If Arizona bill becomes law, will NFL move Super Bowl?

The NFL has moved a Super Bowl out of Arizona before over civil rights issues, and if new anti-gay legislation becomes law, the league will have another decision to make

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has until Saturday to either veto, sign or let become law a bill that would allow businesses in her state to deny service to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people based on the religious beliefs of the business owner. The National Football League is among those watching closely.

Super Bowl XLIX is scheduled for next February 1 at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. The NFL has stopped short of saying the game could be moved elsewhere if the legislation becomes law, but the league has moved a Super Bowl out of Arizona before, and the implicit threat floats invisibly but menacingly in the desert sky.

The controversy comes as the NFL is readying to welcome its first openly gay player in Michael Sam, the Missouri linebacker who came out this month, and just as Jason Collins played his first game for the NBA's Brooklyn Nets as the first openly gay active player in the nation's four major sports leagues.

"The NFL is putting a lot of pressure on the governor (behind the scenes) to veto the bill, from what I can tell," Sam's public relations representative, Howard Bragman, told USA TODAY Sports. "I know the host committee has said, 'Veto it.' And I know the Arizona Cardinals have said, 'Veto it.' I know the NFL is very concerned and watching this very closely."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said by email: "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

Comment from others is plentiful. Delaware Gov. Jack Markell said the NFL should consider moving the game if the bill becomes law. The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said passage of the bill would "deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential." And Wade Davis, a gay former NFL player who is executive director of the LGBT activist group You Can Play, said he also hopes that the NFL will move the game should the bill become law.

"You know why?" Davis said. "Because let's say that Michael Sam is on the team that's going to the Super Bowl – what is he supposed to do? Not go around and eat? And there are other people in the front office who may have to work in Arizona for the Super Bowl. But I'm a firm believer that the NFL's going to do the right thing."

Asked if the NFL should suspend Cardinals home games if the bill becomes law, Davis said, "I don't know. I would hope that they would."

"But I think that we also have to do a good job of not just pointing the finger at the NFL," he said. "There's a baseball team there. There's a basketball team there. There are corporations there. We should put pressure on Coke and Pepsi and everyone and not just expect the NFL, as one separate entity, to do all the heavy lifting."

The potential collision between state politics and the National Football League comes in the form of SB 1062. (SB stands for Senate Bill, not Super Bowl.) The bill comes out of a New Mexico legal battle involving a wedding photographer who told a lesbian couple that she would not photograph their commitment ceremony in 2006 because it clashed with her religious beliefs. The photographer was sued for sexual-orientation discrimination and lost in the New Mexico Supreme Court.

The Arizona bill was written by the conservative-advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom. The bill would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against lawsuits and supporters say it would tweak existing state religious-freedom laws intended to ensure that individuals and business owners are not forced to go against their own beliefs.

Many prominent leaders in the Arizona business community oppose the bill. They sent a letter to Brewer urging her to veto the bill because it would expose businesses to a higher risk of lawsuits and hurt efforts to attract workers.

"The legislation is also already clearly having a negative effect on our tourism industry, one of the largest sectors of the economy," said the letter signed by presidents of several business groups, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

ANOTHER ARIZONA DISPUTE

It's back to the future for Arizona. In 1990, then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue threatened to move the 1993 Super Bowl out of Arizona if the state refused to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Voters turned thumbs down on the holiday and the NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.

Arizona subsequently voted to recognize MLK Day in 1992 and the 1996 Super Bowl was played in Tempe's Sun Devil Stadium.

In that case, the NFL had three years lead time to relocate the Super Bowl from Arizona. The coming Super Bowl is about 11 months away. Is that enough time to make a switch should the NFL choose to do so?

Former NFL executive Jim Steeg, director of the Super Bowl for 26 years, thinks it is. "If we want, anything can be done," he said, "given what it is."

