NCAA Abrogated Bidding to Help Indianapolis Build a Stadium

[NaturalStateReb]

The firestorm over a new law that would seem to permit discrimination against LGBT people in Indiana has had unintended consequences for the NCAA.  First, NCAA Mark Emmert had to issue a statement regarding the new law and the Final Four, assuring all involved that the new law wouldn't impact the event.

Second, it's brought back to light what seemed like a minor story back in 2004:  the NCAA decided to break away from the former bidding process for hosting Final Fours, at least in part, to help Indianapolis.  The NCAA is headquartered, unsurprisingly, in Indianapolis.  Back in the early 2000's, there was concern that the Colts might leave if the city didn't build a replacement stadium for the RCA Dome.  To help the old hometown, the NCAA signed a contract with the city that Indianapolis would host a Final Four once every five years until 2039.  The hometown wasn't all that old--Indy put up $50 million to convince the NCAA to move from Kansas City in 1999.

So what's so magical about 2039?  It happened to correspond to a ten-year extension on the lease to NCAA headquarters, extending that deal to 2039.  Want some Final Fours in your hometown?  Give the NCAA a building, and you're in great shape.  If you're from anywhere else, you'll have to weather a competitive bidding process.  To toss in a sweetener, the NCAA promised an additional event in each of the intervening years between men's Final Fours.  The women's Final Four, men's and women's early-round tournament games and the NCAA Convention were included in each five-year cycle.

It helps to be connected on a deal like this.  The group that negotiated on behalf of the city's Indiana Sports Corporation was Jack Swarbrick, now AD at Notre Dame.  In exchange for the Final Four deal, Sports Corp. pledged to work to secure improvements for NCAA headquarters, including more parking, directional signs around the city and, if necessary, space to expand.

The last time a deal this sweet was made for so little involved Indians, beads, and Manhattan.

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

The firestorm over a new law that would seem to permit discrimination against LGBT people in Indiana has had unintended consequences for the NCAA.  First, NCAA Mark Emmert had to issue a statement regarding the new law and the Final Four, assuring all involved that the new law wouldn't impact the event.

Second, it's brought back to light what seemed like a minor story back in 2004:  the NCAA decided to break away from the former bidding process for hosting Final Fours, at least in part, to help Indianapolis.  The NCAA is headquartered, unsurprisingly, in Indianapolis.  Back in the early 2000's, there was concern that the Colts might leave if the city didn't build a replacement stadium for the RCA Dome.  To help the old hometown, the NCAA signed a contract with the city that Indianapolis would host a Final Four once every five years until 2039.  The hometown wasn't all that old--Indy put up $50 million to convince the NCAA to move from Kansas City in 1999.

So what's so magical about 2039?  It happened to correspond to a ten-year extension on the lease to NCAA headquarters, extending that deal to 2039.  Want some Final Fours in your hometown?  Give the NCAA a building, and you're in great shape.  If you're from anywhere else, you'll have to weather a competitive bidding process.  To toss in a sweetener, the NCAA promised an additional event in each of the intervening years between men's Final Fours.  The women's Final Four, men's and women's early-round tournament games and the NCAA Convention will be included in each five-year cycle.

It helps to be connected on a deal like this.  The group that negotiated on behalf of the city's Indiana Sports Corporation was Jack Swarbrick, now AD at Notre Dame.  In exchange for the Final Four deal, Sports Corp. pledged to work to secure improvements for NCAA headquarters, including more parking, directional signs around the city and, if necessary, space to expand.

The last time a deal this sweet was made for so little involved Indians, beads, and Manhattan.

If ALL of this came from your head you should be writing for ESPN... It looks like you copied and pasted a real article. If, by chance, this was all your doing could you do me a favor and train Robert Shields..!?

[hoghiker]

If ALL of this came from your head you should be writing for ESPN... It looks like you copied and pasted a real article. If, by chance, this was all your doing could you do me a favor and train Robert Shields..!?

I truly wish people would quit with Robert. He is an excellent student, works very hard (wears a bow tie once a week) and his deportment is impeccable. His vocabulary is improving with each new nine weeks. His acne is almost unnoticeable, except to a few very dull classmates, and the beautify young Mesilla Titweller, tops in her class in literacy last spring, has agreed to accompany Robbie to our spring dance. Robert needs encouragement. Not smarty pants derision from the over the hill internet gang. 

