This was what I meant when addressing OU women hosting first round.

[womenssports]

First a quote from Brokeback which I answer. I had not seen his reply previous to today. This was from a discussion in an earlier thread regarding the NCAA tournament.


Default Re: Big dance predictions
Quote:
"Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
If the NCAA said - "we aren't going to let Oklahoma be a site because we think Okie legislators are cray-cray" it would send a message; especially if they publicized it. However I think the women's committee is more interested in growing the sport than they are about politics.

A valiant effort by womenssports though; bravo! I think a better and bigger impact would be to get the Tulsa Shock to move out of Oklahoma."

First, to brokebacksooner, I don't think that many people would care about the Tulsa Shock. They don't average more than 5000 REAL people attending games. Also, many of the REAL people are there on promotions. I am not sure how many people even know they exist, it is another example of how poorly most of the WNBA teams are promoted and how poor their customer service is. Plus, for the good of the WNBA, I really want the Tulsa Shock to remain where they are. The league needs the stabilty. Anyway, discussing the Tulsa Shock as a team and its importance to the league, would need another thread, but appreciate your response above. So back to the originial topic below.

PREFACE: So for those who do not remember, I addressed the bills in the legislature that were anti-glbt and that one way that I had thought about fighting them was by using the fact that OU was a possible site for hosting an NCAA lst round.

I previously did not proceed to address the issue thorougly but I did believe that actions could make a difference. I wanted to protest having the games at OU and at the Peake. And I did not want to do this with just signs at the women's games. I was thinking of a campaign of letter, calls, etc. to the influential corporations and organizations in Oklahoma which might care, as well those outside the state which might care and have influence. Did not go into all of this before because before I could, things got nasty. I did not believe the legislators would care about an OU women's basketball game but that the NCAA, WBCA, WNBA, Tulsa Shock might and that other businesses might, because it affects their bottom lines. Now with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed in Indiana and which effects much of the same changes as the proposed laws in Oklahoma restricting the rights of the GLBT community; the NCAA, NBA, WNBA, Inidana Fever, Indiana Pacers, plus some large corporations are not happy and Indiana Gov. Pence is asking for legisation to clarify the bill.

I won't get into the details of the legislation or the what each side wants or what Gov. Pence has said or if what Pence is saying is enough to appease any of the aforementioned groups. Just wanted to address the fact that this type of legislation can affect sports and that sports and sports fans can affect this type of legislation.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...main/70676350/

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/p...-law/70712968/

 

[MsProudSooner]

I noticed that Arkansas has passed similar legislation and their governor has sent it back to them and basically said, you might want to rethink this.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the firestorm of bad PR for Indiana lately has been living under a rock.

 

[scrybe]

I'm respectful of the rights of all Americans. I'm just not exactly sure which rights of the GLBT community (or any other community, for that matter) have been restricted by this or any other law passed in this country in the last 20-plus years.

 

[womenssports]

I noticed that Arkansas has passed similar legislation and their governor has sent it back to them and basically said, you might want to rethink this.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the firestorm of bad PR for Indiana lately has been living under a rock.

true...I do not think it is close to over in Indiana.

As far as Arkansas, the CEO of Walmart called for the governor to rethink the bill. Walmart power in Arkansas is huge. I was really surprised that the Walmart honchos cared.

 

[tycat947]

I noticed that Arkansas has passed similar legislation and their governor has sent it back to them and basically said, you might want to rethink this.

Anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the firestorm of bad PR for Indiana lately has been living under a rock.

Well deserved, I might add! Takes attention away from Oklahoma idiocy for a few seconds!

 

[MsProudSooner]

I'm respectful of the rights of all Americans. I'm just not exactly sure which rights of the GLBT community (or any other community, for that matter) have been restricted by this or any other law passed in this country in the last 20-plus years.

I suppose their rights aren't restricted until someone says, "I'm exercising my religious freedom and I won't serve you lunch, or cater your wedding or rent you a house or whatever because you are (pick your favorite minority and insert here).

 

[sybarite]

When the Supreme Court decided that a business cannot refuse service because of race or ethnicity, does that not apply to sexual preference? Is this law much ado about nothing since it should be thrown out immediately?

 

[MsProudSooner]

When the Supreme Court decided that a business cannot refuse service because of race or ethnicity, does that not apply to sexual preference? Is this law much ado about nothing since it should be thrown out immediately?

Fear of the legislation being declared unconstitutional doesn't seem to faze these people.

 

[sybarite]

With the laws that have been passed that have already been ruled upon, we need to appoint a justice or two that takes the position that frivolous laws passed by states for political purposes have financial consequences, i.e., make the state liable to suit.

 

[womenssports]

When the Supreme Court decided that a business cannot refuse service because of race or ethnicity, does that not apply to sexual preference? Is this law much ado about nothing since it should be thrown out immediately?

