I’m just trying to call ’em as a see ’em. See the difference? Im not jesus or gandhi or mlk or Mandela and don’t want to be. I want to call you stupid. That will stand or fall on its own merit. I think, objectively speaking, that I’m on firm ground.
LikeLike
Dude. “Retard”? Really? You have some good points. But you’re washing them out with your style and language.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
The +1 is for ellis’ post..not my own.
LikeLike
If I had a yo-yo, it would help me keep up with agreein’, agreein to agreein, agreein to disagree, Agreein to disagreein with agreein , … and would explain why my emotions to all youall’s bloggins keeps changing from post to post. Dang!
Anyone want a cookie?
LikeLike
Has the NCAA solved its own culture problems with freedom that they now believe they have a bully pulpit? I think they need to remove the plank from their own eye before they start pointing out the planks or specks in other organizations’ eyes.
Calling Jeffrey Kessler – we need you to report to duty of burning it to the ground.
LikeLike
Am I in the right room? 😉
LikeLike
Who is moanin now? 🙂
LikeLike
Now that’s funny! Is that at an Auburn recruiting trip?
LikeLike
So as someone whose office is about a ten minute walk from the Indiana State Capitol, and as someone who has actually read the law, I thought I would give my two cents. I count myself among those who are concerned that this serves as a dog whistle to religious conservatives to look for opportunities to discriminate when they otherwise wouldn’t be thinking about it. The Senators who proposed it (one of whom is my own; no I didn’t vote for him) are among the most right wing of the Republican party (they proposed a bill to allow the teaching of creationism in schools last year) and are generally well known homophobes.. it also serves as a dog whistle to the left looking for an opportunity to make a big fuss about discrimination when there probably isn’t going to be any, or at least much of it.
Quite frankly, I don’t think this bill is going to have much effect at all. First, under the Indiana constitution, people have the right to free exercise of their religion, and the test for an infringement of that is pretty similar to that under the statute. Second, with the exception of 12 municipalities/counties, homosexuals aren’t a protected class in Indiana. thus, people could discriminate against homosexuals even before this statute, and could do it for any reason they chose (except in those 12 localities, of course). I haven’t heard of tremendous discrimination against homosexuals up here prior to this statute, and I doubt we’ll have much after it. Third, even if people want to challenge the localities with non-discrimination provisions, they have a hard row to hoe. They have to show that they have been substantially burdened because of their religious belief. The burden of proof then shifts to the government entity to show that it has a compelling interest in infringing that religious belief and that it is the least restrictive means of doing so. Generally, courts have found non-discrimination a compelling interest, and such prohibitions on discrimination are the least restrictive means. I think it will be good for lawyers (of which I am one), but I don’t think it will be all that good for governments who have to pay to defend these lawsuits.
I am not a supporter of this legislation for several reasons. First, I think it is redundant of the protections afforded under the Indiana constitution for religious freedom. Second, I think it serves as a dog whistle for legitimizing animus towards homosexuals. Particularly, I think it was pursued because religious conservatives up here were upset that a) the state constitutional amendment on gay marriage failed in the legislature last year and b) the federal courts legalized gay marriage, Third, the statute does not carve out any exception for non-discrimination, making it appear that its proponents are wanting to use it as a means of discriminating against homosexuals. Fourth, I don’t like statutes that afford protection for religious beliefs to corporations and LLCs, which are fictitious entities under the law created to shield their owners from liability. If a fictitious entity is simply a proxy for your religious beliefs, it probably doesn’t have the requisite separateness to shield you from liability for its acts. Finally, as this post shows, regardless of the effect on religious people or homosexuals, and regardless of the number of states which have similar acts (19), this makes Indiana look very poor to the rest of the world, and makes it look like a backwards and unfriendly place to do business.
Indianapolis, where I live and practice, has a non-discrimination ordinance in place, and has had it since 2005. I hope that it survives any legal challenges. Personally, despite the legislature, I rather love living here. it’s a great city and a great place to live and work. Hopefully, this will all turn out to be a whole lot of nothing.
LikeLike
Given we’re about to go down the same road in Georgia, I hope you’re right.
Thanks for the background info.
LikeLike
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/27/3639808/georgia-religious-liberty-bill-dies-glorious-death/
LikeLike
FOTB Ed Kilgore has a nice follow up to that.
