California Schools new scheduling ban (LGBT related) ...

[Scorcho]

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/california-law-stop-ncaa-games-schools-four-states-anti-lgbt-laws.html


a newly-implemented California law prevents state-funded schools (including Cal, UCLA and other schools in the UC and CSU systems) from scheduling further games against schools from four states (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/06/cal-withdraws-from-talks-with-kansas-over-anti-lgbt-law/):

[Hayes6]

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/california-law-stop-ncaa-games-schools-four-states-anti-lgbt-laws.html

It's just a matter of time until they ban games with BYU.

[Ultimate Ute]

Some schools/states may enact a prohibition against playing California schools because they have institutionalized the harboring and protecting of illegal immigrants with criminal records.

If Cal is serious, they will forfeit NCAA tourney games against said schools/states.

I haven' watched an NBA game in 5 years, NFL in 3 years. My interest in college athletics in waning with each passing day. Life is too short for this much bull shit.

[Utah]

I'm glad California is taking a stance and standing up for what they believe in. No one is perfect, but we all need to strive to be better.

It's not ok to discriminate against anyone. This is no different than BYU not playing on Sunday, BYU not allowing LGBT the same rights on campus, BYU not allowing members who leave the Church to stay enrolled at BYU (although I think BYU was forced to change this rule), etc.

Some things are more important than sports. Discrimination is one of them. Good for California for standing up for what is right.

[SeattleUte]

Some schools/states may enact a prohibition against playing California schools because they have institutionalized the harboring and protecting of illegal immigrants with criminal records.

If Cal is serious, they will forfeit NCAA tourney games against said schools/states.

I haven' watched an NBA game in 5 years, NFL in 3 years. My interest in college athletics in waning with each passing day. Life is too short for this much bull shit.

Oh brother. You haven't changed, have you. Why don't you go do something else, like get off on Donald Trump tweets.

[LA Ute]

Oh brother. You haven't changed, have you. Why don't you go do something else, like get off on Donald Trump tweets.

Ultimate talks about the issue. You talk about Ultimate.

[SeattleUte]

Ultimate talks about the issue. You talk about Ultimate.

What issue? It's not worthy of discussion. He doesn't like LGTB. He doesn't like immigrants. He doesn't like Jews. I wonder why he doesn't like the NFL or the NBA anymore. I bet it's not a reason I'd like to hear about or consider a legitimate "issue". I don't think this place should be a forum for views like his.

[Scratch]

I'm glad California is taking a stance and standing up for what they believe in. No one is perfect, but we all need to strive to be better.

It's not ok to discriminate against anyone. This is no different than BYU not playing on Sunday, BYU not allowing LGBT the same rights on campus, BYU not allowing members who leave the Church to stay enrolled at BYU (although I think BYU was forced to change this rule), etc.

Some things are more important than sports. Discrimination is one of them. Good for California for standing up for what is right.

To summarize:

"I'm glad California is discriminating against people."

"It's not OK to discriminate against anyone."

You do realize that we all discriminate about all kinds of people all the time, right? The only question is whether the discrimination is justified.

[LA Ute]

What issue? It's not worthy of discussion. He doesn't like LGTB. He doesn't like immigrants. He doesn't like Jews. I wonder why he doesn't like the NFL or the NBA anymore. I bet it's not a reason I'd like to hear about or consider a legitimate "issue". I don't think this place should be a forum for views like his.

Oh come on. There's nothing like that in the post related to your ad hominem response.

[SeattleUte]

Oh come on. There's nothing like that in the post related to your ad hominem response.

I'm familiar with his views from posts on utefans. I was hoping he was reformed, but I've seen enough to know it's the same Ultimate Ute.

[LA Ute]

I'm familiar with his views from posts on utefans. I was hoping he was reformed, but I've seen enough to know it's the same Ultimate Ute.

I for one am glad to see him here and hope he posts more. Thou tottering tardy-gaited flap-dragon!