If that were true, then the glbt community would not have been prevented from being in the military. Schools could not have prevented them going to proms. People in gay bars would not have had to had a signal that the police were there and same sex couples had to quit dancing, kissing, holding hands, whatever.
The states could not have prevented lgbt communities from having organizations recognized on campus. Straight bars could not have had the police kick lesbians out of a bar in Norman, Ok. when they danced together in the 1990's.

The federal laws and the federal constitution have not been used to protect lgbt members from state laws until the recent rulings on marriage. Of course, the constitution does protect lgbt imo but it has not been used to do so except with the regard to recent federal rulings which have not been ruled on by the Supreme Court; however, now the SC has accepted cases and will be hearing them in April.

Many people believe that this is deviant behavior and thus not protected under the Constitution. I understand if someone personally does not want to act on any lgbt desires or does not have them, but why, in this world of so many lonely people would someone care who a particular individual loved? And if you think it is against your religion, well then don't do it but our laws are not based on anyone's religion but basic decent values though of course, that has not always been true nor is it always true now.

I actually was getting meds at a psychiatrist's office who employed a bunch of either physician's assistants or psyhciatric assistants and that was who you saw (probably after the first consultation with a psychiatrist)
and ANYWAY, this assistant told me that gays were pedophiles. She brought up NAMBLA which is a group of pedophiles but there are straight pedophiles too. It is so sad that these people get the opportunity to actually influence people with mental health issues. She couldn't influence me, I was there for meds, not therapy but wow. This too was in the 1990's.

 

[MsProudSooner]

If that were true, then the glbt community would not have been prevented from being in the military. Schools could not have prevented them going to proms. People in gay bars would not have had to had a signal that the police were there and same sex couples had to quit dancing, kissing, holding hands, whatever.
The states could not have prevented lgbt communities from having organizations recognized on campus. Straight bars could not have had the police kick lesbians out of a bar in Norman, Ok. when the danced together.

The federal laws and the federal constitution have not been used to protect lgbt members from state laws until the recent rulings on marriage. Of course, the constitution does protect lgbt imo but it has not been used to do so except with the regard to recent federal rulings which have not been ruled on by the Supreme Court; however, now the SC has accepted cases and will be hearing them in April.

Many people believe that this is deviant behavior and thus not protected under the Constitution. I understand if someone personally does not want to act on any lgbt desires or does not have them, but why, in this world of so many lonely people would someone care who a particular individual loved? And if you think it is against your religion, well then don't do it but our laws are not based on anyone's religion but basic decent values though of course, that has not always been true nor is it always true now.

You know that and I know that but some people just don't get it.

The only explanation I can come up with is that some people see the world changing and they don't like what they see. They are frightened by the changes. They want to turn back the clock 50, 100 or 150 years. Nevermind that a lot of what they saw 50 years ago was a facade.

 

[sybarite]

I think it does apply. But, there are so many little judges out there who resist the precedent that they are easy to find when you want to get around the law.

 

[womenssports]

I think it does apply. But, there are so many little judges out there who resist the precedent that they are easy to find when you want to get around the law.

It should apply but the Supreme Court has never ruled it does. As far as that go, the constitution applied to race and ethnicity too but it had to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court to bring that into law. To actually say that a human being of one race is not lesser than a human being of another race. Pretty incredulous to me.

But I know of no legal ruling that has set a precedent on lgbt rights, not from the Supreme Court. These issues are really just now being addressed by most state and federal courts. And, as I said above, now the Supreme Court.

 

[womenssports]

You know that and I know that but some people just don't get it.

The only explanation I can come up with is that some people see the world changing and they don't like what they see. They are frightened by the changes. They want to turn back the clock 50, 100 or 150 years. Nevermind that a lot of what they saw 50 years ago was a facade.

True. Yes, they talk about the good old days and I liked a lot about my childhood in the 50's and 60's, but there was a lot I did not like. race issues,
women's inequality, homophobia
Of course, living in a small Ok. town with only whites and unaware of any homosexuals, I was only concerned with women's inequality. I recognized that as a little girl.

 

[scrybe]

I suppose their rights aren't restricted until someone says, "I'm exercising my religious freedom and I won't serve you lunch, or cater your wedding or rent you a house or whatever because you are (pick your favorite minority and insert here).

Restaurant owners do not refuse to serve lunch to anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. I don't believe you could site one case in which that has occurred in the U.S. in the last quarter century or longer. Anyone who would do so would be guilty of gross and outright discrimination, which is illegal in our nation in the 21st Century.

But if someone is in the catering business and chooses not to cater the wedding of a same sex couple because of his sincerely held religious convictions, why shouldn't he be allowed to politely decline without fear of being labeled a "hater"? Do we not still live in America, where the rights that our forefathers fought and died for are supposed to be protected?

As I stated in my previous post, I'm respectful of the rights of every American. I would not knowingly mistreat any individual: straight, gay or transgender. But do we really want to trample on the rights of those Americans whose sincerely held religious convictions preclude them from surrendering every principal they hold dear? To force a Christian baker to provide a wedding cake adorned with two figures of the same sex would be shameful in a nation where religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.