LikeLike
I live in Indiana as well (no shock based on my screen name). I’m appalled at the “fire-aim-ready” mentality spread by misinformation and more than a little disinformation. Here is the actual text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was just passed in Indiana:
“Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
But a few knee-jerk business leaders in other states are vowing not to do business in Indiana now even though their home states have the same/similar law. Incredible. I detest discrimination. However, we live in a diverse society with multiple human rights that will inevitably bump against one another on the fringes of difference. The Target in the city in which I live has a sign at one check-out aisle informing shoppers to use another lane if they are buying pork products because the cashier is Muslim. I got no problem with such accomodations.
LikeLike
I found this tidbit from the link to Ed Kilgore’s piece instructive:
The bill’s proponents objected to that. Surprise, surprise.
LikeLike
Indiana’s law was intentionally aligned with the federal statute. I can’t comment on what’s going on in Georgia.
LikeLike
It’s similar.
LikeLike
I ain’t touching this with a 10 foot pole! Erect or not.
LikeLike
It’s Friday guys… why so serious?
LikeLike
LikeLike
The NCAA has a right to be concerned.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2011-02-25/corporate-champions-and-partners
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html
Their 3 biggest sponsors are all on record as supporting marriage equality.
LikeLike
Even such a maligned historical figure as Hitler said that what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business and no one else’s. Certain political parties who hope to command the presidency one day should leave abortion and gay issues to the individual. However, I do not think those particular parties are smart enough,
LikeLike
Sorry, but another screed is due here. The political parties do not take political positions based on their subjective rightness or wrongness no matter how sincere they may want you to think they are. Political parties (and the vast number of politicians themselves) are interested in political power, period. They want to get to 50% +1. That is everything. If 89% of the people would vote for any politician who would screw a goat, there would be a ton of goat screwing. There would be commercials about how Politician A doesn’t truly like screwing the goats and only came to goat screwing late in the game while politician B has been screwing goats since before it was cool and he’s really, really skilled at it. Not only are politicians shameless, we want them shameless if they are to represent what we want as citizens. It is for this reason that, as a democracy, that we get the government we deserve. We voted for it. We aren’t victims of these asshole politicians, those assholes are a reflection of ourselves because we choose them. Rep. Gohmert wasn’t elected by intelligent people. He was elected by the morons in his district who probably think he’s pretty smart. And for Texas, he’s probably a friggin’ genius.
Those who don’t participate at all are worse. Their own apathy allows the morons on both ends of the spectrum to select the candidates for rest of us. If you don’t like the government we have you have only your fellow citizens to blame. Its not the politicians fault, They will do whatever we want them to each and every time.
LikeLike
I chuckle every time you call someone else stupid.
LikeLike
You are a “chucklehead” so there’s that. Look it up. The definition is quite ironic.
You’re the guy who called the splc a hate group. Genius you are.
Why don’t you regale me with your deconstruction of my description of the political system in America. Perhaps, with a little work, we can turn it into an article for publication in the economist?
Go ahead and give it a shot… chucklehead.
LikeLike
“He was elected by morons in his district….And for Texas, he’s probably a friggin” genius”…
This coming from someone who rides the high-horse of righting bigotry and non-prejudice.
I’ll certainly skip his remarks from now own. I not intrested in reading bigotry on a sports blog.
LikeLike
Are stupid people a protected class now? I must have missed that. Or are you saying the “Texan” is a discrete race? Not sure about that either. You might want to check with the eeoc on that one. If it is a lot of my fellow Alabamians are gonna fleece the American comedy industry and quick!
LikeLike
“Are stupid people a protected class now?”
Far be it from me to walk into the middle of a firefight but I believe it’s more of a coalition than a protected class:
“The Republican Party is a coalition of smart people trying to sound dumb and dumb people trying to sound smart;” (h/t Ed on Sophistry @ Gin and Tacos)
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2015/03/01/sophistry/
LikeLike
The better question: who did Jesus refuse to serve because he was afraid of their sins or because he simply found them morally repugnant?
I think the animus towards gays is silly. I think justifying that animus on Christian grounds is stupid. You are baking a cake, 90% of which on average will be consumed by heteros. You’re not getting into bed with them.
I have a student in my class who is in a polygamist relationship. It doesn’t stop me from teaching the class or cause me any emotional trauma, and I have to spend 3 hours a week for 18 weeks with her. I do’t understand what she’s doing with her life, but that’s none of my religious or professional business. I teach. I make the class a welcome place for her. It ain’t rocket science
LikeLike
“The better question: who did Jesus refuse to serve because he was afraid of their sins or because he simply found them morally repugnant?”