[sancho]

Some things are more important than sports.

If the Olympics wants to ban S. Africa over apartheid, I'm all for it. But I'm not excited about a new era in which academics use college athletics as a pawn in political games. These people care nothing for sports, and they will happily sacrifice athletics at their altar of politics.

[Hayes6]

If the Olympics wants to ban S. Africa over apartheid, I'm all for it. But I'm not excited about a new era in which academics use college athletics as a pawn in political games. These people care nothing for sports, and they will happily sacrifice athletics at their altar of politics.

So discrimination against LGBT folks is mere politics? I consider it more like an affront to basic human rights.

[Scorcho]

I'm glad California is taking a stance and standing up for what they believe in. No one is perfect, but we all need to strive to be better.

It's not ok to discriminate against anyone. This is no different than BYU not playing on Sunday, BYU not allowing LGBT the same rights on campus, BYU not allowing members who leave the Church to stay enrolled at BYU (although I think BYU was forced to change this rule), etc.

Some things are more important than sports. Discrimination is one of them. Good for California for standing up for what is right.

I agree with this. While sometimes CA lawmakers enact some head scratching legislation, at least they have the balls to be the front-runner for some much needed legislation. Which inevitably the rest of the country finally catches up and follows.

[sancho]

So discrimination against LGBT folks is mere politics? I consider it more like an affront to basic human rights.

So you agree with this particular political cause. Fine. I do too. The NC law is just dumb.

I don't want college athletics to be a pawn in whatever political causes seem important at the time. I prefer the games in athletics and the games in politics to mingle as infrequently as possible. I especially don't want it to be a pawn in the hands of people who care a lot about politics and may not care at all about athletics.

[SeattleUte]

So you agree with this particular political cause. Fine. I do too. The NC law is just dumb.

I don't want college athletics to be a pawn in whatever political causes seem important at the time. I prefer the games in athletics and the games in politics to mingle as infrequently as possible. I especially don't want it to be a pawn in the hands of people who care a lot about politics and may not care at all about athletics.

Sometimes the politics hardens into morality. It's the way it works. At one time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was politics; but now if you want to bring back Jim Crow you're a racist. At some point a political cause triumphs so resoundingly and the logic supporting it is so compelling that it becomes about morality. That is what LGBT is become. Trump may be our president, and I think "he's not my president" is nonsense and not constructive, but even he won't touch LGBT rights.

[mUUser]

What issue? It's not worthy of discussion. He doesn't like LGTB. He doesn't like immigrants. He doesn't like Jews. I wonder why he doesn't like the NFL or the NBA anymore. I bet it's not a reason I'd like to hear about or consider a legitimate "issue". I don't think this place should be a forum for views like his.


There's some posters that make you cringe every time they open their mouth. I know exactly how you feel.

[LA Ute]

There's some posters that make you cringe every time they open their mouth. I know exactly how you feel.

The problem is that Ultimate has not said anything cringe-worthy at this site. Seattle is referring to perceived or imagined outrages that Ultimate supposedly committed on another board, which I don't even remember. I have always seen him as a very reasonable poster. He's not even in the same galaxy as others who have been offensive here. Seattle, please dial it back. We don't need you running off new people who are interested in being part of the community here. They all deserve at least a chance on this board, regardless of what you think of their performance in other places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Sometimes the politics hardens into morality. It's the way it works. At one time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was politics; but now if you want to bring back Jim Crow you're a racist. At some point a political cause triumphs so resoundingly and the logic supporting it is so compelling that it becomes about morality. That is what LGBT is become. Trump may be our president, and I think "he's not my president" is nonsense and not constructive, but even he won't touch LGBT rights.

You are right, I think that the ship has sailed on issues like gay marriage and non-discrimination against LGBT people. Where are you and I differ is that as a society, we are not yet to the point (and may never be) where behavior based on sexual orientation and gender identity are considered legally synonymous with basic race or ethnicity. Your analogy to the Civil Rights Act will not be sound until society has reached that point, if it ever does.

