NFL to move SB XLIX?

[SonnyCID]

The NFL should keep their fingers out of local politics. The NFL is a tax exempt entity. If the NFL wishes to keep that status, they needs to remain neutral & not wade into matters that don't concern them. This law would have no direct bearing on the NFL & how it would operate.

If the NFL wants to hold the SB as ransom to influence politics, then they should first reimburse the tax payers that are paying for one of their new state-of-the-art homes that was recently built.

Till then, big business needs to stay the fuck out of local politics. No one likes it when it is the Koch brothers, George Soros, or other billionaires who stick their noses & money into local politics, the same thing applies to the NFL.

And you know what really pisses me off? I am agnostic & dumbshits like those in this thread & around the country are making me defend religious freedom.

The religion of money always prevails.

Many of the original political supporters of this law are now asking the governer not to enact it. That tells me that the NFL are not the only corporate power saying they dont want to do business with a state supporting these types of policies. It's all fun and games until someone loses some campaign funds.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Having religious freedom, or freedom of any kind doesn't give you the right to discriminate based on it. Don't want to conform to the kind of rules we implemented for race during civil rights? Don't open a business. It's part of the deal.

Believe what you want privately. That's fine as long as you let others do the same and treat them like human fucking beings. Why should anyone respect the beliefs of one side just so they can shit on the beliefs of the other? It's fucking retarded and simply repeating the same shit people fought and died for over the color of their skin.

That's complete bullshit. Whether or not you agree with the bill, the NFL has no business interjecting themselves into the conversation. If the Bidwills want to make a statement against SB1062, and they have, that is their prerogative as citizens & business owners in this state. But the NFL using the SB as blackmail for political reasons, that is not okay. And it should never be okay.

You just don't get it.

 

[Davis_Mike]

The religion of money always prevails.

Many of the original political supporters of this law are now asking the governer not to enact it. That tells me that the NFL are not the only corporate power saying they dont want to do business with a state supporting these types of policies. It's all fun and games until someone loses some campaign funds.

The bill was poorly written & leaves the door widen open for discrimination. That is not the point I was making. The NFL interjecting themselves & using the SB as blackmail is beyond the pale.

The bill was vetoed last year & likely would have been vetoed again before all this fake angst began.

 

[SonnyCID]

It's the NFL's party, they can move it if they want to.

If a company can refuse service for religious reasons, a company better damn well be able to refuse service for financial reasons, which is what the NFL would be doing if it came down to it, which it won't.

 

[RegentDenali]

Remember when California and Washington lawmakers said they were going to "boycott" Arizona because of it's immigration laws? With LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa leading the charge.

Arizona then reminded LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (the one that was caught and investigated for over 30+ campaign finance and disclosure laws violations, numerous affairs including cheating on his wife when she was battling cancer, and shagging a local tv reporter who provided gushing news reports on him) that Arizona provides LA with over 25% of it's electricity.

That shut that corrupt clown up in record time.


If the NFL want's to stick it's nose in this fine, but considering it's fanbase demographics, they may want to think carefully about moving the SB over this specific issue.

 

[Podunkparte]

That's complete bullshit. Whether or not you agree with the bill, the NFL has no business interjecting themselves into the conversation. If the Bidwills want to make a statement against SB1062, and they have, that is their prerogative as citizens & business owners in this state. But the NFL using the SB as blackmail for political reasons, that is not okay. And it should never be okay.

You just don't get it.

The Super Bowl is property of the NFL, not Arizona.

Apparently you don't get it

 

[Podunkparte]

Remember when California and Washington lawmakers said they were going to "boycott" Arizona because of it's immigration laws? With LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa leading the charge.

Arizona then reminded LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (the one that was caught and investigated for over 30+ campaign finance and disclosure laws violations, numerous affairs including cheating on his wife when she was battling cancer, and shagging a local tv reporter who provided gushing news reports on him) that Arizona provides LA with over 25% of it's electricity.

That shut that corrupt clown up in record time.


If the NFL want's to stick it's nose in this fine, but considering it's fanbase demographics, they may want to think carefully about moving the SB over this specific issue.

The NFL is comprised mostly of people who support discrimination based on sexual preference? Got any evidence to support your theory?

I guarantee you the vast majority of NFL fans couldn't give 2 shits about whether then next Super Bowl was in Arizona or not. They just want to watch football.

 

[Podunkparte]

That's complete bullshit. Whether or not you agree with the bill, the NFL has no business interjecting themselves into the conversation. If the Bidwills want to make a statement against SB1062, and they have, that is their prerogative as citizens & business owners in this state. But the NFL using the SB as blackmail for political reasons, that is not okay. And it should never be okay.