[navyhog24]

I truly wish people would quit with Robert. He is an excellent student, works very hard (wears a bow tie once a week) and his deportment is impeccable. His vocabulary is improving with each new nine weeks. His acne is almost unnoticeable, except to a few very dull classmates, and the beautify young Mesilla Titweller, tops in her class in literacy last spring, has agreed to accompany Robbie to our spring dance. Robert needs encouragement. Not smarty pants derision from the over the hill internet gang. 

[go hogues]

The firestorm over a new law that would seem to permit discrimination against LGBT people in Indiana has had unintended consequences for the NCAA.  First, NCAA Mark Emmert had to issue a statement regarding the new law and the Final Four, assuring all involved that the new law wouldn't impact the event.

Second, it's brought back to light what seemed like a minor story back in 2004:  the NCAA decided to break away from the former bidding process for hosting Final Fours, at least in part, to help Indianapolis.  The NCAA is headquartered, unsurprisingly, in Indianapolis.  Back in the early 2000's, there was concern that the Colts might leave if the city didn't build a replacement stadium for the RCA Dome.  To help the old hometown, the NCAA signed a contract with the city that Indianapolis would host a Final Four once every five years until 2039.  The hometown wasn't all that old--Indy put up $50 million to convince the NCAA to move from Kansas City in 1999.

So what's so magical about 2039?  It happened to correspond to a ten-year extension on the lease to NCAA headquarters, extending that deal to 2039.  Want some Final Fours in your hometown?  Give the NCAA a building, and you're in great shape.  If you're from anywhere else, you'll have to weather a competitive bidding process.  To toss in a sweetener, the NCAA promised an additional event in each of the intervening years between men's Final Fours.  The women's Final Four, men's and women's early-round tournament games and the NCAA Convention will be included in each five-year cycle.

It helps to be connected on a deal like this.  The group that negotiated on behalf of the city's Indiana Sports Corporation was Jack Swarbrick, now AD at Notre Dame.  In exchange for the Final Four deal, Sports Corp. pledged to work to secure improvements for NCAA headquarters, including more parking, directional signs around the city and, if necessary, space to expand.

The last time a deal this sweet was made for so little involved Indians, beads, and Manhattan.

Who cares?

[OneTuskOverTheLine™]

BeeaaUtiful...!  +1 to you and hoghiker...

[Senility]

My  subjective extrapolation from this seismic revelation is, to wit; that metropolises pitching for a consideration augmentation pursuant to their favoritism inducement should not squander all of their assiduously marshaled resources on the attainment of a prestigious architectural venue and neglect to retain or requisition sufficient financial assets to facilitate the perpetual bribery of the indisputably powerful, preeminent authoritative governing body in order to continually replenish the highly partisan affiliation.

If I have somehow misinterpreted the integral content gist, please enlighten me.

(I may not always be right, - - - - but I ain't NEVER wrong!)

[Iwastherein1969]

I know the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, the MBL and so on decide what cities and venues in which they hold their premium events, but tell me, who decides what cities are worthy based on political correctness ? I don't necessarily agree with the Indiana law just passed, however, apparently they do.  Now again, my question is who decides to boycott what events and why ?  Are we to never have another ALL-STAR game at Detroit or Chicago because of the intraracial murders ? What constitutes the threshold which states, " oh no, we can't have an NBA All Star game there because (insert reason here)" This country has become so PC that we are becoming stymied from making good and prudent decisions because of some half-baked reason based on local and geo-politics. Sickening.

[phadedhawg]

I know the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, the MBL and so on decide what cities and venues in which they hold their premium events, but tell me, who decides what cities are worthy based on political correctness ? I don't necessarily agree with the Indiana law just passed, however, apparently they do.  Now again, my question is who decides to boycott what events and why ?  Are we to never have another ALL-STAR game at Detroit or Chicago because of the intraracial murders ? What constitutes the threshold which states, " oh no, we can't have an NBA All Star game there because (insert reason here)" This country has become so PC that we are becoming stymied from making good and prudent decisions because of some half-baked reason based on local and geo-politics. Sickening.

yep...

Politics should have no bearing on this.  Not everyone in Indiana agrees with the law and even if they do what should it matter?  So dumb to get twisted up about something so trivial.

[wholehog92]

This thread will end up in politics if it's discussed much.

It certainly is a stupid thing to get twisted up about.  I'm not sure it makes the top 10 most stupid though.

