California bans travel to Alabama, 7 other states:

[Hitman Hart]

In all seriousness @AlaskaGuy , I do agree with you to an extent. It just isn't high on my priority list.

 

[Innermind]

Wow.... I just found this thread, and it's already 9 pages....


....I sure ain't readin' all that.....


......so.......


......I'm just gonna say.....


...... for fucks sake, will someone adopt @AlaskaGuy already?

He deserves a loving home too!

 

[williewilliejuan]

Wow.... I just found this thread, and it's already 9 pages....


....I sure ain't readin' all that.....


......so.......


......I'm just gonna say.....


...... for fucks sake, will someone adopt @AlaskaGuy already?

He deserves a loving home too!

Good news! He's been adopted.

 

[TheReal_NU]

Good news! He's been adopted.

AG's got two daddies?
Go figure.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Wow.... I just found this thread, and it's already 9 pages....


....I sure ain't readin' all that.....


......so.......


......I'm just gonna say.....


...... for fucks sake, will someone adopt @AlaskaGuy already?

He deserves a loving home too!

I didn't start this damn thread.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Cal can’t travel to four more states due to discrimination laws

 

[Codaxx]

Cal can’t travel to four more states due to discrimination laws

USC has to love this, since they are private. UCLA and Stanford have made a push in Texas the last few years with recruits. Now Cal, Stanford, and UCLA can not travel here. That is going to crush recruiting efforts. Nothing like unintended consequences of government action

 

[trojanfan12]

How does one go about getting their state on this list ?

Apparently, you just have to pass a law that allows religious entities to consider their religious beliefs when making policies.

Bunch of fucking libtard morons running this state. It's fucking embarrassing.

Just glad USC is a private school and therefore, not subject to this bullshit.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yes, it should be. I'd rather put their racism out front, that way I don't go.

But if you think that was the problem during the civil rights movement, you'd be mistaken. See, the problem wasn't that businesses would choose this, it was that businesses were FORCED to do it, by law. And that is obviously fucked up.

But if some fucktard racist restraunt owner wants to discriminate, fine with me. It should be their right as a citizen, like it or not. But making laws that force segregation is an entirely different story.

When government does it, it's wrong and should be fixed immediately.

Agree. If a business owner is stupid enough to turn away business based on the color of the customers skin rather than the color of their money. It's their right. It's also the right of the general public to put them out of business by not doing business with them.

Government sponsored laws effect everyone. Stupid business decisions only effect stupid business owners.

 

[4down20]

Agree. If a business owner is stupid enough to turn away business based on the color of the customers skin rather than the color of their money. It's their right. It's also the right of the general public to put them out of business by not doing business with them.

Government sponsored laws effect everyone. Stupid business decisions only effect stupid business owners.

If someone doesn't want to serve me because I'm white, they can watch me as I drive by.

 

[WizardHawk]

USC has to love this, since they are private. UCLA and Stanford have made a push in Texas the last few years with recruits. Now Cal, Stanford, and UCLA can not travel here. That is going to crush recruiting efforts. Nothing like unintended consequences of government action

Negative. Stanford is a private school and will not be impacted by any such law.

Cal is a dumpster fire anyway so really UCLA is the only school with potential impact that matters any from the P5 level. Bunch of next tier schools are ones with something more to lose. They rely on those travel dollars to bigger programs and just shrank their potential pool substantially.

 

[Codaxx]

Negative. Stanford is a private school and will not be impacted by any such law.

Cal is a dumpster fire anyway so really UCLA is the only school with potential impact that matters any from the P5 level. Bunch of next tier schools are ones with something more to lose. They rely on those travel dollars to bigger programs and just shrank their potential pool substantially.

Damn it. Stanford out of the state would have been nice. At least UCLA will be affected. Cal has been down here recently also.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

USC has to love this, since they are private. UCLA and Stanford have made a push in Texas the last few years with recruits. Now Cal, Stanford, and UCLA can not travel here. That is going to crush recruiting efforts. Nothing like unintended consequences of government action

Stanford is a private school ... but Cal and UCLA are finished after this. In fact I can't see them having much of an athletic dept. in the future.