Maybe He just doesn’t like Indiana
LikeLike
You don’t have to look any further than the Bob Jones University case to see where this is going. Does your church refuse to preform a sacrament of it’s faith based on a matter that the State considers is discriminatory? If so the State will punish you for doing so by revoking the church’s tax exempt status. Now most people think that the States exemption from tax is a violation of the Court Invention of Separation of Church and State anyway so it’s easy to agree with it. But the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof;….”. This clause pretty much says the Government should stay out of religion period. Let’s see how the politicians handle the Roman Catholic Church when it refuses to perform same sex marriages. We live in interesting times.
LikeLike
I said I wasn’t going to do this but here I am. I can see both sides of the argument but …
Why is the burden on the baker? People argue that he doesn’t have to be in the business of baking wedding cakes and get out of that business if he won’t do what they think he should do. But can’t the homosexual couple be held to the same standard? Can’t they go see another baker if they cant anything out of that one?
I have seen the slippery slope mentioned in different ways and that certainly is dangerous. But if we say that that gay marriage is perfectly alright and perfectly natural and there is one polite position on the subject and everyone has to get on board, where does that end?
Now I saw that no constitutional right is absolute but where is line drawn? Say a guy decides to marry his dog and wants a wedding cake. How can he be denied service? I’m sure the liberal argument is, “oh that’s great Mike. Comparing homosexual marriage to beastiality. You’re a bigot. Nowhere near the same thing.” I’m not arguing that it is the same thing. Im asking where the line is? Because how can the same baker not be expected to provide the same service to the man and the dog? What is preventing him from having to do so? It can’t be the argument that, “marrying an animal isnt right or natural etc.” because to say so is to use the very same argument that you despise from those arguing against gay marriage. Where does it end?
LikeLike
“I’m overbooked and am unable to make your cake. You can try another bakery.”
LikeLike
Does his religion permit that? 🙂
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
Seriously, go back to my earlier example about the only pharmacist in a small town in West Texas. What do you suggest for a same-sex couple with an emergency?
LikeLike
Say a Klansman wants you to represent him in a legal matter that concerns his Klansmanship…Do you want to be compelled by the state to do it? He does have a constitutional right to be in the KKK. Be honest, Bluto. If I’m a lawyer I’ll tell him to go pound sand up his ass….would I be wrong?
LikeLike
I’m a real estate lawyer, so I’m not sure your hypothetical works. (Although I once closed the sale of a property owned by a former Grand Wizard, or whatever they called him, of the Klan.)
But I’ll say this in response – I fully supported the ACLU’s defense of the Klan’s right to march in Skokie, even though I found the Klan’s action detestable.
LikeLike
And I fully support the right of people to marry whomever they choose, but not their right to force me to celebrate it or even accomodate it.
On the other hand, if your are licensed by the (local, state, or fed) govt. to conduct business..that license is issued by and represents the intrests of all the citizens. It’s a tough question. Both sides need to use some common sense.
BTW..I think it’s “Grand Lizzard”.
LikeLike
Man I’m against forced gay celebratin’ law too man. They come by my house yesterday and said you’ll be at the gay marriage celebration or we gonna put yer sorry ass in jail. They sure did. Makin’ me go over there and sing and applaud and wearing a damn dress too. I mean it terrible ain’t it?
Seriously though does stupid know no bounds? I mean did the I have a dream speech say: I have a dream that one day little white boys will say “black power!” And that blacks are just better than white people?” Fuck no. Don’t make up shit that no one us making you do like you’re justifiably against that. It’s friggin’ stupid.
“That Obama can do that obamacare but that law forcing me to pray to Allah five times a day facing east? Man that like 3 prayers too many!” Please just shut up.
LikeLike
How is being a klansman and being gay the same? Isn’t that the same thing as saying: “if we can execute a murderer why not a damn mexican?” I wouldn’t serve someone who was rude, stunk, walked in wearing a nazi uniform…. The capacity to distinguish between unrelated things is very important here. If you think that people choose whether to blow a guy or not based on the same deliberative process that leads to you becoming a registered republican than fine, but that’s unique to be sure. Most of us are attracted to what we are attracted to and it’s difficult not to respond to it. Deciding whether to vote for Obama or Romney, at least for me is an entirely different process. But hey maybe Romney gave you a boner and you were done. That’s between you and your boner.