When the events of 9/11 pushed the Super Bowl back a week after the 2001 season, Super Bowl host New Orleans had a conflict because of a national automobile dealers convention. Steeg said the NFL considered moving the game to Miami with talks as late as October – "so that gave us 120 days to try to put that together" – before the auto dealers swapped dates with the NFL.

Steeg said he thinks Tagliabue's threat to move the game caused some Arizona voters to vote against the holiday. "It's a unique base of people," Steeg said. "They're the wild West. And they don't want to be told what to do."

He thinks Arizona voters changed their minds by 1992 because "they saw all the impact of the Super Bowl. And it wasn't just the Super Bowl, it was all the businesses were scared. Because their primary business is hospitality and travel and entertainment. When conventions started pulling out, it was a whole other thing."

The current situation differs as it is a senate bill rather than a public referendum. And the clock will tick all week as Brewer decides what to do.

PRESSURE 'ON MANY LEVELS'

Bragman, whose firm Fifteen Minutes represented Sam at the NFL scouting combine, said among the factors that have energized the gay community of late are the Russian anti-gay laws that were one of the central controversies of the Sochi Games.

"If the governor signs this bill, the NFL would be under tremendous pressure to move this on many, many levels," Bragman said. "I just hope the governor is wise enough to see that this is a really unfortunate bill, a really sad precedent."

You Can Play is dedicated to taking homophobia out of sports. One of its co-founders is Philadelphia Flyers scout Patrick Burke, son of Brian Burke, president of hockey operations for the Calgary Flames. Davis is You Can Play's executive director.

"What excites me is that the NFL's already issued a statement that they're keeping a close eyeball on this," Davis said while citing the Super Bowl that was moved out of Arizona in the 1990s. "So, there's a precedent there, and the NFL understands it's important in playing a role in the idea of supporting human rights. It's really exciting to be a family member of the NFL and to be attached to an organization that I really believe takes this seriously."

The NFL partners with You Can Play on its "High Five Initiative," through which pro athletes visit LGBT youth organizations.

Davis said it will take "a groundswell of corporations and local businesses," not just the NFL and the promise of a Super Bowl, "to push Jan Brewer to make sure that legislation is not enacted."

He said the Arizona bill, and others under consideration in other states, are not all that surprising in the push and pull of history.

"For some reason, it's a part of our culture that if we have progress in one direction, there's a regression in another," Davis said. "What I find is that we really have a tough time as a country just seeing humanity and seeing that everyone in this country is each other's mirror and they reflect back on ourselves.

"If I look at you, I will see more alike than I will see different in you. I think we just haven't done a good job in society of seeing each other as brothers and sisters."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl...league/5821799/

I disagree. They would be longshots to win the primary, I grant you that, but I think they would stand better chance(paul in particular) to win the general than somebody like Huckabee. The GOP has ran moderate/progressives for my entire life. Bush was a big gov't guy, McCain was a big gov't guy, and Romney was a big gov't guy(thought not as big as the first two).
You know who doesn't win anymore? Establishment people who love the status quo. Huckabee doesn't inspire anyone. You know who does? Rand Paul. I know many people my age are attracted to him and his libertarian views.
The good microcosm of this is the KY senate race. The establishment is still pulling for McConnell, because he's more moderate, but Matt Bevin actually polls better against the Democrat challenger than McConell does. The GOP thinks they can out progressive the democrats, and you strictly can't. You have to out freedom them, and that my friend is how you win.

Quote:

You know who doesn't win anymore? Establishment people who love the status quo.

What are you basing that statement on?

That's primarily who wins. People say they're tired of it, but they pull the same levers year after year.

As for Rand Paul, he's aligned himself too closely with the whole Tea Party thing, and that's an association that won't play well in a general election.

If there's any time to play a long shot hand, it's in an open field without an incumbent, but I don't see the GOP taking the big swing.