[SeattleUte]

The problem is that Ultimate has not said anything cringe-worthy at this site. Seattle is referring to perceived or imagined outrages that Ultimate supposedly committed on another board, which I don't even remember. I have always seen him as a very reasonable poster. He's not even in the same galaxy as others who have been offensive here. Seattle, please dial it back. We don't need you running off new people who are interested in being part of the community here. They all deserve at least a chance on this board, regardless of what you think of their performance in other places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you missed the irony of MUSSER's most. He was saying that about me. No?

I'm referring you both to the Committee of Public Safety.

[SeattleUte]

Since LA is blind to UU's subtext, I'm not surprised he missed Musser's point.

[LA Ute]

I think you missed the irony of MUSSER's most. He was saying that about me. No?

I'm referring you both to the Committee of Public Safety.

I knew he was talking about you. You may have missed, in my response, that I also was talking about you -- you errant earth-vexing barnacle.

(For assistance with Shakespearean insults, see http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html.)

[Hayes6]

So you agree with this particular political cause. Fine. I do too. The NC law is just dumb.

I don't want college athletics to be a pawn in whatever political causes seem important at the time. I prefer the games in athletics and the games in politics to mingle as infrequently as possible. I especially don't want it to be a pawn in the hands of people who care a lot about politics and may not care at all about athletics.

I see this issue as more than just politics. Sports are a big part of our society, so I think it is important that those who schedule sporting events to take a stand on issues of basic human rights. If it causes some disruption in my enjoyment of sports, I'm willing to suffer that small annoyance in the service of a bigger goal. This is especially true with college sports and even moreso with with public colleges. Sports are so entwined in our national culture that they can make a positive difference. Exhibit A: Jackie Robinson, who was a catalyst for the civil rights movement.

[Rocker Ute]

So I don't know I have a big problem with the Cal schools doing this or really any problem at all. I have thought a lot about the slippery slope this sort of stuff can be. Right now the morality is benefiting what we perceive as progress. If and when the pendulum swings the other direction and people are forced to do things maybe more conservative than they like how will people react.

I was reading a CNN piece about different comedians getting arrested for 'word crimes' including Lenny Bruce and sentenced to a work camp. A few years later George Carlin was arrested for the same thing for his now famous, "7 things you can't say on TV" bit. Unlike Bruce who was convicted, Carlin's case was thrown out when people in the courtroom began laughing at the bit.

We find this stuff antiquated and funny now. It is almost hard to fathom how people could sensor speech that way.

Now protests erupt when a gigantic prick but conservative speaker tries to talk at Berkeley and it seems the pendulum has swung fully the other way.

History shows it will be coming back.

So we hope what we now view as progress sticks but history has shown us it won't. And then what? Would you be required to make a cake for a Nazi party?

Now, shifting gears, this is intentionally outrageous so don't take this as an endorsement or even a position I feel is correct. However, I think it might muster similar feelings for how some people currently feel and how almost all people felt as little as 40 years ago about homosexuality. And yes I get the false equivalency. But morals are ever shifting and so there will be SOMETHING we don't generally accept as society now that will be (like maybe polygamy).

But what if after some scientific discovery we find that pedophilia is as genetic as hetro or homosexuality? What if over time society begins to feel that this is okay? What if you find yourself feeling like it isn't okay despite what the majority of society feels? What if you are suddenly required to do business for pedophiles? What if others begin to boycott you because of your beliefs, saying it goes beyond politics, it is an issue of right and wrong?

Again, let me reiterate that I do not even remotely believe homosexuality = pedophilia. In fact I find nothing more repugnant than pedophilia. I think those people should have a millstone tied to their neck and drowned in the sea. It is just to illustrate that most people used to feel the same way about homosexuality and there was nothing you could teach that would make it acceptable in their minds. But morals shift and people, even generally decent people, can be slow to come along. Usually what fixes that understanding is exposure, patience and understanding. Hitting them with a hammer doesn't.