[Horthawg]

+1 Gif of the month.

[popcornhog]

I know the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, the MBL and so on decide what cities and venues in which they hold their premium events, but tell me, who decides what cities are worthy based on political correctness ? I don't necessarily agree with the Indiana law just passed, however, apparently they do.  Now again, my question is who decides to boycott what events and why ?  Are we to never have another ALL-STAR game at Detroit or Chicago because of the intraracial murders ? What constitutes the threshold which states, " oh no, we can't have an NBA All Star game there because (insert reason here)" This country has become so PC that we are becoming stymied from making good and prudent decisions because of some half-baked reason based on local and geo-politics. Sickening.

I don't want to get too far into politics or the thread will get moved.

But imo this is an issue that appeals to basic standards of decency. Even if you believe that being gay is against your religious beliefs -- allowing open discrimination against gay folks? Seriously.

It crosses the line so far that it's almost unfathomable. I can see how businesses and other typically non political organizations would want to take a stand here.

[DukeOfPork]

I just don't get why these people are so OBSESSED with sex.  Nor do I understand why they get off on infringing on the freedoms of other Americans. 

We say that we fight wars to protect our freedoms, then imbeciles want to deny those freedoms from people they don't like.

I can't believe we're even discussing this in 2015.

And hell yes, it will have an effect on NCAA events.  This is going to be an absolute crapstorm, as well it should be.  The NCAA is going to be pressured to stand up to this.

[Senility]

"Freedom of speech" is now a proven myth; a prevarication; a quaint passé altruistic ideal.  Especially in the world of sport.  I won't name names and incur the wrath of the P.C. Patrol - - - - but just think back to the sports figures, in recent years, who have stated their personal convictions on social issues only to be ostracized, fined and relegated to the sidelines for their candid forthrightness.

Sports figures, politicians and public figures enjoy the right of "free speech" - - - as long as they say the "right" things and portray the "right" attitude.  As soon as the PC Patrol figures out how to determine who is guilty of politically incorrect THINKING and non progressive personal attitudes, I have no doubt that the guilty misbegotten scumbags thus exposed will be severely and summarily reprimanded to the nth degree.

[Hogfaniam]

Somebody that is a lawyer tell me what phrasing in that allows you to refuse service to someone, please.

[popcornhog]

Somebody that is a lawyer tell me what phrasing in that allows you to refuse service to someone, please.

I just copy/pasted the relevant language from the bill.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

[Hogfaniam]

I just copy/pasted the relevant language from the bill.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

How does this apply to a transaction?

[Jackrabbit Hog]

I just copy/pasted the relevant language from the bill.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

I'm a lawyer and I'm not sure I even understand that gobbledygook.  What a horribly worded piece of legislation ..

[Hogfaniam]

I'm a lawyer and I'm not sure I even understand that gobbledygook.  What a horribly worded piece of legislation ..

It leaves it open to refuse anybody, not just lgbt.  If someone walks in that has sinned, that becomes a burden on the shop owner?  Good luck keeping your doors open, bub.

[DukeOfPork]

As a business owner, why would you want to refuse the business of a paying customer?  I mean, is there another reason I am not aware of other than just the fact that you are a pugnacious jerk who likes to do exactly the opposite of what Christ would do?

[Steef]

Moving this to Jump Ball, since the OP intended to discuss the final four.

If it continues down the road it's taking, it will probably be moved again to politics.

[popcornhog]

How does this apply to a transaction?

It means that homosexuals can be discriminated against and that religious beliefs can be invoked as an affirmative defense.

It keeps municipalities from being able to impliment ordinances that protect gay folks against discrimination.

[Karma]

I'm a lawyer and I'm not sure I even understand that gobbledygook.  What a horribly worded piece of legislation ..

Same here.

[Senility]

It appears to this non advocate - - - utilizing a modicum dollop of common sense (which, sadly, doesn't appear to be all that common anymore) - - - that some of you may be reading liberally slanted connotations into the text which are not explicitly stated.  Set aside for a moment, if you can, the entrepreneurs' possible moral and/or religious convictions. 

Should a man reeking of malfeasant odors enter an establishment loudly spouting obscenities at customers, I believe the management has every right to have the unmitigated ass removed from the premises.

Should a fanatical religious zealot or a devoted, confrontationally disposed social issues activist insist upon importuning and haranguing everyone in the establishment, I fail to comprehend why they should be allowed to hold forth unchecked and without reprisal.