 

[Innermind]

Agree. If a business owner is stupid enough to turn away business based on the color of the customers skin rather than the color of their money. It's their right. It's also the right of the general public to put them out of business by not doing business with them.

Government sponsored laws effect everyone. Stupid business decisions only effect stupid business owners.

No, some stupid business decisions affect more than the business owners, they also affect the potential customers.... see my scenario below.

If someone doesn't want to serve me because I'm white, they can watch me as I drive by.

It sucks to get political in a thread about football.... but....

As a society, we cannot allow some freedoms, including discriminatory behavior....especially when almost everybody is enjoying the usage of publicly funded infrastructure, including private business owners.

Because people generally suck, and will treat each other like crap very often, we must pass laws curtailing some freedoms in order to avoid anarchy where everybody is doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Generally speaking, if a person is turned away from a business, we as consumers usually have the option of going elsewhere with our money. To paraphrase @4down20 if someone does not want me as a customer, I sure as hell don't want to be their customer, and I will choose to go somewhere else with my money. Sure, that's a great option if one happens to be located in a higher population area with lots of competition from which to choose.

But consider the following scenario:

You and your family are traveling long distance by car, and you are passing through the middle of nowhere. You are very low on gasoline (or your vehicle breaks down), your family is tired and hungry. So.... you need to take the next exit off of the publicly funded highway you are using and you come upon a tiny oasis of civilization located right off of the publicly funded highway overpass. It's a very isolated area boasting perhaps only three businesses (tiny motel, tiny cafe/diner, and a gas station/mini convenience store) located off of this publicly funded highway exit.

Again, your vehicle needs gasoline, and your kids need something to eat & drink. However, all three of these businesses turn you away as customers. You and your family are now basically fucked, and are stranded in this middle of nowhere location. One more thing, you also cannot get any cell phone coverage/reception in this out-of-the-way location and no one at these three businesses will allow you to use a landline! Yup...this scenario sounds like the makings of a cheesy horror movie script involving a creepy town. Again, these three private businesses that just turned you away exist in part do to the owners being able to enjoy the benefits of publicly funded infrastructure.​

A scenario like the above should never be legally allowed to happen in our country.

They don't have a right to refuse to serve a person because of race. It's the law and nothing should ever change that.

So..... @socaljim242 is correct..... we need laws to limit some freedoms, including the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination cannot be allowed to legally occur.

Again, private business exist in part due to the business owners enjoying the benefits and luxury of utilizing modern publicly funded infrastructure. These business owners are also enjoying the use of a pretty reliable public postal delivery system too, as well as reaping the benefits of a publicly funded education.

If a business owner is located on his own completely private island in the middle of the ocean, far away from the benefits of a publicly funded society, then sure, I believe he has the right to discriminate. Otherwise, nope.... if you received any type of public benefit in your life, then you cannot be allowed to legally discriminate against others in this country. Even if your family is completely home-schooled without a physical address for public mail delivery, you still reap the publicly funded benefits of the EPA and FDA (allowing you to purchase safe consumer products), and you also reap the benefits and protection of police, fire department, military, etc.

The concept that a private business owner can do whatever the fuck he wants is not valid, because the business owner is enjoying many benefits & perks of a publicly funded society.

Freedom is great....but.... we simply cannot allow some freedoms to exist (including the freedom to discriminate), because of the potential dangers like my scenario above. Many folks with a libertarian mindset believe things will generally work themselves out, and the free market will eventually produce harmony if everything was private. This is BS.... our species is too tribal/xenophobic in nature, and many humans will find ways to screw each other over if given the opportunity. If we eliminate most laws, and allow an extreme libertarian/private society to perpetuate, we will probably not wind up with a free & private utopia.....rather, we would probably have something more akin to a Mad Max anarchy society.