You just don't get it.

Isn't it ironic that you're arguing for businesses being able to refuse giving their services to people then bitching about the NFL possibly refusing to give its best commodity to a state?

 

[SDPaddlefish]

The NFL is comprised mostly of people who support discrimination based on sexual preference? Got any evidence to support your theory?

I guarantee you the vast majority of NFL fans couldn't give 2 shits about whether then next Super Bowl was in Arizona or not. They just want to watch football.

Granted, and I also guarantee you that the vast majority of NFL fans couldn't give 2 shits about whether Arizona passes this stupid law or not. This law is an incredibly stupid and poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to overly aggressive gay activism and very few people will be affected whether it's passed or not.

 

[RegentDenali]

The NFL is comprised mostly of people who support discrimination based on sexual preference? Got any evidence to support your theory?

I guarantee you the vast majority of NFL fans couldn't give 2 shits about whether then next Super Bowl was in Arizona or not. They just want to watch football.

All I'm saying is that if the NFL wishes to pursue this, and moves the SB, that they will have to deal with any consequences of those actions.

I may lean conservative on many issues, but I voted yes on the maryjane and gay marriage initiatives for WA state in the last election. If gays want to enjoy the marriage thing, knock yourselves out. I don't care. I've had plenty of gay friends and coworkers through the years. I don't care.

But where I do have a problem is states telling it's residents that if you choose to not provide your business services to homosexuals (ex. a wedding photographer who runs their own business, but doesn't want to be involved in gay weddings), even if you object to it because of your religious or personal beliefs, that you can be sued by those individuals in court and have your entire livelihood wiped out because you didn't want to work the gig. That's where I have a problem with this. I don't agree with that. That's where I see it as your discriminating against one set of beliefs to prop up another.

 

[Podunkparte]

Granted, and I also guarantee you that the vast majority of NFL fans couldn't give 2 shits about whether Arizona passes this stupid law or not. This law is an incredibly stupid and poorly thought out knee jerk reaction to overly aggressive gay activism and very few people will be affected whether it's passed or not.

All true, but my point was refuting Regent's claim here:

If the NFL want's to stick it's nose in this fine, but considering it's fanbase demographics, they may want to think carefully about moving the SB over this specific issue.

NFL fans just care about football. The NFL though, cares about its image. If it wants to look better to the public by pulling its own event out of Arizona, it can and should.

 

[Podunkparte]

All I'm saying is that if the NFL wishes to pursue this, and moves the SB, that they will have to deal with any consequences of those actions.

I'm sure they're fine with that, given the way the public perception of homosexuality has changed over the last decade or so.

But where I do have a problem is states telling it's residents that if you choose to not provide your business services to homosexuals (ex. a wedding photographer who runs their own business, but doesn't want to be involved in gay weddings), even if you object to it because of your religious or personal beliefs, that you can be sued by those individuals in court and have your entire livelihood wiped out because you didn't want to work the gig. That's where I have a problem with this. I don't agree with that. That's where I see it as your discriminating against one set of beliefs to prop up another.

And I agree with this idea in principle, though I don't think the example quite fits. Wedding photographers say no to people all the time. Schedules don't work out, etc. People who work "gigs" aren't obligated to say yes to every opportunity that arises.

Take something more simple, like a restaurant. A man comes in for lunch and is told he won't be served because he's gay. That's wrong. Why? Substitute the word "gay" for the word "black" and there should be no problem seeing why.

 

[RegentDenali]

I'm sure they're fine with that, given the way the public perception of homosexuality has changed over the last decade or so.



And I agree with this idea in principle, though I don't think the example quite fits. Wedding photographers say no to people all the time. Schedules don't work out, etc. People who work "gigs" aren't obligated to say yes to every opportunity that arises.

Take something more simple, like a restaurant. A man comes in for lunch and is told he won't be served because he's gay. That's wrong. Why? Substitute the word "gay" for the word "black" and there should be no problem seeing why.

Tell it to the 70 year old florist in Washington state, Barronelle Stutzman, who is now facing two lawsuits, one by the state Attorney General Bob Ferguson and now the ACLU piled on as well. And the ACLU lawsuit is listing the gay couple she didn't want to do a wedding for as the plaintiffs and seeking damages.

While they had been customers of her store in the past and she had no problem selling to them knowing they were homosexuals, in the lawsuit filed by the AG, it says: she could not serve them "because of (her) relationship with Jesus Christ." when it came specifically to a wedding ceremony. The AG is already demanding she pay over $2,000 in fines and will continue to fine her for each violation.