I'm basing it on the last 6 years(last 4 in particular). Obama was not considered "establishment", McCain and Romney both were. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz all beat establishment candidates in the primaries, then beat establishment dems in the general.
Also I pointed out in many cases, Tea Party candidates were often favored against the Dem opponent, but the GOP was scared to lose, so they went establishment. America is becoming more and more libertarian every day. The GOP needs to embrace it NOW while they are still the perfered partners. If they continue to keep them at arms reach, they will lose them to the Dems and you will lose yet another generation of voters.

McCain was the best MAN of the bunch.. But in general, they are all a bunch of ding dongs looking out for those that get them elected.. I'm not picking on them for that, most all politicians are that way.

I guess I just don't like politicians. LOL

Obama is pretty "Establishment'-friendly and status quo. I guess you could make an argument against that in his initial run for the nomination, but he's been pretty status quo across the board since then.

Guys like Paul and Cruz would get slaughtered in a general election. I mean, just murdered. Joe freaking Biden could probably beat either or them, with ease.

You and I will disagree on that my friend. I think Rand Paul would do very well in a general election. Do you know how many libertarian votes the GOP misses out on every year? A large amount vote the libertarian candidate, and others vote for Dems. Things like gay marriage push libertarians away from the GOP. People like Rand Paul could pull those libertarians to the GOP.
Many conservatives sat home last election(the polls show it), because they weren't excited. Huckabee doesn't excited anyone, Romney didn't excite anyone, McCain didn't excite anyone. You need young, energetic people with new ideas.
I heard this same stump speech in '12. "The Tea Party needs to shut up, Romney can win, nobody else can. Santorum/Perry will get destroyed. etc." Give people something to get excited about.
I think you are really underselling the popularity of the Tea Party. Regardless Dems will get 40% and the GOP will get 40%, independents will get 2%, that leaves 18% to fight over. That 18% is a large part libertarian, and that percentage will only grow as people get tired of large gov't progressives on both sides.

I believe what you will gain in one direction, you will lose in the other. Many people who consider themselves as moderate, gravitate towards people like Romney and McCain. While you may gain some votes in the direction you indicated, you will lose votes in the other direction.

It would be interesting to see though....

Quote:

I heard this same stump speech in '12. "The Tea Party needs to shut up, Romney can win, nobody else can. Santorum/Perry will get destroyed. etc."

Are you trying to imply that Santorum or Perry wouldn't have been destroyed?

That was the line then, and it was pretty much correct. The GOP didn't have much of a shot at unseating Obama. Romney was pretty much their best option, though that was a great deal due to them letting their primaries turn into a rodeo.

Quote:

I think you are really underselling the popularity of the Tea Party

They're extremely unpopular, as far as viability in a general election goes.

Most of the population either views them as ignorant racists or toothless idealists.

They appeal to a small but fervent base. Those types of scenarios can pump people up, but it's not viable in the long term.

Not saying any of that is right or wrong...but it is correct.

Quote:

Quote:

I heard this same stump speech in '12. "The Tea Party needs to shut up, Romney can win, nobody else can. Santorum/Perry will get destroyed. etc."

Are you trying to imply that Santorum or Perry wouldn't have been destroyed?

I remember, that wasn't the line at the time. The line was "Obama is an unpopular president. Romney can unseat him easily, because he's moderate. The others are too extreme." I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. If you keep voting the same bums in, you will keep getting the same garbage out. The bad part is, the best president of my lifetime was Clinton

Quote:

I think you are really underselling the popularity of the Tea Party

They're extremely unpopular, as far as viability in a general election goes.

Most of the population either views them as ignorant racists or toothless idealists.

They appeal to a small but fervent base. Those types of scenarios can pump people up, but it's not viable in the long term.

Not saying any of that is right or wrong...but it is correct.

The people that view them like that tend to be the elitists in the parties. Libertarians don't see them that way, independents don't see them that way. The people who do are either the ones who listen to the GOP establishment who fears them, or the left wing that thinks their smarter than them.

PDR i respectfully disagree, but not on the premise you think.