We need a mix of private and public institutions to properly function as a society, and because we are enjoying public benefits, we should not and cannot be allowed to discriminate.


Again, if you want to discriminate against others, then get your own isolated island which is completely cut-off from any public benefits/perks.

 

[Center Ice]

Should I assume that if CA teams don't show up for out of state games, they forfeit? Or is that too simple?


Or an even better idea. CA teams don't play anybody but other CA teams and the winner at the end of the season takes home the LGBT Cup!

 

[jon2tanman]

California will now travel as much as the SEC.

 

[trojanfan12]

No, some stupid business decisions affect more than the business owners, they also affect the potential customers.... see my scenario below.





It sucks to get political in a thread about football.... but....

As a society, we cannot allow some freedoms, including discriminatory behavior....especially when almost everybody is enjoying the usage of publicly funded infrastructure, including private business owners.

Because people generally suck, and will treat each other like crap very often, we must pass laws curtailing some freedoms in order to avoid anarchy where everybody is doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Generally speaking, if a person is turned away from a business, we as consumers usually have the option of going elsewhere with our money. To paraphrase @4down20 if someone does not want me as a customer, I sure as hell don't want to be their customer, and I will choose to go somewhere else with my money. Sure, that's a great option if one happens to be located in a higher population area with lots of competition from which to choose.

But consider the following scenario:

You and your family are traveling long distance by car, and you are passing through the middle of nowhere. You are very low on gasoline (or your vehicle breaks down), your family is tired and hungry. So.... you need to take the next exit off of the publicly funded highway you are using and you come upon a tiny oasis of civilization located right off of the publicly funded highway overpass. It's a very isolated area boasting perhaps only three businesses (tiny motel, tiny cafe/diner, and a gas station/mini convenience store) located off of this publicly funded highway exit.

Again, your vehicle needs gasoline, and your kids need something to eat & drink. However, all three of these businesses turn you away as customers. You and your family are now basically fucked, and are stranded in this middle of nowhere location. One more thing, you also cannot get any cell phone coverage/reception in this out-of-the-way location and no one at these three businesses will allow you to use a landline! Yup...this scenario sounds like the makings of a cheesy horror movie script involving a creepy town. Again, these three private businesses that just turned you away exist in part do to the owners being able to enjoy the benefits of publicly funded infrastructure.​

A scenario like the above should never be legally allowed to happen in our country.



So..... @socaljim242 is correct..... we need laws to limit some freedoms, including the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination cannot be allowed to legally occur.

Again, private business exist in part due to the business owners enjoying the benefits and luxury of utilizing modern publicly funded infrastructure. These business owners are also enjoying the use of a pretty reliable public postal delivery system too, as well as reaping the benefits of a publicly funded education.

If a business owner is located on his own completely private island in the middle of the ocean, far away from the benefits of a publicly funded society, then sure, I believe he has the right to discriminate. Otherwise, nope.... if you received any type of public benefit in your life, then you cannot be allowed to legally discriminate against others in this country. Even if your family is completely home-schooled without a physical address for public mail delivery, you still reap the publicly funded benefits of the EPA and FDA (allowing you to purchase safe consumer products), and you also reap the benefits and protection of police, fire department, military, etc.

The concept that a private business owner can do whatever the fuck he wants is not valid, because the business owner is enjoying many benefits & perks of a publicly funded society.

Freedom is great....but.... we simply cannot allow some freedoms to exist (including the freedom to discriminate), because of the potential dangers like my scenario above. Many folks with a libertarian mindset believe things will generally work themselves out, and the free market will eventually produce harmony if everything was private. This is BS.... our species is too tribal/xenophobic in nature, and many humans will find ways to screw each other over if given the opportunity. If we eliminate most laws, and allow an extreme libertarian/private society to perpetuate, we will probably not wind up with a free & private utopia.....rather, we would probably have something more akin to a Mad Max anarchy society.