Social reformation campaigns have degenerated into a war of intimidation against traditionalists and staunch conservatives.  Apparently, business owners no longer have the right to govern their personal OR business lives according to the deeply held personal convictions they adhere to dogmatically and unapologetically.

Should a person enter a restaurant, seat himself or herself decorously, and conduct himself or herself with dignity and restraint, it is highly unlikely that any unpleasant confrontation or ruffled feathers will ensue.  It is also highly unlikely that they would be interrogated to learn their ethnicity, their religion, their political persuasion or their sexual orientation.

[popcornhog]

It appears to this non fourth estate practitioner - - - utilizing a modicum dollop of common sense (which, sadly, doesn't appear to be all that common anymore) - - - that some of you may be reading liberally slanted connotations into the text which are not explicitly stated.  Set aside for a moment, if you can, the entrepreneurs' possible moral and/or religious convictions. 

Should a man reeking of malfeasant odors enter an establishment loudly spouting obscenities at customers, I believe the management has every right to have the unmitigated ass removed from the premises.

Should a fanatical religious zealot or a devoted, confrontationally disposed social issues activist insist upon importuning and haranguing everyone in the establishment, I fail to comprehend why they should be allowed to hold forth unchecked and without reprisal.

Social reformation campaigns have degenerated into a war of intimidation against traditionalists and staunch conservatives.  Apparently, business owners no longer have the right to govern their personal OR business lives according to the deeply held personal convictions they adhere to dogmatically and unapologetically.

Should a person enter a restaurant, seat himself or herself decorously, and conduct himself or herself with dignity and restraint, it is highly unlikely that any unpleasant confrontation or ruffled feathers will ensue.  It is also highly likely that they would be interrogated to learn their ethnicity, their religion, their political persuasion or their sexual orientation.

There are no laws, existing nor proposed, that I am aware of that would keep a business from throwing someone out for being loud and obnoxious -- whether that person was gay, straight, brown, tall, fat, or a member of any other class.

The law in Indiana effectively stops municipalities from enforcing laws that ban discrimination against gay folks. That's the point here. That's why it's so upsetting to many of us.

[Hogfaniam]

It means that homosexuals can be discriminated against and that religious beliefs can be invoked as an affirmative defense.

It keeps municipalities from being able to impliment ordinances that protect gay folks against discrimination.

How does selling their product to a "sinner" burden a persons practice of their religion?

[popcornhog]

How does selling their product to a "sinner" burden a persons practice of their religion?

Great question. I think the Indiana law is disgraceful. I wasn't trying to insert my opinion in this thread, but rather, to explain what is being done.

[Steef]

How does selling their product to a "sinner" burden a persons practice of their religion?

That is a mischaracterization of the situation.

[Hogfaniam]

That is a mischaracterization of the situation.

I just copy/pasted the relevant language from the bill.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

How is it a mischaracterization?  It's right there in black and white.

[Steef]

How is it a mischaracterization?  It's right there in black and white.

I don't see the word "sinner" in that.

Your first statement characterizes Christians as not wanting to "sell to sinners".

If that were true, no Christian would ever sell anything to anyone, since everyone is a sinner.

Moreover, the situation in most cases, isn't even a Christian refusing to "sell to a gay person".

Most cases are Christians not wanting to participate in a specific event they believe their faith forbids.

Christians arent roaming the streets looking for gays they can discriminate against.

But some gays have used current discrimination laws as weapons against Christians. Most recently in Oregon, where a woman may lose her business, personal home and life savings, over one event....that has already gone off without a hitch using another vendor.

There has to be a middle ground. People of faith need to have rights also.

[Hogfaniam]

I don't see the word "sinner" in that.

Your first statement characterizes Christians as not wanting to "sell to sinners".

If that were true, no Christian would ever sell anything to anyone, since everyone is a sinner.

Moreover, the situation in most cases, isn't even a Christian refusing to "sell to a gay person".

Most cases are Christians not wanting to participate in a specific event they believe their faith forbids.

Christians arent roaming the streets looking for gays they can discriminate against.

But some gays have used current discrimination laws as weapons against Christians. Most recently in Oregon, where a woman may lose her business, personal home and life savings, over one event....that has already gone off without a hitch using another vendor.

There has to be a middle ground. People of faith need to have rights also.