I personally don't think it matters Tea Party, Repub, Dem, even independent.

what will matter is who talks the best...the Tea Party hasn't introduced anyone who is a good orator...a Good speak.

Rand Paul is that "good speaker" Rand Paul IMO has the uncanny ability of being able to sell himself...Rand Paul is "likeable" There are lots of so called "minorities" in his home state that voted for him....it was part of the reason he won.

Rand Paul won't say anything stupid or allow the media to bailt him into saying anything stupid because this guy, unlike most politicians and the Tea Party in particular, is very smart...Rand Paul is as sharp as a tac.

Rand Paul is also a bit more liberal then his father was, and that resonated with his voters in his home state.

If Rand Paul decides to run.....the fact that he is a good speaker, a likeable guy, and a guy that wont put his foot in his mouth, and a guy that has no scandals or soundbites for the media to use against him, has a very real chance of winning.

the only question is.,..will the crooked primary process allow him to win...thats the number one question....

Honestly, if Paul would win the primary...he would eat any of the Dem nominees alive in a televised debate because the dude is so darn smart and so good at getting his points across and explaining in manners average everyday people can understand(his dad wasn't very good at this)but Rand is.

I guess only time will tell, but Rand isn't the everyday Tea Party guy....he is very likeable....IMO the only candidate i feel would be close to his quality is that Bobby Jindel gov of Louisanna...he is as conservative as they come, and the Dems couldn't use race against him....which is always their number one card. He could also very well win.

Rand Paul is a good guy, but no way he gets close to the Presidential race. Him and his father started the Tea Party movement, and unfortunately it backfired on them with their unintended alignment with Reagan Republicans/Neo-Cons. If Sarah Palin with her libertarian backers and John McCain couldn't beat Obama then no libertarian will. Mainly because libertarian policy sounds horrible to the general public. The only way they could ever win a presidential election is if Jill Stein was their only competition, and maybe not even then.

Rand Paul believes we didn't need The Civil Rights Act.

That says enough about his chances.

I have no idea how anyone could say that the Tea Party has somehow become co-opted by the neo-cons. lol People get mad because the Tea Party tries to cut spending, or refuses to raise the debt ceiling without corresponding cuts, against the wishes of the Republican leadership, yet somehow they are pawns of the leadership?

There would be no need for the Tea Party if the Republicans hadn't become a party of neo-cons, and in fact if they hadn't moved so close to Democrats on so many issues that the only difference becomes some social issues that most people don't care all that much about.

Now I am not going to pretend that the Tea Party has been perfect, because it hasn't been. They should stick to the principles they campaign on much harder. They should say that they ran, and won, on making government smaller, and cutting spending, and that's exactly what they are going to do. Unfortunately, there are far better politicians on the other sides (Republicans and Democrats) who push a message better, and who create public opinion better. (and yes, they create it)

Now, that all said, they should be willing to negotiate, but negotiation has to be a 2 way street. Reagan compromised with a Democrat Congress and got major tax cuts through Congress. He gave on smaller issues to get his priorities through. That is the way the Tea Party should approach it. "We'll go along with this, but we want this other in return." The things they give on should be consistent with their beliefs. The problem with the way things are right now is that the Republicans want to give on everything and then try to fight a few major battles. They should resist the things that are fringe, using those as smaller negotiation pieces, and fight the major battles to the death. They should go full PR mode on those items. Unfortunately, the Republican establishment is weak, and they think that if they can just make people "like them", then they'll be able to win. However, becoming "Democrat Light" doesn't do them any good. If people want a Democrat, they'll vote for one.

Of course, it really doesn't seem to matter anymore. We haven't passed a budget in what ..... 5 years? Laws are enacted and/or changed with the stroke of a pen by the President. Laws are violated, and the Republicans say and do nothing about it, because they don't want to give up that power if/when they take back over.

I don't see a way out of this mess until and unless the 2 major Parties merge, and force the emergence of a new political party that is actually a conservative party. Right now it's often way too hard to tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

Because the Koch Brothers are neocons and help support a majority of the tea party. It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.

