People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
.
Last edited by pash on Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- grovester
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4588
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
- Location: KC Metro
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
On your first point, it quit being a "purely private matter", when the companies decided to take the many tax advantages to providing their employees with health care.
On the second, that sounds like a big city dweller's position. Life is a lot different in the small (minded) towns across america.
On the second, that sounds like a big city dweller's position. Life is a lot different in the small (minded) towns across america.
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
.
Last edited by pash on Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7299
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
I agree with pash. I've yet to hear of a real world example of where this law would truely limit anyone's life, liberty or (even with cake being delicious) pursuit if happiness. I see Americans as being pretty decisively live and let live and getting the government in the job of forcing societal action is looked at negatively except in the most extreme of cases. It does the gay community a disservice to be seen as forcing belief instead of the already progressing view on sexuality issues.
- grovester
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4588
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
- Location: KC Metro
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
So the gop passes legislation prohibiting something that doesn't exist and the gay community is doing itself a disservice?
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7299
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
Yes, and both sides hate the other with a passion and are trying to whip their constituents into a frenzy. It's a war based on mutual hate, not trying to accomplish anything. I see tolerance being in pretty small quantities in both of these camps.grovester wrote:So the gop passes legislation prohibiting something that doesn't exist and the gay community is doing itself a disservice?
-
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 3890
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
I fail to see how Indiana's law is not an anti-discrimination law.pash wrote:In my opinion, this argument has more force against your position than for it. Anti-discrimination laws applied to society at large limit people's choices about whom they associate with and on what terms. The farther the state sticks its nose into the affairs of ordinary people, telling them what they can and can't do, the more necessary it becomes to stick its nose in still farther. We've seen this recently with the ACA, for example, which has forced us to adjudicate whether companies whose owners abhor abortion must provide healthcare that covers abortions to their employees. Things that used to be purely private matters become public ones, with laws and regulations circumscribing moral agency.
The hullabaloo is stupid, but because it is misdirected. If we accept the premise that there was not a real problem... they still passed a law to protect the "not a real problem." If I took another thing that isn't a serious problem and passed a law about it, like say for preserving my right to eat breakfast in the morning, there can be unintended consequences to that, too. It is exactly the kind of stupid, worthless, layered crap that the right normally rails against, yet those types of "not a real problem" laws are about all that gets passed lately.pash wrote:The answer plainly is no. This is not a real problem, which is another reason that this hullabaloo about Indiana's vacuous law is so stupid.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
If the standard for action that the government held itself to was popular opinion, the South would likely still be segregated.beautyfromashes wrote:getting the government in the job of forcing societal action is looked at negatively except in the most extreme of cases.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7299
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
You're comparing 2015 gay rights with the segregated South?chaglang wrote:If the standard for action that the government held itself to was popular opinion, the South would likely still be segregated.
-
- Hotel President
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
- Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
I heard this guy on Lazlo yesterday, this would be pretty funny if it can happen and a good positive out of this bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/3 ... 70028.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/3 ... 70028.html
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
The same disease can cause different symptoms in different people.beautyfromashes wrote:You're comparing 2015 gay rights with the segregated South?chaglang wrote:If the standard for action that the government held itself to was popular opinion, the South would likely still be segregated.
- grovester
- Oak Tower
- Posts: 4588
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
- Location: KC Metro
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
"You're comparing 1930 Jim Crow laws to slavery?"beautyfromashes wrote:You're comparing 2015 gay rights with the segregated South?chaglang wrote:If the standard for action that the government held itself to was popular opinion, the South would likely still be segregated.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
I'm pointing out that the standard you seemed to suggest has some very obvious drawbacks.beautyfromashes wrote:You're comparing 2015 gay rights with the segregated South?chaglang wrote:If the standard for action that the government held itself to was popular opinion, the South would likely still be segregated.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7299
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
So, you don't understand my cringing a bit at the comparison? I feel that on this issue both sides seem to be blowing up with extreme stretch connection examples and rhetoric on where America will go in the future. Gay citizens will be given every protection afforded other minority groups very quickly including marriage. Some religious groups will continue to state a belief that homosexuality is wrong. Societies views will continue to evolve on this and all race/gender/minority issues. Everyone should be given equal protection under the law. Personal views, including religion, should be allowed as long as they don't hinder the rights of someone else.chaglang wrote: I'm pointing out that the standard you seemed to suggest has some very obvious drawbacks.
- chaglang
- Bryant Building
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
Again, it's not a comparison, but why is that idea so cringe inducing? One is apparently of greater worthiness than the other, but neither did/do meet the standard of the government acting only when it's on the side of popular opinion.
-
- Penntower
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
But this law says it's OK to let religious views hinder the rights of someone else and with no legal recourse, no?beautyfromashes wrote:Everyone should be given equal protection under the law. Personal views, including religion, should be allowed as long as they don't hinder the rights of someone else.chaglang wrote: I'm pointing out that the standard you seemed to suggest has some very obvious drawbacks.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7299
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
never said and don't agree with this.chaglang wrote:...the standard of the government acting only when it's on the side of popular opinion.
- AllThingsKC
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9371
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
- Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
- Contact:
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
I haven't read the wording of this particular law, but your question does make me wonder: Does a person have the right to be served by any business they wish? Is that a constitutional right? Could that be considered a "pursuit of happiness"?kcjak wrote:But this law says it's OK to let religious views hinder the rights of someone else and with no legal recourse, no?
-
- Penntower
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
Interesting question. Whatever happened to the signs that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' that were prevalent in the 70s?AllThingsKC wrote:I haven't read the wording of this particular law, but your question does make me wonder: Does a person have the right to be served by any business they wish? Is that a constitutional right? Could that be considered a "pursuit of happiness"?kcjak wrote:But this law says it's OK to let religious views hinder the rights of someone else and with no legal recourse, no?
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: People Urging NCAA to leave Indianapolis
Absolutely not, however it's not that clear that this law is ConstitutionalAllThingsKC wrote:I haven't read the wording of this particular law, but your question does make me wonder: Does a person have the right to be served by any business they wish? Is that a constitutional right? Could that be considered a "pursuit of happiness"?kcjak wrote:But this law says it's OK to let religious views hinder the rights of someone else and with no legal recourse, no?
In this case I can go both ways. Allowing someone to discriminate based on personal beliefs provides for a specific person's needs and not the needs of the general public. However this law also allows anyone to do the same thing.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The issue goes more into the basics of laws. I would argue it's impossible to come up with a test if this person is following specific beliefs. If you walk into any church you are going to find people's beliefs do not line up perfectly with the standards of that faith much like no politician really lines up perfectly with a party platform. On the other side is an atheist racist following deeply held beliefs or not?
Without a test there's no way to identify people breaking the law. A law that cannot be proven to broken is a bad law.
On this same idea, that shows why these signs are bad. *anyone* is vague and doesn't set a standard to refuse service. It's at the whim of the day. "today, no women!" Instead the business should have specific posted situations they will refuse service. Like no shirt, no shoes, no service is a specific situation where they're clearly setting a standard to be a customerkcjak wrote: Interesting question. Whatever happened to the signs that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' that were prevalent in the 70s?