NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

[FightTheFuture]

So let's make this more interesting. Should a black business owner have the right to refuse business to a Klansman?

It's really very simple. Any private business owner should be free to decide with whom he chooses to do business. It's none of the government's concern.

[Yorkshire pud]

So let's make this more interesting. Should a black business owner have the right to refuse business to a Klansman?

Not if you believe that comparing a group that advocates white supremacy and the extermination of black people with sexual orientation. But which fool would do that? 

[Birdie]

So let's make this more interesting. Should a black business owner have the right to refuse business to a Klansman?

Nope. It is still discrimination. I doubt a Klansman would choose to patronize a black person's business, anyway.

[gbneely]

It's really very simple. Any private business owner should be free to decide with whom he chooses to do business. It's none of the government's concern.

+1

[Yorkshire pud]

It's really very simple. Any private business owner should be free to decide with whom he chooses to do business. It's none of the government's concern.

Neither should it be a big deal if the NFL chooses not to hold the Superbowl in AZ. Or would the government be forced to make them do so?

[gbneely]

Neither should it be a big deal if the NFL chooses not to hold the Superbowl in AZ. Or would the government be forced to make them do so?

I think it would come down to the contracts in place.

[SciFiAuthor]

It's really very simple. Any private business owner should be free to decide with whom he chooses to do business. It's none of the government's concern.

I agree with you, it serves no purpose other than to just write yet another law. People should just spread the word or stand around outside the bakery and hold up some signs if they don't like the place's business practices.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think it would come down to the contracts in place.

Oh, that's easy. If the NFL have terms and conditions in place for the contracts (and I would think they have), then they can say that AZ state law has precluded those T & G's being fulfilled. The NFL would not say they will avoid AZ if they weren't sure they could legally-unless they've employed really stupid lawyers.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “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.”


The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Stakeholders, read: Advertising revenue. AZ Superbowl won't be touched with a barge pole. Business choosing who it wishes who to do business with I guess.

[SciFiAuthor]

Not if you believe that comparing a group that advocates white supremacy and the extermination of black people with sexual orientation. But which fool would do that?

I don't think they actually advocate extermination, rather I think they usually claimed tactics of terrorism to preserve their status quo. Selective lynchings and all. Same thing the Islamic world does today, actually. It's complete bullshit, I'll be the first to say that and I don't give a shit what color or orientation someone is. That said, who says what idea is right and wrong in society? Do you really want the government doing that?

How about we do it, as the people. We seem to get along better if we do it on a person to person interactive basis, rather than passing a law against this person or that person, or that idea or this idea.

[gbneely]

Oh, that's easy. If the NFL have terms and conditions in place for the contracts (and I would think they have), then they can say that AZ state law has precluded those T & G's being fulfilled. The NFL would not say they will avoid AZ if they weren't sure they could legally-unless they've employed really stupid lawyers.

Here's the NFL statement:

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."

I'm uncertain as to any of the contractual terms and conditions in regards to hosting a Super Bowl. If they could legally get out of it, I suppose that would be their right.

[FightTheFuture]

Neither should it be a big deal if the NFL chooses not to hold the Superbowl in AZ. Or would the government be forced to make them do so?

If the government stayed out of peoples business, this would not even be an issue. Why? Because every state would be exactly the same.

[SciFiAuthor]

Nope. It is still discrimination. I doubt a Klansman would choose to patronize a black person's business, anyway.

You live in a more complicated world than that. I think they'd patronize the hell out of a business that refuses them just to draw attention to the matter. All special interest groups do.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't think they actually advocate extermination, rather I think they usually claimed tactics of terrorism to preserve their status quo. Selective lynchings and all. Same thing the Islamic world does today, actually. It's complete bullshit, I'll be the first to say that and I don't give a shit what color or orientation someone is. That said, who says what idea is right and wrong in society? Do you really want the government doing that?

How about we do it, as the people. We seem to get along better if we do it on a person to person interactive basis, rather than passing a law against this person or that person, or that idea or this idea.