LikeLike
I’m not suggesting that they are the same. I’m saying that..by law..they both have the “right” to be what they are…So do you have the “right” to refuse to do business with them based on your objection to what they are?
If you say “No”, then be prepared to be the DJ at their annual bash.And try to wear a clean sheet.
It’s a tough question and just because we may feel emotional about it either way, we should try to maintain some measure of graceful objectivity in our discussion. I personally see both sides and just have to say it’s a tough call.
LikeLike
You have the right not to be in business. If you decide to be an innkeeper, you decide not to discriminate. This is NOT a tough call. I have the right to refuse military service and the government has the right to put my ass in prison for it. Religious freedom is so respected in this country that I can opt out IF my objection to military service is founded upon it. If you want to search for unfairness and so-called “superior” rights based on choices, then start there. Start at tax-exempt status for religious organizations. Note that I agree with these exemptions, but i get plenty annoyed at the so-called war on Christianity, religion and Christmas bullshit.
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter about the religious beliefs when it comes to service to our country. My jeep driver was a Conscientious Objector, along with several others in Med Corps Battalions while on active duty. When it comes to duty, these people have been observed to extend their courage beyond that of duty. Their combat records can attest to that.
And, after range qualification as “Expert” with a 45 that was required to drive the jeep while transporting cash on Payday, I asked my driver “Why?” he would qualify to shoot a robber since he was a Conscientious Objector and would shoot no one. His great American reply was close to , “Well, you and I both know that, Lt , but the robber doesn’t know that. I’m adept of loading and controling this weapon, Sir. I’ll load’em, you shoot’em!”
Real Conscientious Objectors have found that Service and Country are compatible and justified of their beliefs.
‘Course these guys wuz drafted.
LikeLike
Ad hominem attacks and now straw men too? You are on a roll! I wish I didn’t have a tee time to make because this is entertaining. Later and Go Dawgs!
LikeLike
Perhaps there is a line somewhere between wedding cake and medical care. I think it’s unreasonable for a baker in a one-baker town to be compelled to make a wedding cake against his religious beliefs, but I also find it unreasonable for a doctor in a one-doctor town to deny medical care on religious ground. Sure, that doctor could claim it’s against their religion to save someone’s life because of their religion, but seriously…name that religion.
LikeLike
Comparing gay marraige to marrying a dog is so patently stupid I can’t see how anyone with a fucking brain can’t see it. Here it is mike: you show me a dog who can sign a friggin’ marraige license application and we’ll talk.
Consenting adults can make choices about how they want to live. You can’t let two adults of opposite sex marry while denying two adults of the same sex that opportunity. Why? Because it’s discrumination for no good reason.
Protecting a non-consenting dog from being sexually assaulted is a different matter, get it? The fact he may like it is not consent. Don’t believe me? Go feel up a mentally incompetent at the hospital and tell me your defense was that he/she liked it. Doesn’t matter because true consent can’t be achieved.
Likewise the comparison to polygamy fails. The state says two. It’s two for everyone. White, purple, gay and yes mike even stupid so you’re in. There is no discrimination against three because all are treated equally under law that three is right out. Now, if Utah said Mormons can be three but not baptists again we’re discriminating for no good reason. Got it?
LikeLike
I didn’t say they were the same. I think anybody with a brain can see what I was saying. If you are gay and want to get married I’m not standing in your way. Your assholishness is totally uncalled for Derek. Have a big hot bowl of go fuck yourself. Got it? Good.
LikeLike
Ummmm,,, tasty. Hot bowl of fuck you is very, very good.
You said:
“What is preventing him from having to do so? It can’t be the argument that, “marrying an animal isnt right or natural etc.” because to say so is to use the very same argument that you despise from those arguing against gay marriage. Where does it end?”
You drew the comparison, not me. Whether you compared them as the “same” or not you compared the arguments as being related to one another. Its a stupid comparison and the arguments for homosexual marriage are not the same as those for marrying two or more people, or for marrying animals or even close. Where does it end? It ends when people stop being stupid, stupid.
LikeLike
Oh. Well you go ahead and stop and maybe the rest will follow suit,
LikeLike
I figured I would be redirected there. Lol. I’m not making an argument either way really. Im a conservative in how I live my own life and what I think is right most of the time but politically I’m a libertarian. I want the goobermemt to let me keep my money and not hassle me. To your question, I do t think they’re the same. I dont believe anyone has suggested refusal of medical care, emergency services etc. on religious grounds. A wedding is something altogether different. And how many homosexual couples do we really think there are in west Texas? I mean come on. (Kidding)
LikeLike
Au contraire, my friend.