Quote:

Because the Koch Brothers are neocons and help support a majority of the tea party. It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.

In what way?

I guess Guantanamo ...... maybe ...... but that has moved so far from the public eye that it's been forgotten.

What have the Democrats moved on in the past 6 years? What have they compromised on? Where have they moved towards the Republicans?

I am just really curious, because I find it fascinating.

I am also really fascinated at how PR works in a Presidential election.

John McCain was the face of compromise and giving in prior to running for President. He tried, a little, to toughen up to make himself look better, but he is, by nature, a guy who gives to get along.

Somehow he was turned into a right wing lunatic who was so extreme that he makes Ted Cruz and Rand Paul look like flaming liberals.

To me he was far to left a candidate for President.

Then the Republicans ran Mitt Romney, an East Coast governor from one of the more liberal states in America. He tried to be a stronger conservative, and tried to convince people that he was, but in the end he was what he was ..... which was a center (at best) type candidate.

I would rather see the Republicans actually run a strong conservative candidate, running on cutting spending and getting the country back on sound financial footing. (if that's even possible anymore) We have blown up the deficit under the past 2 Presidents, but especially since the Democrats took back control of Congress.

The Republicans are afraid to be what they say they are. They are afraid people won't like tham, but I think that they come off as wimps, scared to stand up for themselves, and what they profess to believe in.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

That's a pretty decent site explaining it. If you wish to look further there's a lot of articles published about it.

Quote:

The Republicans are afraid to be what they say they are. They are afraid people won't like tham, but I think that they come off as wimps, scared to stand up for themselves, and what they profess to believe in.

They aren't afraid. This asinine bill shows it completely. They're willing to go kicking, screaming, and crying while the rest of society awakens.

Quote:

Quote:

The Republicans are afraid to be what they say they are. They are afraid people won't like tham, but I think that they come off as wimps, scared to stand up for themselves, and what they profess to believe in.

They aren't afraid. This asinine bill shows it completely. They're willing to go kicking, screaming, and crying while the rest of society awakens.

That's one stupid bill. I am sure that I could find other stupid bills proposed by Democrats if I wanted to check every state.

People are turned off by the polarizing right-wing nature of the GOP social policy. State's rights doesn't give you the right to prevent opportunity, services, and other such things from American citizens. What they prevent is guaranteed by the founding fathers in the same document and amendments. The same card was trumpeted in the south during Jim Crow. Look where that got those states.

The left doesn't really have much to do with muddying equal rights for all Americans. There always is the random gun bill (that really is never as bad as the doomsday "the evil liburals are coming for mah gunz!!!!!" fantasy a lot of people want to live in.....)

j/c

I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.

Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?

I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.

I also think Tea party people are trying to fight cancer with cancer and that is just plain silly

Quote:

j/c

I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.

Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?

I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.

I also think Tea party people are trying to fight cancer with cancer and that is just plain silly

Dang you had me in agreement up untill your very last comment. Everything else you said is right lol.

The Tea Party I feel is trying to fight Cancer with Chemo. The Chemo isn't fun, it isn't pretty, and it will hurt a ton at first. In the end however, it's better to endure the Chemo(budget cuts, fewer entitlements, fewer subsidies, etc.) then to let the Cancer(debt) continue to spread and kill you.

I too wish there was a magic pill that cured cancer, but there is not. Americans however are afraid of the Chemo treatment and the pain it will bring. So instead they opt for denial. Somehow they believe the cancer can't kill them if they don't believe they have cancer. So instead they just keep smoking their cigs and letting cancer spread hoping the somehow it will magically disappear.

Quote:

I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.

Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?

What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?

Quote:

I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.

I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.

EMT's, Dr's and such take an oath, Joe Schmoe running a diner doesnt. That is a poor example.

I didn't say anything about a Dr or EMT…

Quote:

Quote:

I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.

Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?

What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?