They used it against a business that supposedly practiced discrimination.  The owner happened to be a Christian.  Wonder if they would've brought suit against an Islamist, Buddist, Jew, etc?

I'm not comfortable with criminal charges for this.  But, would a civil suit be a more appropriate line of action?  Or just public shaming?

[Senility]

It is as obvious to yours truly as a baboon's red rectum that gay "rights" activists are not seeking "equal" rights".  They are demanding "special" rights.  The moral and religious convictions of others are of no concern and no consequence to them.  Anyone who opposes their protocol is expected -no, DEMANDED - to relinquish such strongly held convictions, relegate them to the trash can and wholehearted accept and condone a practice that they fervently believe to be morally reprehensible, an abominable pervasion and a sin against God and nature.  Apparently gay activists have all the "rights" - - - and any who disagree with their "progressive" social agenda have none.

[Steef]

My mistake. Its not Oregon. It's Washington State.

The defendant is a 70 year old lady named Stutzman.

The judge in the case has made it plain he sides with the plaintiff.

[98hogs]

I just don't get why these people are so OBSESSED with sex.  Nor do I understand why they get off on infringing on the freedoms of other Americans. 

We say that we fight wars to protect our freedoms, then imbeciles want to deny those freedoms from people they don't like.

I can't believe we're even discussing this in 2015.

And hell yes, it will have an effect on NCAA events.  This is going to be an absolute crapstorm, as well it should be.  The NCAA is going to be pressured to stand up to this.

I dont know anyone that fought and died in American Wars for homosexuals.

[Danny J]

Maybe I am missing something, usually I do, but how the hell do business owners know whether a person is gay? Are they now forced to wear logos that I am unaware of? Is it stamped on their foreheads?

"Hey...I would like a dozen doughnuts and by the way I am gay"

"You are gay? Get the hell out of my store!!"

[Senility]

Maybe I am missing something, usually I do, but how the hell do business owners know whether a person is gay? Are they now forced to wear logos that I am unaware of? Is it stamped on their foreheads?

"Hey...I would like a dozen doughnuts and by the way I am gay"

"You are gay? Get the hell out of my store!!"

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  EXACTLY!!!!!!!!  Unless a person's sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation or private activities are self proclaimed in a defiant, belligerent manner, - - - - how would anyone know?  Sure, one might deduce information by someone's public deportment and attire; but unless said personal information is militantly and defiantly volunteered, no one would know for sure.  CONFRONTATION is the goal of activists.

[Hogfaniam]

Maybe I am missing something, usually I do, but how the hell do business owners know whether a person is gay? Are they now forced to wear logos that I am unaware of? Is it stamped on their foreheads?

"Hey...I would like a dozen doughnuts and by the way I am gay"

"You are gay? Get the hell out of my store!!"

"Congrats on Your Nuptials Connie and Beth.  And I would like two Women on top of the cake."

Uh....

[popcornhog]

I don't see the word "sinner" in that.

Your first statement characterizes Christians as not wanting to "sell to sinners".

If that were true, no Christian would ever sell anything to anyone, since everyone is a sinner.

Moreover, the situation in most cases, isn't even a Christian refusing to "sell to a gay person".

Most cases are Christians not wanting to participate in a specific event they believe their faith forbids.

Christians arent roaming the streets looking for gays they can discriminate against.

But some gays have used current discrimination laws as weapons against Christians. Most recently in Oregon, where a woman may lose her business, personal home and life savings, over one event....that has already gone off without a hitch using another vendor.

There has to be a middle ground. People of faith need to have rights also.

Steef, this saddens me. I honestly didn't expect that of you.

We, as Christians (or members of any faith), are already afforded the right not to participate in activities of another religion. The First Amendment guarantees that right.

This law goes much deeper. It allows someone to refuse to bake a cake, rent a house, or give a ride (assuming your business is a taxi service, for example) for a person or couple just because they are gay. Why on earth do we possibly need that sort of "freedom" to crap all over someone just because they are attracted sexually to folks of the same gender?

It just doesn't make any logical sense.

[psooie]

Good write up:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-restoration-act-explained_900641.html?nopager=1

the protest class will protest

[popcornhog]

Maybe I am missing something, usually I do, but how the hell do business owners know whether a person is gay? Are they now forced to wear logos that I am unaware of? Is it stamped on their foreheads?