Do you think that all laws should be scrapped and government disbanded and just allow the population decide amongst themselves what is right and wrong?

[Yorkshire pud]

If the government stayed out of peoples business, this would not even be an issue. Why? Because every state would be exactly the same.

Exactly the same in which respects?

[WhiteCrow]

So let's make this more interesting. Should a black business owner have the right to refuse business to a Klansman?

If the law passes then the marketplace could decide if it will get repealed. Gay companies like Starbucks and Apple could refuse to do business in AZ.

[FightTheFuture]

Exactly the same in which respects?

Free of excessive government control.

[SciFiAuthor]

Do you think that all laws should be scrapped and government disbanded and just allow the population decide amongst themselves what is right and wrong?

That would be an anarchist, so no, I'm nothing close to that. I'm saying that you can write 1,000, 10,000, a million laws and you will still not solve every problem of mankind. Do you think you can? Where does it stop?

We have way too many laws and are way to quick on the draw to write them. At this point, whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, you are a felon. You have violated some law, somewhere, at some time that could jail you. It could be a choice of an orchid you have out in the yard, or spilling a can of oil or some other chemical while you're working on the car. It's simply a matter of whether a prosecutor wishes to go after you. It's like that in all western countries. Our legal systems cannot be condensed to a book. The require a library full of thousands of volumes, perhaps more.

Well, you tell me how that's acceptable. Hell, tell me how it's even intelligent to do that.

[SciFiAuthor]

If the law passes then the marketplace could decide if it will get repealed. Gay companies like Starbucks and Apple could refuse to do business in AZ.

Apple is not gay! They recently grew beards to prove they weren't.

[gbneely]

That would be an anarchist, so no, I'm nothing close to that. I'm saying that you can write 1,000, 10,000, a million laws and you will still not solve every problem of mankind. Do you think you can? Where does it stop?

We have way too many laws and are way to quick on the draw to write them. At this point, whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, you are a felon. You have violated some law, somewhere, at some time that could jail you. It could be a choice of an orchid you have out in the yard, or spilling a can of oil or some other chemical while you're working on the car. It's simply a matter of whether a prosecutor wishes to go after you. It's like that in all western countries. Our legal systems cannot be condensed to a book. The require a library full of thousands of volumes, perhaps more.

Well, you tell me how that's acceptable.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

[FightTheFuture]

Do you think that all laws should be scrapped and government disbanded and just allow the population decide amongst themselves what is right and wrong?

That's the same tired, old narrative that all big government liberals present. It is not a zero-sum game.  The answer is not absence of a government, but rather, a much smaller less intrusive government.

[Yorkshire pud]

If the law passes then the marketplace could decide if it will get repealed. Gay companies like Starbucks and Apple could refuse to do business in AZ.

No!!! They should be made to do business in AZ. Together with the advertisers of the Superbowl. What will be funny (I think it hilarious), to see who blinks first. If it is played in AZ, let's hope Janet Jackson doesn't get re- invited and her malfunctioning wardrobe (Number 1 in the 'All time toe curling and professionally outraged euphemisms' award).

[Yorkshire pud]

That would be an anarchist, so no, I'm nothing close to that. I'm saying that you can write 1,000, 10,000, a million laws and you will still not solve every problem of mankind. Do you think you can? Where does it stop?

We have way too many laws and are way to quick on the draw to write them. At this point, whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not, you are a felon. You have violated some law, somewhere, at some time that could jail you. It could be a choice of an orchid you have out in the yard, or spilling a can of oil or some other chemical while you're working on the car. It's simply a matter of whether a prosecutor wishes to go after you. It's like that in all western countries. Our legal systems cannot be condensed to a book. The require a library full of thousands of volumes, perhaps more.

Well, you tell me how that's acceptable. Hell, tell me how it's even intelligent to do that.

I agree, we do have far too many laws. And yes, it's the same here too. But in the forlorn hope that a great many of them will be repealed anytime soon, what is the answer?

[Yorkshire pud]

That's the same tired, old narrative that all big government liberals present. It is not a zero-sum game.  The answer is not absence of a government, but rather, a much smaller less intrusive government.