Stutzman's attorney, Justin Bristol, said forcing his client to sell flowers for a gay wedding violated her constitutional rights of freedom of speech, association and religious exercise.

The ACLU claims they will drop the lawsuit if: she agrees to provide flowers without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, publishes a letter of apology in the newspaper, and donates $5,000 to a local youth center. But she'll still have to pay the ACLUs attorneys’ fees as well.

 

[RoboticDreams]

I can't remember an agenda being pushed this fervently and so wide ranging in my life. It's fucking ridiculous. "Look at me, look at me! Not only do you have to accept that I exist but you HAVE to agree that my lifestyle is okay!"

I agree that the NFL will more than likely move the Super Bowl if this bill isn't vetoed and I think it's stupid, but it's a business. With as hard as this gay rights bullshit is being pushed, they would be stupid not to. I would support them if they left it there but I understand the business side of it.

 

[JDM]

Apparently you missed every day they taught about the Civil Rights movement in school, because no, they actually can't.

That portion of the civil rights act was extremely unconstitutional. It's totalitarian and disgusting.

 

[JDM]

The NFL should keep their fingers out of local politics. The NFL is a tax exempt entity. If the NFL wishes to keep that status, they needs to remain neutral & not wade into matters that don't concern them. This law would have no direct bearing on the NFL & how it would operate.

If the NFL wants to hold the SB as ransom to influence politics, then they should first reimburse the tax payers that are paying for one of their new state-of-the-art homes that was recently built.

Till then, big business needs to stay the fuck out of local politics. No one likes it when it is the Koch brothers, George Soros, or other billionaires who stick their noses & money into local politics, the same thing applies to the NFL.

And you know what really pisses me off? I am agnostic & dumbshits like those in this thread & around the country are making me defend religious freedom.

The NFL can take whatever stance it wants. It is a private entity that has its own beliefs. It can also choose who it does business with. That includes taking business away from a state with laws it doesn't agree with.

It is tax exempt by the nature of what it is. It doesn't actually have profits to tax. The owners, who actually see profit, do get taxed, as they should.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

Both Sides can do whatever they want. There should be zero infringement.


ARIZONA businesses should have the right to sell their products to whomever they want.


The NFL should have the right to legally move its superbowl for any reason that is within the contractual obligations agreed.


Just because you disagree with a belief system (no matter how vile to your sensibilities) does not entitle you to infringe on another entities constitutional rights of religious freedom.

 

[Midnightangel]

]I can't remember an agenda being pushed this fervently and so wide ranging in my life. It's fucking ridiculous. "Look at me, look at me! Not only do you have to accept that I exist but you HAVE to agree that my lifestyle is okay!" [/B]

I agree that the NFL will more than likely move the Super Bowl if this bill isn't vetoed and I think it's stupid, but it's a business. With as hard as this gay rights bullshit is being pushed, they would be stupid not to. I would support them if they left it there but I understand the business side of it.

Civil rights movement.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

It's supposed to be held in Arizona but....

With Arizona potentially passing a law that would allow business owners to deny service to gay couples on religious grounds, the NFL could be pull the plug on the next Super Bowl, which is due to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” the NFL said in a statement issued to Albert Breer of NFL Network. “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.”

It's simple...

Arizona is free to pass a law that allows business owners to deny service to gay people...and the NFL is free to find another venue.

Your damn straight it is simple, people/corps can "can vote" with their dollars too. Where the hell is "separation of church and State" these days anywho? Even that ugly Gov J Brewer aint stupid enough not to see that.

To those "righties" I say, "Just say no" and move on, who the hell needs a bill like that in their State?

 

[Giantsmojo]

Today, it's the gays that will get denied service. Next election, the unwed mothers because they are against God. The next election, any one that's a member of a Christian branch that isn't affiliated with the owners religion. The Jews? Really? Why debate? They get no service. Oh yeah, all those people of Mexican decent, they must have crossed the border illegally, let's deny them service as well, it's against my religion.


This will be my ONLY political rant on this forum. I like it too much to drag it through politics. However, I hope I just pointed out that what seems like a good idea (because who likes gay people?) at the time, is just the starting point of bringing back the "separate but equal" policies that were put in place in the South decades ago.


Too many good people fought and died under our flag to see society regress the way it is in Arizona. It just makes me want to puke. Religious freedom, my ass. It is a crutch to practice open discrimination.


</ Rant Over>


GO SEAHAWKS!!

Niemöller said it best

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.