Well then, call a different towing service or don't put a sticker in your back window. IMO you have every right to express yourself and your opinion, but others should have the right to not do business with you because of that. The ambulance driver is a little difficult I suppose, perhaps you could make an exception is the law for emergency personel?

Quote:

I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.

I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.

Quote:

Quote:

I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.

Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?

What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?

Quote:

I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.

I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.

The point about the private ambulance companies is a good one, though. I still think that the argument about business practices holds, even in these specific situations. The private ambulance company that discriminates on who it's going to pick up will have work dry up QUICK when they prove to be so unreliable. Worst case, a couple people will be affected when their help doesn't show up before contracts start getting torn up.

Arent their EMT's in the ambulance?

Quote:

Quote:

I think people and businesses should have the right/freedom to discriminate and be as bigoted as they like.

Then following suit, since most people aren't bigots, those businesses will develop a horrible reputation and be crushed by the market. Outside of something small like a photographer...a restaurant that wouldn't serve gays would be crushed unless it had a rabid amount of support from people of the same mindset. And if you are being discriminated against by some photographer who hates you...do you really want to hire that person because they can't deny you service? Do you really want to eat at a restaurant that is bedgrudingly allowing gay people to eat there? Wouldn't it be better to allow bigots to fly their bigot flags high into the sky so we know who to avoid?

What about when Bill dials 911 because his partner Joe is having a heart attack, and the ambulance driver for the private ambulance company sees that Bill and Joe are a gay couple and refuses to take Joe to the hospital? Or Bill's car breaks down in the middle of winter and the tow truck driver won't tow his car because it has a rainbow decal on the rear windshield?

Quote:

I don't think it is right to imprison people for being bigots. If you suggest there needs to be some kind of law preventing XYZ social injustice, you are at the same time suggesting there needs to be fines and eventually imprisonment for XYZ social injustice.

I haven't seen anybody suggest criminal penalties for those who discriminate. Not here at least.

Now that's a ludicrous hypothetical. First of all, it would have to be a policy of the company that owns the ambulance service to refuse emergency aid, not the discretion of the driver. Secondly, there's not an emergency responce service company in this country that would take on the backlash of writing a policy to refuse aid that would save a life.

Quote:

It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.

There is a lot of truth to both of these... Our two party system is quickly becoming party 1A and party 1B...

Quote:

Quote:

It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.

There is a lot of truth to both of these... Our two party system is quickly becoming party 1A and party 1B...

Yep. Basically when voting for Presidents you only vote for social issues and nothing else. Now that doesn't apply to the 2008 Presidential Election, but with enough time (10 years or so), I could see the Republicans wanting to go national healthcare route.

If businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on whatever bigotry....how is that enforced?

Obviously there would have to be some sort of fine in place or the mandate would make no sense.

What happens when someone refuses to pay that fine? Typically you would be put in jail right?

If you want to advance the argument fully (uh oh here is the gun)...what happens if that person then refuses to be taken to jail?

When you are arguing for government intervention you are threatening people with a gun when you boil things down.

If a private company was foolish enough to hire some bigot and he let a man die...there are likely grounds they would be sued, and the negative PR would destroy the company. Any large company wouldn't be able to do these policies. I could see a small towing company doing it, but they would likely be liable for some sort of negligent manslaughter if they refused to tow some guy in the middle of a Minnesota blizzard for example.

Byrd: I can't seem to explain why I dislike the tea party without sounding like a pompous windbag. I basically see it as a means of justifying the government as if any iteration is acceptable morally. If I had to pick my poison I'd go with them.

It's not ludicrous at all. What gives you the impression that it would have to be any sort of business-instated policy?

As much as I don't really care for lawsuits in many cases, that is the answer to your question.

It's how every discrimination case I've ever seen have been settled.

Now in the case of the ambulance service, you may get something like a negligent homicide charge. Not sure but when your actions or lack there of are a part of the discussion in someone's death, that is the point I believe criminal law would enter things.