We need a mix of private and public institutions to properly function as a society, and because we are enjoying public benefits, we should not and cannot be allowed to discriminate.


Again, if you want to discriminate against others, then get your own isolated island which is completely cut-off from any public benefits/perks.

I understand, I disagree. Perhaps back when some of these laws were enacted, the scenario you presented would be viable.

However, in 2017, the likelihood that scenario plays out is very, very small. There are simply a lot more people and lot more businesses that provide the same services. Any business that is turning away customers, for any reason, isn't likely to be in business for long. Especially, if it's for something like race.

End of the day, if one restaurant doesn't want my business, there's one across the street or around the corner that does.

 

[4down20]

No, some stupid business decisions affect more than the business owners, they also affect the potential customers.... see my scenario below.

It sucks to get political in a thread about football.... but....

As a society, we cannot allow some freedoms, including discriminatory behavior....especially when almost everybody is enjoying the usage of publicly funded infrastructure, including private business owners.
.

Yes we can, it's called a free society.

Your justification is no different than those of the Jim Crow laws, the only difference is what you consider socially acceptable and what was considered socially acceptable then are different.

Those people were democrats, trying to push their social agenda of the day through government. And it's no different now. Never do democrats ever seem to respect private property or personal freedom. To you, because you feel you are morally superior in your stance, you think you have the right to dictate that moral code onto others.

I stand for personal freedom, even when I don't agree with it. That's what it takes to live in a free society, not one where people are made to follow the social agenda of the day by government, or else face punishment by that government.

As for your "publicly funded infrastucture" bullshit, aka the commerce clause loophole. You are merely trying to claim government rights over private property because of the roads that connect them - which are paid for by the private citizens in the first place.

Thus you are saying that because I pay taxes on my roads, I'm no longer allowed to my private rights as a citizen if I want to actually make a living. This is again, no different than Jim Crow laws, just different direction.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Should I assume that if CA teams don't show up for out of state games, they forfeit? Or is that too simple?


Or an even better idea. CA teams don't play anybody but other CA teams and the winner at the end of the season takes home the LGBT Cup!

Soon there will be what's called the 'California Conference' and it will be all California teams and they won't play anyone but themselves. Jerry Brown will be the conference commissioner.

 

[batchaps4me]

but why exactly does that need to be a law

Simple questions: Do individuals have freedom of religion? Can they practice that religion while operating a business or providing a public service?

As a society, we cannot allow some freedoms, including discriminatory behavior....especially when almost everybody is enjoying the usage of publicly funded infrastructure, including private business owners.

So freedom does not exist. Your stance basically can be interpreted as the government has the right to regulate all interactions between people to eliminate the bad behavior as the government sees fit. This is the exact philosophy that Sharia Law proponents enjoy. Also the slave owners and segregationists used this philosophy. The only difference is what is considered proper behavior by those in charge.

Because people generally suck, and will treat each other like crap very often, we must pass laws curtailing some freedoms in order to avoid anarchy where everybody is doing whatever the fuck they want to do.

Again, you stand for the government controlling all interactions between citizens and abolishing freedoms. If people cannot be trusted to do what is right, how in hell can you believe that the PEOPLE in government can do what is right? Let me put it like this, if people treat others like crap, what do you think will happen when people have the legal right to curtail people's basic human rights?

Generally speaking, if a person is turned away from a business, we as consumers usually have the option of going elsewhere with our money. To paraphrase @4down20 if someone does not want me as a customer, I sure as hell don't want to be their customer, and I will choose to go somewhere else with my money. Sure, that's a great option if one happens to be located in a higher population area with lots of competition from which to choose.