I guess I don't know where I am going with this other than to say there is something unsettling about this sort of methodology to force people to come to terms with your way of understanding. I think it can be done better, preserving the rights of the victim without trampling on the rights of people we perceive as ignorant and even straight out bigoted.

I'm prepared to be skewered for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wally]

A weird new restrictive law? In California?! This is crazy!

[Diehard Ute]

So I don't know I have a big problem with the Cal schools doing this or really any problem at all. I have thought a lot about the slippery slope this sort of stuff can be. Right now the morality is benefiting what we perceive as progress. If and when the pendulum swings the other direction and people are forced to do things maybe more conservative than they like how will people react.

I was reading a CNN piece about different comedians getting arrested for 'word crimes' including Lenny Bruce and sentenced to a work camp. A few years later George Carlin was arrested for the same thing for his now famous, "7 things you can't say on TV" bit. Unlike Bruce who was convicted, Carlin's case was thrown out when people in the courtroom began laughing at the bit.

We find this stuff antiquated and funny now. It is almost hard to fathom how people could sensor speech that way.

Now protests erupt when a gigantic prick but conservative speaker tries to talk at Berkeley and it seems the pendulum has swung fully the other way.

History shows it will be coming back.

So we hope what we now view as progress sticks but history has shown us it won't. And then what? Would you be required to make a cake for a Nazi party?

Now, shifting gears, this is intentionally outrageous so don't take this as an endorsement or even a position I feel is correct. However, I think it might muster similar feelings for how some people currently feel and how almost all people felt as little as 40 years ago about homosexuality. And yes I get the false equivalency. But morals are ever shifting and so there will be SOMETHING we don't generally accept as society now that will be (like maybe polygamy).

But what if after some scientific discovery we find that pedophilia is as genetic as hetro or homosexuality? What if over time society begins to feel that this is okay? What if you find yourself feeling like it isn't okay despite what the majority of society feels? What if you are suddenly required to do business for pedophiles? What if others begin to boycott you because of your beliefs, saying it goes beyond politics, it is an issue of right and wrong?

Again, let me reiterate that I do not even remotely believe homosexuality = pedophilia. In fact I find nothing more repugnant than pedophilia. I think those people should have a millstone tied to their neck and drowned in the sea. It is just to illustrate that most people used to feel the same way about homosexuality and there was nothing you could teach that would make it acceptable in their minds. But morals shift and people, even generally decent people, can be slow to come along. Usually what fixes that understanding is exposure, patience and understanding. Hitting them with a hammer doesn't.

I guess I don't know where I am going with this other than to say there is something unsettling about this sort of methodology to force people to come to terms with your way of understanding. I think it can be done better, preserving the rights of the victim without trampling on the rights of people we perceive as ignorant and even straight out bigoted.

I'm prepared to be skewered for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're comparing something that happens among consenting adults to an act where adults prey on children.

I'm sure you could find something that's far closer in realm than those two things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wally]

.... Would you be required to make a cake for a Nazi party?...

Godwins law=fulfilled

[Rocker Ute]

You're comparing something that happens among consenting adults to an act where adults prey on children.

I'm sure you could find something that's far closer in realm than those two things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I knew you'd say this, try reading what I said. I'm not comparing them, I'm comparing the emotions people felt 40 years ago about homosexuals to how people feel about pedophiles today.

And I quote myself:

"this is intentionally outrageous so don't take this as an endorsement or even a position I feel is correct."

"yes I get the false equivalency."

"Again, let me reiterate that I do not even remotely believe homosexuality = pedophilia."

"In fact I find nothing more repugnant than pedophilia. I think those people should have a millstone tied to their neck and drowned in the sea."

[wally]

I am a "Likes to watch the world burn" sort of guy, so I know I am a jerk ahead of time.

