People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis

[FangKC]

There is a petition started to get the NCAA to move its' headquarters from Indianapolis based on the governor of Indiana signing the Religious Freedom bill there.

Does Kansas City have a chance to get the NCAA headquarters to move back here, or will our conservative legislature pass a similar bill and ruin any chance of that. Discuss.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70448858/

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... objections

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/move-t ... by=2186517

[kcmetro]

Why would the NCAA move due to this law? It gives companies the right to discriminate, right? It doesn't force them to.

[grovester]

Why would the NCAA move due to this law? It gives companies the right to discriminate, right? It doesn't force them to.

It doesn't want to be associated with a state government that tacitly supports discrimination? That being said, that bar would exclude a lot of states.

[kucer]

The NCAA should just leave altogether. Like vanish. Poof. Gone...

[flyingember]

Why would the NCAA move due to this law? It gives companies the right to discriminate, right? It doesn't force them to.

Religious grounds have been used to discriminate based on race. The NBA -just- dealt with this issue.

The NCAA will have a discussion over this issue without a doubt.

[KCPowercat]

Let them rot. Of course KS will give them a ton of incentives to just think about moving to OPKS

[kboish]

The NCAA should just leave altogether. Like vanish. Poof. Gone...

Agree

[KCMax]

There is a petition started to get the NCAA to move its' headquarters from Indianapolis based on the governor of Indiana signing the Religious Freedom bill there.

Does Kansas City have a chance to get the NCAA headquarters to move back here, or will our conservative legislature pass a similar bill and ruin any chance of that. Discuss.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/poli ... /70448858/

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... objections

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/move-t ... by=2186517

Missouri and Kansas are not exactly progressive states. Kansas tried to pass a similar law just a few months ago.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The NCAA will stay right where it is. Within a few weeks this will be one of those long forgotten topics for the nation. The legislation that was passed isn't that much different than what the feds have passed along with many states. The big difference is sexual orientation is not a protected class in Indiana discrimination laws. The state legislature will pass and Pence will sign legislation fairly quick to remedy the situation.

[AllThingsKC]

I thought Kansas and Missouri already had similar laws.

[kboish]

I thought Kansas and Missouri already had similar laws.

No state has laws with language quite like this one. It explicitly gives refuge to people whom refuse to provide service to other citizens on the basis that the provision of the service would somehow cause the one providing it to lose their own religious freedom or go against their religious beliefs in some fashion.

Most other laws have to do with interactions between the state and an individual( ie. The state compelling the individual to to something against their religion). Not between two private citizens, like this one does. Which opens up a pretty big bag of worms.

That's my understanding at least.

Edit: and based on our supreme courts interpretation of laws...you can extend this to corporations interactions with individuals or other corporations.

[earthling]

So it seems another round of the US culture wars is just getting started. As usual, the conservatives will have a play at state level politics for many states thanks to the way gerrymandering works and will control the House long term for same reason. With gay marriage pushing buttons and more religious/non-religious polarization than ever, we may be seeing the beginning of another culture war not seen in decades.

The religious trend over last 20-30 years has been that, while the very religious are not really growing, more are becoming vocal/politically active and the 'somewhat religious' is trending towards non-religious with less interested in politics unless reacting to political hot button issues. Millennials are less religious than any 20-something generation ever but if many of those end up in cities and rural areas lean more and more % religious conservative, gerrymandering will continue to allow rural mindset to have a lot of sway in many states even if not representing overall state population. And of course states with a lot of evangelicals/bible literalists are going to stand out more than states with more mainstream religious.

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?p=526083#p526083

[shinatoo]

Just because Religious freedom is mentioned in the law doesn't make this about religion. It's bigotry hiding behind religion.

[beautyfromashes]

So, I don't really understand the purpose of the law. Can't a business refuse service to whomever they want unless if it is based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics"? I don't believe that Indiana is one of the states that has sexual orientation as a protected characteristic. So, what is being 'protected' here?

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana said on Tuesday that he hopes to sign legislation by the end of this week making it clear that his state's controversial religious freedom law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone.
...
Republicans who control the state Legislature said on Monday that they would work quickly to clarify the law, and they insisted that it was not meant to sanction discrimination.

[earthling]

Yes. This is the worst sort of culture-war hysterics, the sort that happens when one side dresses up its controversial social position as vacuous legislation, and then the other side plays along, pretending there's a real legal issue at stake when there isn't.

Yeah, the hysterics is another layer on top of measurable polarization.

[bobbyhawks]

What nobody is talking about is that there are some religious freedoms that are not worth protecting. If we are to have a functioning society, there are certain things required of the citizenry to prevent total disorder. We can debate all we want where the line is drawn, but the religious freedom argument is only code for a group seeking to circumvent our existing laws. If we allow application of the law to be determined by our religion, then we are opening up a situation in which the law gets to evaluate or approve of our religious beliefs. At this point, our own beliefs cease to be our own and are determined by the government. This is why religious exemptions are bad ideas.

If I worship the flying spaghetti monster and believe that jaywalking rules do not apply to me, am I any less justified in my beliefs than a Catholic who does not want to participate in a health care plan that provides birth control?

Instead of finding solutions to give people alternative ways of complying with existing laws, we are knee-jerk creating predictive laws that are intended to prevent a specific version of an unknown future from becoming certain. We are overwhelmed with complex systems and intricate technologies in every facet of society, and so far we are failing at connecting all of the dots in how things are related.

[flyingember]

If I worship the flying spaghetti monster and believe that jaywalking rules do not apply to me, am I any less justified in my beliefs than a Catholic who does not want to participate in a health care plan that provides birth control?

It can get far worse than that.

Think of a company delivering some product to a baker, an often cited example for conscious-driven business denials. Let's assume they have an exclusive contract with the bakery for some key product, say it's some exotic product they're known for so killing the contract isn't going to happen.

Who wins in a situation where the delivery company add a religious consciousness clause requiring an owner to use their product in sales to anyone but that baker refuses to sell to certain people.

They now both have a legal basis to do what they did.

[beautyfromashes]

I think you err on the side of freedom as long as it doesn't encroach on the specific individualized rights of other citizens. Slippery slopes need to be dismissed on both sides of the issue.