"Hey...I would like a dozen doughnuts and by the way I am gay"

"You are gay? Get the hell out of my store!!"

In 99% of situations, a business owner wouldn't know whether a customer is gay or straight and this whole discussion would be moot.

It only comes into play when a business owner chides not to do business with someone based on the fact that they're gay. If the business owner didn't know that the potential customer was gay, it would be impossible to discriminate against them based in their homosexuality.

The types of ordinances that this statute bans would have an intent element.

[Senility]

Steef, this saddens me. I honestly didn't expect that of you.

We, as Christians (or members of any faith), are already afforded the right not to participate in activities of another religion. The First Amendment guarantees that right.

This law goes much deeper. It allows someone to refuse to bake a cake, rent a house, or give a ride (assuming your business is a taxi service, for example) for a person or couple just because they are gay. Why on earth do we possibly need that sort of "freedom" to crap all over someone just because they are attracted sexually to folks of the same gender?

It just doesn't make any logical sense.

Your last sentence is poignant and telling.  I understand that a large number of professing Christians do not subscribe to direct Biblical injunctions; that I do NOT understand.  That is tantamount to saying that you truly love your wife, but date other women simply to ascertain the assurance that you got the best marital deal possible, and you feel justified in picking and choosing the specific vows which you will honor - - - and those which you will not honor.  SPECIFIC and UNEQUIVOCAL Biblical injunction PLAINLY detailing God's disposition on homosexuality is irrefutable.  If ANY self proclaiming Christian wishes to argue against this injunction, then - - - -, BY ALL MEANS - - - - - - take God Himself to task on this matter.  He is the Original Source and The Authority.  Whether or not you recognize that Authority is the question that presents itself.  I'm no one's judge.  That is strictly The Creator's domain.

[popcornhog]

Your last sentence is poignant and telling.  I understand that a large number of professing Christians do not subscribe to direct Biblical injunctions; that I do NOT understand.  That is tantamount to saying that you truly love your wife, but date other women simply to ascertain the assurance that you got the best marital deal possible, and you feel justified in picking and choosing the specific vows which you will honor - - - and those which you will not honor.  SPECIFIC and UNEQUIVOCAL Biblical injunction PLAINLY detailing God's disposition on homosexuality is irrefutable.  If ANY self proclaiming Christian wishes to argue against this injunction, then - - - -, BY ALL MEANS - - - - - - take God Himself to task on this matter.  He is the Original Source and The Authority.

Maybe I'm missing your point.

Do you support codifying the Bible?

[Senility]

I accept The Bible - IN IT'S ENTIRETY - as the literal, true Word Of God.  For me, that means that I do NOT have the option of picking and choosing edicts and teachings which I approve of and rejecting and dismissing those I disapprove of.

[Senility]

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am NOT a hatemonger.  I could not stand idly by and watch a person be savagely beaten or mistreated by sadistic thugs.  Whether that innocent victim happened to be gay or straight, Muslim or Christian, rich or poor, or liberal or conservative would have NO BEARING on my intervention.  It would simply be an act of human kindness and sympathy.  I could not turn my back and simply walk away.  Whether or not the victim happened to hold opposing views or predilections would in no way influence my subsequent actions.

However, those who bombastically and stridently challenge my deepest heartfelt convictions need not expect me to capitulate to politically correct social issues pressure.  It ain't gonna happen, - - -no matter how many laws are passed, and no matter how severely I may be maligned, scorned and chastised.

[Steef]

Steef, this saddens me. I honestly didn't expect that of you.

We, as Christians (or members of any faith), are already afforded the right not to participate in activities of another religion. The First Amendment guarantees that right.

This law goes much deeper. It allows someone to refuse to bake a cake, rent a house, or give a ride (assuming your business is a taxi service, for example) for a person or couple just because they are gay. Why on earth do we possibly need that sort of "freedom" to crap all over someone just because they are attracted sexually to folks of the same gender?

It just doesn't make any logical sense.

I dont know anything about Indiana's law. Whether its good or bad. I just know the issue that matters to me, was mischaracterized in this thread.

And the lady in Washington may have her life ruined by a militarized minority through weaponized political correctness.

Over a freaking bouquet of flowers that ended up being unnecessary anyway.

So the need for a middle ground is real.

Does this new law do that?  I dont know and havent said one word in support of it.

[Danny J]

In 99% of situations, a business owner wouldn't know whether a customer is gay or straight and this whole discussion would be moot.