Quote:

If businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on whatever bigotry....how is that enforced?

If you discriminate against me I take you to court and use you. I thought that was obvious.

Ok. Put "you go to court and get sued" at the first part of my logic string and the rest still follows

You aren't aggressing against anyone when you refuse them service. Assuming it isn't some life or death situation.

The rest of your logic doesn't follow because you don't go to prison if you lose a lawsuit.

Quote:

If businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on whatever bigotry....how is that enforced?

Obviously there would have to be some sort of fine in place or the mandate would make no sense.

What happens when someone refuses to pay that fine? Typically you would be put in jail right?

If you want to advance the argument fully (uh oh here is the gun)...what happens if that person then refuses to be taken to jail?

So then that person would be imprisoned for attempting to practice their religious beliefs..

....did you read the loop?

Go to court and be sued.
Be ordered to pay a fine.
Refuse to pay fine.
Go to Jail
Refuse to go to jail.
Shot by police.

Quote:

If you discriminate against me I take you to court and use you. I thought that was obvious.

That seems like a fairly drastic way to get people to empathize with gay rights.

Quote:

....did you read the loop?

Go to court and be sued.
Be ordered to pay a fine.
Refuse to pay fine.
Go to Jail
Refuse to go to jail.
Shot by police.

At this point I assume that you're just trolling.

Quote:

Quote:

If you discriminate against me I take you to court and use you. I thought that was obvious.

That seems like a fairly drastic way to get people to empathize with gay rights.

Ha!

Quote:

....did you read the loop?

Go to court and be sued.
Be ordered to pay a fine.
Refuse to pay fine.
Go to Jail
Refuse to go to jail.
Shot by police.

Pretty sure you just gave Direct TV their next "Don't get shot by the police, get Direct TV" commercial lol

I HATE those commercials-

Quote:

It's not ludicrous at all. What gives you the impression that it would have to be any sort of business-instated policy?

The law applies to businesses, not individual employees of those businesses. Your ambulance driver wouldn't have the choice to legally refuse to transport the gay heart attack victim at his discretion unless his company had a policy stating so. Hence the ludicrousness of your hypothetical situation.

For the record, I do think the law was discriminating and I'm glad it was vetoed.

I don't often get into politcal debates because I was raised by a libertarian and everything always made sense to me. So I don't exactly know how to go about changing someones mind on the subject. Same goes for religion

The government is a monopoly on violence. There are ethical ramifications to that if you care to delve deeply into it you can do so. I frankly can't understand the mindset of people who can't admit or understand the consequences of that reality.

I don't think it is ethical to threaten to arrest a business man for being discriminatory. Go shop somewhere else. How is someones bigotry harming you in any way? I'm not pro-bigotry, but I don't think violent solutions are an ethical way to go about solving social issues. If someone is outed as an outright bigot their business will fail and their personal life will be full of bigots. That is plenty of social justice for me. Sadly these people often have children and raise them with bigotry etc. which is the real social problem in my opinion.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not ludicrous at all. What gives you the impression that it would have to be any sort of business-instated policy?

The law applies to businesses, not individual employees of those businesses. Your ambulance driver wouldn't have the choice to legally refuse to transport the gay heart attack victim at his discretion unless his company had a policy stating so. Hence the ludicrousness of your hypothetical situation.

For the record, I do think the law was discriminating and I'm glad it was vetoed.

The vetoed AZ law applied to individuals. It said that no state action could infringe on a person's right to freely practice their religion.

Not according to CNN:

"In short, SB1062 would amend the existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs."

CNN

Quote:

Person includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

Quote:

Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

link

Subsection C states that religious exercise can be burdened if the burdening party demonstrates that the burdensome action is both furthering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. That's all well and good, but if you're in an emergency situation where someone is refusing you service, you don't exactly have time to take them to court and sue them over it.

Quote:

I am curious why you see the Tea Party, the movement I most identify with out of any organized major political group currently operating in America, as a bunch of "mindless bigots"?