But consider the following scenario:

You and your family are traveling long distance by car, and you are passing through the middle of nowhere. You are very low on gasoline (or your vehicle breaks down), your family is tired and hungry. So.... you need to take the next exit off of the publicly funded highway you are using and you come upon a tiny oasis of civilization located right off of the publicly funded highway overpass. It's a very isolated area boasting perhaps only three businesses (tiny motel, tiny cafe/diner, and a gas station/mini convenience store) located off of this publicly funded highway exit.

Again, your vehicle needs gasoline, and your kids need something to eat & drink. However, all three of these businesses turn you away as customers. You and your family are now basically fucked, and are stranded in this middle of nowhere location. One more thing, you also cannot get any cell phone coverage/reception in this out-of-the-way location and no one at these three businesses will allow you to use a landline! Yup...this scenario sounds like the makings of a cheesy horror movie script involving a creepy town. Again, these three private businesses that just turned you away exist in part do to the owners being able to enjoy the benefits of publicly funded infrastructure.​

A scenario like the above should never be legally allowed to happen in our country.

So can we limit peoples rights when they are a bit isolated? Or are you still maintaining that we should eliminate everyone's rights?

So..... @socaljim242 is correct..... we need laws to limit some freedoms, including the freedom to discriminate. Discrimination cannot be allowed to legally occur.

So close, but so far away. Let me FIFY: Discrimination from or by any government agent cannot be allowed to legally occur. You are welcome.

Again, private business exist in part due to the business owners enjoying the benefits and luxury of utilizing modern publicly funded infrastructure. These business owners are also enjoying the use of a pretty reliable public postal delivery system too, as well as reaping the benefits of a publicly funded education.

If we are choosing to either eliminate a human's rights or get government out of the education and postal systems, you can guess which way I fall on this issue. Roads have zero effect on rights after you leave the road. Property rights begin at the property line.

If a business owner is located on his own completely private island in the middle of the ocean, far away from the benefits of a publicly funded society, then sure, I believe he has the right to discriminate. Otherwise, nope.... if you received any type of public benefit in your life, then you cannot be allowed to legally discriminate against others in this country. Even if your family is completely home-schooled without a physical address for public mail delivery, you still reap the publicly funded benefits of the EPA and FDA (allowing you to purchase safe consumer products), and you also reap the benefits and protection of police, fire department, military, etc.

So as government expands, rights cease to exit.

The concept that a private business owner can do whatever the fuck he wants is not valid, because the business owner is enjoying many benefits & perks of a publicly funded society.

You just believe that government is supreme due to funding. What if government is taken over by a majority voting block of Sharia Law believing citizens? Do they then have the right to determine what rights need to be abolished? Or is it just your values that should be enforced? George Wallace would probably agree with you.

Freedom is great....but.... we simply cannot allow some freedoms to exist (including the freedom to discriminate), because of the potential dangers like my scenario above. Many folks with a libertarian mindset believe things will generally work themselves out, and the free market will eventually produce harmony if everything was private. This is BS.... our species is too tribal/xenophobic in nature, and many humans will find ways to screw each other over if given the opportunity. If we eliminate most laws, and allow an extreme libertarian/private society to perpetuate, we will probably not wind up with a free & private utopia.....rather, we would probably have something more akin to a Mad Max anarchy society.

What if we enforced the Non Aggression Principle? Basically it says that everyone has the right to act as long as it does not impede on the rights of others? By your beliefs people are bad, mean and evil BUT people in government are the cure for all social slights and ills. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that belief ... that give people power to abolish rights will keep all of us evil people straight?

We need a mix of private and public institutions to properly function as a society, and because we are enjoying public benefits, we should not and cannot be allowed to discriminate.

Not only should people that are not government agents allowed to discriminate, in a way I like to see the ones that are discriminatory be open about it. With the rapid communications the internet provides, it would be easy to put them out of business.

Again, if you want to discriminate against others, then get your own isolated island which is completely cut-off from any public benefits/perks.

Is your beliefs on affirmative action and quotas for admission to universities consistent with your beliefs, or is your anti discrimination stand conditional?[/QUOTE]