LikeLike
I walked right into that one. Not exactly the same issue though. Again, a baker not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is not the same as cops refusing to help them, firefighters refusing to come to their house, etc. I of course would be against that. But I don’t believe the person owning his or her own bakery should be strong armed into making a cake for a gay couple and the gay couple can go find another bakery a lot easier than they can find another police department etc. I don’t give a shit if Rick and Steve want to get married. The idea is bizzare to me, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be stopped or that the gooberment should be able to tell them they can’t. But I also dont think a Christian minister should have to perform the ceremony. Now if they want to go to the courthouse, nobody should be able to stop them. I’m all for tolerance, but I’m not for forced acceptance.
LikeLike
The problem is that if we let people act as bigots it creates all sorts of problems that are unnecessary. Freedom is a great thing but when you decide to engage in the marketplace you are voluntarily giving up your right to act bigoted. You can be bigoted. You can say bigoted things. But you can’t act bigoted. You can choose not to engage in the market. That’s plenty of freedom for everyone.
I agree than no minister should be forced to perform a religious ceremony, but I can’t get a priest to marry me in a Catholic Church simply because I’m not catholic. So religious freedom doesn’t die here. But governments and private industry have to respect everyone equally for those traits they have no choice in. And some, like religion, that are exclusively a choice are respected too. You can’t deny Mormons or Catholics or baptists hotel rooms or a seat at a restaurant. And that’s a good thing.
I remember in the 1970s and early 1980s when you’d see black families picnicking off the interstates because of the residual from Jim crow. That’s pretty sad and unneccesary and as much as I love freedom if that means freedom to treat fellow citizens like dirt at a hotel or restaurant because of who and what they are, then you are denying freedom to those who are discriminated against and who deserve to be free just like everyone else. If this forces bigots out of the public and into the closet, then I’m all for it.
LikeLike
Oh I love this. Can’t let the, act as bigots. How are you going to stop anyone from having a particular viewpoint regardless of how ugly it is? You can’t of course.
You want bigots forced out of the public and into the closet? Where do you think they can do more harm? Out in the open where all can see them or operating in darkness?
Dumbass. Shut the fuck up.
LikeLike
Who said that the law should prevent a viewpoint or an expression, dumb ass? I never said that dumb ass. I consistently said over and over that you can think and say whatever the hell you want stupid. Go back and look. What I said was that a hotel owner shouldn’t be able to decline customers because he doesn’t like something about them that we’ve decided is a protected classification. Be careful out there though because there is nothing preventing anyone from not serving dumb asses. Look on the bright side though, you could found the National Association of Dumb Asses and convince people dumbassery ought to get formal legal protection. You already have the “they can’t help it argument” in place so who knows you could make the world safe, and accommodating, for dumb asses.
Now dumb ass go back and look at the KKK marches on Washington in the 1920’s and tell me why we were better off with that display than without it, dumb ass. Yes, you want racists and bigots to go away. What the fuck do you want thousands marching in the street screaming racial epitaphs? You are a serious dumb ass.
LikeLike
What is a racial epitaph? When so,embody writes the N word on your grave? Yeah but I’m the dumb ass. Ok.
LikeLike
A business only has one purpose: to make money. If the business owner decides to take actions that creates negative cash flow, so be it. Should the same baker be penalized for refusing to cook other foods? I mean, where does government stop with its controlled freedom?
This is all pretty ridiculous because our freedoms are supposed to allow for personal choice. The only reason that a personal choice should be penalized is if the choice harms another.
Here’s an idea: don’t eat at the bakery if you disagree with its business decisions. But, please don’t impose your personal moral compass on the business owner. And yes…that extends to small drug stores in West Texas and racist business owners in the 60’s.
LikeLike
You don’t even see the contradiction there. Beautiful.
LikeLike
In fairness, I believe he’s implying that the said pharmacist in west Texas might give the gay couple wrong/bad medication if they patronize his practice (i.e. “harms” them), hence they should look elsewhere and quit imposing their moral compass on the poor pharmacist.
As a business owner, I learned something new today: My one purpose (and one purpose alone) is to make money. Ugh, suddenly I feel like a worthless, non-contributing member of society. But in fairness, he does make a great point about the said baker being forced to cook other foods; otherwise he’ll be punished.