I prefer lower taxes and smaller government. That is damn near the entirety of the Tea Party message. What is the part you find to be "bigoted"?

That was the tea party message before Obama. Now the entirety of the Tea Party message is anti gay, anti woman, anti Obamacare, and anti middle class. Yep "bigoted" in one word.

imo, thats pretty much the opposite of smaller government, as well.

Yeah Baby ...bigotry is acceptable when hiding behind the holy bible. How ironic is that?

Quote:

Quote:

I am curious why you see the Tea Party, the movement I most identify with out of any organized major political group currently operating in America, as a bunch of "mindless bigots"?

I prefer lower taxes and smaller government. That is damn near the entirety of the Tea Party message. What is the part you find to be "bigoted"?

That was the tea party message before Obama. Now the entirety of the Tea Party message is anti gay, anti woman, anti Obamacare, and anti middle class. Yep "bigoted" in one word.

I am anti Obamacare, because it will wind up being a massive expansion of government spending and control over peoples' lives.

Raising the minimum wage is a huge anti middle class move, because the middle class's eages are not rising in corresponding measure with those minimum wage increases. Our current monetary policy is hugely anti-Middle Class, as it has destroyed the value of savings. It was bad under Bush, and it has gotten worse under Obama. Obamacare, which increases payroll costs for most employers is anti jobs. There is a damn good argument that Obama is anti-Middle Class as well.

The Democrats have tried to silence women who have been raped, because the rapists have been powerful Democrats. Isn't that anti-woman as well?

I will acknowledge that the Republican Party has many people who have also done some of the things you suggest, but I don't know how many of them are Tea party members. Can you give me specific examples? I am not going to try and argue generalities.

Quote:

Quote:

It's funny how you say the Republicans are becoming more Democratic while I see it as the Democrats are becoming more Republican.

There is a lot of truth to both of these... Our two party system is quickly becoming party 1A and party 1B...

That may not be as bad a thing as you might think. If they start moving closer to each other, most problems may become easier to solve. Constant bickering isn't really fixing anything.

Quote:

Yeah Baby ...bigotry is acceptable when hiding behind the holy bible. How ironic is that?

Not sure why you're directing that post at me. I said in this thread that I thought the law was discriminating.

Quote:

Not according to CNN:

"In short, SB1062 would amend the existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs."

CNN

You posted this. I made a comment. Do you not read your own posts?

Nevermind, I almost forgot, you are the one who posted a link here on that well known Internet hoax of a African priest drowning while trying to walk on water and lost your crediblity here.

Quote:

Nevermind, I almost forgot, you are the one who posted a link here on that well known Internet hoax of a African priest drowning while trying to walk on water and lost your crediblity here.

Why are you so obsessed over him posting that story? You post about it constantly. You think that makes a person lose all credibility? You are the one looking foolish, not him.

Quote:

Quote:

Not according to CNN:

"In short, SB1062 would amend the existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs."

CNN

You posted this. I made a comment. Do you not read your own posts?

Nevermind, I almost forgot, you are the one who posted a link here on that well known Internet hoax of a African priest drowning while trying to walk on water and lost your crediblity here.

I will only speak for myself (but I'd bet most would agree), Jfan has a lot of respect here - and that's not because I agree with everything he says - it's because he's earned it. Just saying.

I think you're losing far more credibility harping on him than he ever did posting it.

Quote:

I think you're losing far more credibility harping on him than he ever did posting it.

Agreed. X 29.

And perfectspiral - for me to agree with pdr - well, that's the equivalent of something that happens about once every......eh, every leap year. That might tell you something.

Quote:

Quote:

I think you're losing far more credibility harping on him than he ever did posting it.

Agreed. X 29.

And perfectspiral - for me to agree with pdr - well, that's the equivalent of something that happens about once every......eh, every leap year. That might tell you something.

We've been busting each chops. Get over it people. I think he can stand up for himself. Or can he?