It only comes into play when a business owner chides not to do business with someone based on the fact that they're gay. If the business owner didn't know that the potential customer was gay, it would be impossible to discriminate against them based in their homosexuality.

The types of ordinances that this statute bans would have an intent element.

Sure but we are talking such a minute % of overall transactions that it wouldn't hardly make any difference one way or another. However....in the case where a person is openly gay such as kissing in public or ordering a cake with two women on top wouldn't the owner be within his/her rights not to sell such a cake BUT not disclose the reason? Unless the store owner disclosed his/her intentions for not selling then how would anybody know? Wouldn't that call for the operation of the persons mind? Here is another example:

Two women walk into a bakery, ask for a wedding cake with two brides on top and the store owner states "sorry..I don't wish to do business with you". IMO that is the end of the transaction. It is private property and unless I am unaware of certain laws that have been enacted don't us small business owners have the right to refuse business to anybody WITHOUT having to disclose the reasons? Now if the business owner willingly discloses the reasons then that is on him/her. It is the same with race or religion.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

The firestorm over a new law that would seem to permit discrimination against LGBT people in Indiana has had unintended consequences for the NCAA.  First, NCAA Mark Emmert had to issue a statement regarding the new law and the Final Four, assuring all involved that the new law wouldn't impact the event.

Second, it's brought back to light what seemed like a minor story back in 2004:  the NCAA decided to break away from the former bidding process for hosting Final Fours, at least in part, to help Indianapolis.  The NCAA is headquartered, unsurprisingly, in Indianapolis.  Back in the early 2000's, there was concern that the Colts might leave if the city didn't build a replacement stadium for the RCA Dome.  To help the old hometown, the NCAA signed a contract with the city that Indianapolis would host a Final Four once every five years until 2039.  The hometown wasn't all that old--Indy put up $50 million to convince the NCAA to move from Kansas City in 1999.

So what's so magical about 2039?  It happened to correspond to a ten-year extension on the lease to NCAA headquarters, extending that deal to 2039.  Want some Final Fours in your hometown?  Give the NCAA a building, and you're in great shape.  If you're from anywhere else, you'll have to weather a competitive bidding process.  To toss in a sweetener, the NCAA promised an additional event in each of the intervening years between men's Final Fours.  The women's Final Four, men's and women's early-round tournament games and the NCAA Convention will be included in each five-year cycle.

It helps to be connected on a deal like this.  The group that negotiated on behalf of the city's Indiana Sports Corporation was Jack Swarbrick, now AD at Notre Dame.  In exchange for the Final Four deal, Sports Corp. pledged to work to secure improvements for NCAA headquarters, including more parking, directional signs around the city and, if necessary, space to expand.

The last time a deal this sweet was made for so little involved Indians, beads, and Manhattan.

Well, it sure sounds like some kind of rules violation to me.  NCAA needs to investigate itself on this issue, & issue some kind of a severe penalty upon itself if found guilty.  First penalty should be shrinking their parking area.  Make them walk farther to the office.  Maybe this will give them more time to think about some of their dumb decisions.     

[Breems]

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

Sure but we are talking such a minute % of overall transactions that it wouldn't hardly make any difference one way or another. However....in the case where a person is openly gay such as kissing in public or ordering a cake with two women on top wouldn't the owner be within his/her rights not to sell such a cake BUT not disclose the reason? Unless the store owner disclosed his/her intentions for not selling then how would anybody know? Wouldn't that call for the operation of the persons mind? Here is another example:

Two women walk into a bakery, ask for a wedding cake with two brides on top and the store owner states "sorry..I don't wish to do business with you". IMO that is the end of the transaction. It is private property and unless I am unaware of certain laws that have been enacted don't us small business owners have the right to refuse business to anybody WITHOUT having to disclose the reasons? Now if the business owner willingly discloses the reasons then that is on him/her. It is the same with race or religion.

The only business that has many rights....is government business.

The only "right" you have as a small business......is to pay your taxes....& you "right" better do that on time...

[popcornhog]

I accept The Bible - IN IT'S ENTIRETY - as the literal, true Word Of God.  For me, that means that I do NOT have the option of picking and choosing edicts and teachings which I approve of and rejecting and dismissing those I disapprove of.

And the First Amendment to the United Stayes Constitution protects that right. I don't think that anyone disagrees with that at all. At least not anyone who is remotely serious.