 

[soonermike22]

Restaurant owners do not refuse to serve lunch to anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. I don't believe you could site one case in which that has occurred in the U.S. in the last quarter century or longer. Anyone who would do so would be guilty of gross and outright discrimination, which is illegal in our nation in the 21st Century.

But if someone is in the catering business and chooses not to cater the wedding of a same sex couple because of his sincerely held religious convictions, why shouldn't he be allowed to politely decline without fear of being labeled a "hater"? Do we not still live in America, where the rights that our forefathers fought and died for are supposed to be protected?

As I stated in my previous post, I'm respectful of the rights of every American. I would not knowingly mistreat any individual: straight, gay or transgender. But do we really want to trample on the rights of those Americans whose sincerely held religious convictions preclude them from surrendering every principal they hold dear? To force a Christian baker to provide a wedding cake adorned with two figures of the same sex would be shameful in a nation where religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.

This is a difficult and personal issue. My take is that if you are a business that serves the public, you serve all the public. If you are private, no licenses, no health board approval you may serve who you like or agree with. But once you became public, you give up the right to pick and choose, other than public health or safety reasons.

 

[tycat947]

This is a difficult and personal issue. My take is that if you are a business that serves the public, you serve all the public. If you are private, no licenses, no health board approval you may serve who you like or agree with. But once you became public, you give up the right to pick and choose, other than public health or safety reasons.

You are right. If you are a private organization (church, club, or whatever) you are free to serve who you want within that private organization. But once you are serving the public you cannot discriminate.

 

[womenssports]

Restaurant owners do not refuse to serve lunch to anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. I don't believe you could site one case in which that has occurred in the U.S. in the last quarter century or longer. Anyone who would do so would be guilty of gross and outright discrimination, which is illegal in our nation in the 21st Century.

But if someone is in the catering business and chooses not to cater the wedding of a same sex couple because of his sincerely held religious convictions, why shouldn't he be allowed to politely decline without fear of being labeled a "hater"? Do we not still live in America, where the rights that our forefathers fought and died for are supposed to be protected?

As I stated in my previous post, I'm respectful of the rights of every American. I would not knowingly mistreat any individual: straight, gay or transgender. But do we really want to trample on the rights of those Americans whose sincerely held religious convictions preclude them from surrendering every principal they hold dear? To force a Christian baker to provide a wedding cake adorned with two figures of the same sex would be shameful in a nation where religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.

There probably are no legal cases to cite because none went to court or if they did, they did not make it far enough in the system to be cited anywhere. However, the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender community do not have protections in most states (except for the relatively new laws regarding marriage which the S.C. is going to hear cases on in
April). In most states they are not protected from discrimination in anyway...........hiring, firing, serving in a restaurant or bar, and on and on. They were only allowed to serve openly the military in 2010. I mentioned an incident which happened in a straight bar in Norman in which the police were called because women were dancing together. That was in the 1990's. I am quite sure in the last 25 years all types of these discriminations have taken place. I am sure people have been fired, not hired, not promoted, not given service: the thing is for the most part there are no laws which protect them. Also, people aren't out because they needed to work, etc. They also did not want to be refused service, they also did not want to feel less than others, did not want to be humiliated, did not want to make a stand, they just wanted to live.

As far as religious freedom vs. equal rights for all, well that is a slippery slope. That argument was used to deny blacks equal rights up through the 60's. I could see IF we are lucky and lgbt community is given equal protection, then the laws might be fashioned similar to those for discrimination against blacks. That religious freedom argument wouldn't work if you employed x amount of people or if you owned x amount of rental properties.

 

[womenssports]

You are right. If you are a private organization (church, club, or whatever) you are free to serve who you want within that private organization. But once you are serving the public you cannot discriminate.

Actually, you can. Most states(any?) have no laws protecting the lgbt community. EDIT: In other words,
they are not a protected class. And, I am not a legal scholar on this nor have I followed it all
as well as many of my friends, but believe what I have posted so far is correct. I care about the issue
but there are so many issues such as the environment, food, farming, education, gmo's, rights of other countries, bank regulations, food stamps, privitization of prisons and social security and schools and on and on; I just get tired and discouraged. Not saying everyone agrees on these, of course they don't or they wouldn't be issues, but if you care about either side of mulitple issues, it is discouraging and more importantly difficult to stay informed.

 

[sybarite]

The laws are there. But, when it comes to any form of civil liberties, the resistance to change has been such that we have to fight every battle individually. Somehow, the fourteenth amendment just didn't seem to apply to women.

Often, the cases are deliberately kept from coming before the court because the court doesn't want to rule. A ruling may result in chaos. As often as we tried to get the draft declared unconstitutional, we never got the draft before the court. We got individual pieces of the draft, like the discrimination of one vs another, or who might be eligible for the draft. But, the draft, itself, never got a ruling. I don't think we have ever been able to get an undeclared war before the court for the same reason. The result would be chaos, or so some believe.

But, cases of rights suffer the same plight. It is difficult to get a direct ruling, and it seems that one victory never is applicable to another form of bigotry.