With that said, the only reason why I’m against such the law is so that I won’t ultimately be forced to sell something that I don’t currently sell and certainly don’t want to. Like sex toys, KISS memorabilia, and Apple products.
LikeLike
“If I am not allowed to discriminate, then I am being discriminated against.” It’s perfect in its symmetry, you have to admit that.
LikeLike
No dummy. You can’t discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics. Being a racist or a bigot isn’t a characteristic that is legally protected. You act like you can’t see the difference between being discriminated against for being black or being discriminated against for being illiterate. You cant apply for a job, look at the application and say “I can’t read this” and say the boss hates you cause you can’t read.
LikeLike
Your sarcasm meter seems to be a bit of a whack today, among other things.
LikeLike
You are absolutely correct. Sorry. Moving too fast. And probably too angrily as you’ve noted. Sorry ASEF. My bad. I’m a fucking dumb ass sometimes you know.
LikeLike
No problem. I figured it was a misread. Happens to.me in the heat of the moment too.
LikeLike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins
They should’ve left this business owner alone! I mean,w here does government stop with its controlled freedom?
LikeLike
“I mean, where does government stop with its controlled freedom?”
There’s no space available in Indiana
LikeLike
To Whom it may concern…Anger and bitterness towards your fellow man is not helping you or anyone else. Please get help. You don’t have to live with this awful burden. Most of us are Dawg fans. None of us are perfect..including you.
Now about the running game…the backs are there,..if the offensive line is even a little above average, it’s going to be awsome. I wouldn’t want to be a defensive back in the fourth quarter after my d-linemen and backers have quit…(like L’ville in the bowl game).
LikeLike
We need a center dawg!!! An uglydawg one!.
LikeLike
No one has explained how baking a cake for a paying client violates a religious belief.
Does said baker also refuse to bake cakes for people remarrying? Or the birthdays of children born out of wedlock? Does he do background checks and tefuse to serve all convicted felons?
I am just trying to understand the standard here that requires legal protection. Can someone articulate the danger to the baker? That requires a law to protect him/her?
LikeLike
Maybe that same person can explain why a gay couple needs legal protection to get a wedding cake, and justify the law compelling someone to do that against their beliefs.
LikeLike
Discrimination law is a legal and secular standard, not a religious one. What religious belief prohibits the baking of a cake? Bible, Quran, Tanakh – I can’t find anything on cake baking, unless you want to get into kosher issues, which would be a cake no one would want to buy anyway.
So, we have some “religious belief” that requires a legal protection. All I am asking is for someone to define said “religious belief.” Put it into words. Shouldn’t be hard.
LikeLike
Hey, Passover’s coming up! You’d be surprised at what kind of Kosher cakes get bought. 😉
LikeLike
I will check out McFarlands to see if they have anything.
Just made me think: can they refuse to serve Jews under that law?
LikeLike
They sure didn’t need protection from being discriminated against until state legislatures started saying they could be discriminated against.
LikeLike
I believe it was because it was a wedding cake which, in their mind, they were somehow participating in or condoning a marriage against their beliefs. I don’t believe there was ever a claim that they simply would not sell regular ole cakes to gays.
LikeLike
Or to Mr.Tu, too.
LikeLike
“UPDATE: The Big Ten weighs in.”
“The Big Ten Conference and its member institutions believe in promoting an inclusive environment in which athletic competition can operate free from discrimination. The conference is aware of the bill that was recently signed into law in the state of Indiana and will further review its impact at the next scheduled meetings of its administrators, presidents and chancellors.”
It’s a stampede now that the Big Ten cats have weighed in
LikeLike
Porn shots of stampedin’ Pussies? Isn’t animalism against the Constitution in that state?
When was that “next scheduled meeting”? Next Fall?
Besides, I don’t believe shit if Delany doesn’t say it.
LikeLike
I saw a video on youtube several years ago of a guy taking a KKK outfit to a dry cleaners owned by a black guy. He almost got beat up and was chased out of the store.
Should the owner be forced to serve him?
LikeLike
I once liked this blog when it dealt with the Dawgs……..but I keep seeing more of this crap on here. Dang!
LikeLike
You might as well learn to live with it because it clearly ain’t going anywhere. This is what this blog is now.
LikeLike
Guess I will go back to looking brother
LikeLike
Mike, its the off-season, man.
LikeLike
Could anyone use a cookie? Fresh baked in the nick of time!
LikeLike