Only I'm not a big government liberal; Only some Americans (and certain African and Middle Eastern citizens) decide a person's opinion based on who they voted for.

This isn't about government though, it's the NFL perhaps deciding if they'll make the commercial decision to have the SB in AZ.

[onan]

No he wasn't forced to be gay. But the state forced him to participate in what his religion teaches is a sin. So his right to practice his religion was trumped by someone else's right to have a gay wedding cake. If he were making up some sort of argument out of whole cloth, I would agree with you. However, was averring a widely held and documented belief by many people of faith based on the teachings of the bible.

Then sell cakes at his church. I am so fucking sick of religion being used for exclusion. Does he also choose to not sell to those that worked on Sunday or dressed in clothing with more than one type thread. Do you think the baker makes sure his flour, starch, and sugar are grown with no other crops in the field?

Fuck the baker and his religion.

[SciFiAuthor]

I agree, we do have far too many laws. And yes, it's the same here too. But in the forlorn hope that a great many of them will be repealed anytime soon, what is the answer?

The answer is to not rely on government. If the baker wont make a cake for a gay couple, well, that gay couple needs to find a baker that will, have their wedding party and tell the wedding party about their plight, put it on facebook, and notify the gay advocate groups and organize a protest in front of the discriminatory baker's shop. It does not need to enter the public debate and enter the realm of legislation. All that results from that is the politicization of the matter. All that does is  leave it open for politicians to take political advantage and either write pro or anti gay laws to please whatever voting block they have. That's no way to solve problems. And, well, it leads to the hyperlegalization of society.

[SciFiAuthor]

Then sell cakes at his church. I am so fucking sick of religion being used for exclusion. Does he also choose to not sell to those that worked on Sunday or dressed in clothing with more than one type thread. Do you think the baker makes sure his flour, starch, and sugar are grown with no other crops in the field?

Fuck the baker and his religion.

Just for fun, and I really am playing devil's advocate this time--I personally don't like the baker that wouldn't make the gay cake. But what happens if we frame this as a Palestinian baker that won't make a wedding cake for an Israeli Jew? Or vice versa? Do the rules change?

[onan]

The answer is to not rely on government. If the baker wont make a cake for a gay couple, well, that gay couple needs to find a baker that will, have their wedding party and tell the wedding party about their plight, put it on facebook, and notify the gay advocate groups and organize a protest in front of the discriminatory baker's shop. It does not need to enter the public debate and enter the realm of legislation. All that results from that is the politicization of the matter. All that does is  leave it open for politicians to take political advantage and either write pro or anti gay laws to please whatever voting block they have. That's no way to solve problems. And, well, it leads to the hyperlegalization of society.

Yeah the baker has no part in this.

Look, it is real easy to say... just go somewhere else. I wonder if that logic could have applied to George Zimmerman?

Our constitution is based on the premise we are all equal under the law. The baker didn't see it that way. You say no lawyers... I say the baker deserves all the protection god can afford.

[SciFiAuthor]

Yeah the baker has no part in this.

Look, it is real easy to say... just go somewhere else. I wonder if that logic could have applied to George Zimmerman?

Our constitution is based on the premise we are all equal under the law. The baker didn't see it that way. You say no lawyers... I say the baker deserves all the protection god can afford.

Ok, so the black guy should serve up a bagel for the klansman then? "Give me my fucking bagel you low ass N***** servant. Know that I am white and superior."

See, if you're going to frame it that way, you need to accept and advocate what others will use it for and use the same argument. I just say fuck it, let people fight it out on their own. No law needed.

[Yorkshire pud]

Fuck the baker and his religion.

I think this^^^

But what happens if we frame this as a Palestinian baker that won't make a wedding cake for an Israeli Jew? Or vice versa? Do the rules change?

Answered this^^^^

[SciFiAuthor]

I think this^^^

Answered this^^^^

Yeah, but does that actually solve anything. I mean, I'm the one saying people should just tell each other to fuck off and be done with it. Why legislate?