As such, I really find it entertaining that each side of the LGBT issues castigate the opposite as "immoral", LOL! Each side appealing to the authority of either divinity or social liberty.

Meanwhile, China sits waiting, with their characteristic patience for long-range plans, for us to tear ourselves apart over social issues.

[SeattleUte]

I am a "Likes to watch the world burn" sort of guy, so I know I am a jerk ahead of time.

As such, I really find it entertaining that each side of the LGBT issues castigate the opposite as "immoral", LOL! Each side appealing to the authority of either divinity or social liberty.

Meanwhile, China sits waiting, with their characteristic patience for long-range plans, for us to tear ourselves apart over social issues.

It's sad that you think the concept of morality only exists in a religious context. Typical, though. Do you think racism implicates morality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wally]

It's sad that you think the concept of morality only exists in a religious context. Typical, though. Do you think racism implicates morality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it immoral to be a dickhead?

[Rocker Ute]

Is it immoral to be a dickhead?

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/54409823.jpg

[wally]

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/54409823.jpg

But what if I warned you ahead of time that I am a dickhead?

[Rocker Ute]

But what if I warned you ahead of time that I am a dickhead?

Then it is cool.

[Utah]

So you agree with this particular political cause. Fine. I do too. The NC law is just dumb.

I don't want college athletics to be a pawn in whatever political causes seem important at the time. I prefer the games in athletics and the games in politics to mingle as infrequently as possible. I especially don't want it to be a pawn in the hands of people who care a lot about politics and may not care at all about athletics.

Kind of like when teams refused to play BYU because of their racism?

Look, sports are fun. Sometimes, there are bigger issues than the game. Sometimes, a stand needs to be taken. Some organizations won't listen until their pocketbook is affected.

Without all the political pressure, sports teams included, BYU would still be discriminating against black people. Hell, they'd still be beer drinking polygamists.

Good for California. Just like LDS people stand up for what they believe in, California is doing the same thing.

[mUUser]

4 states? Please. They wanna make a statement, then boycott the 31 states who have voter ID (suppression) laws on the books.

And UU is right -- if it is to be taken seriously, forfeit the games if those 4 states come up in the NCAA tourney, otherwise it's merely a weak publicity stunt and no moral fiber behind it.

[Utah]

Kind of like a ban on terrorist countries...just not the countries terrorists actually come from.

Right?

[Scorcho]

A new California state law has ended discussions between Cal and Kansas about a home-and-home series in men’s basketball.
“Cal said they couldn’t do it,” Kansas Athletics spokesperson Jim Marchiony told the Lawrence Journal-World (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/feb/03/lgbt-advocates-push-repeal-laws-deemed-obsolete-or/), which reported confirmation from Kansas officials of the development.
The schools had reportedly been in preliminary talks about playing two games — one at Cal and one in Lawrence, Kansas.


http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/06/cal-withdraws-from-talks-with-kansas-over-anti-lgbt-law/

[Ultimate Ute]

SeattleUte, your posts in this thread contain distortions and outright lies.

I debated whether to dignify such juvenile nonsense with a reply.

[U-Ute]

Godwins law=fulfilled


</thread>

[NorthwestUteFan]

A weird new restrictive law? In California?! This is crazy!
CARB still pisses off many people. But the air quality in California, and likewise much of the rest of the nation is far better for it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

4 states? Please. They wanna make a statement, then boycott the 31 states who have voter ID (suppression) laws on the books.

And UU is right -- if it is to be taken seriously, forfeit the games if those 4 states come up in the NCAA tourney, otherwise it's merely a weak publicity stunt and no moral fiber behind it.
It has to come from the state level to affect future schedule making. Ironically this gives the schools themselves a lot of cover. Everything could become very complicated if they are forced to opt out of contracts.

NCAA games could get very dicey, however. And it may lead to all of the California teams ending up in the same bracket to avoid playing teams from the 4 States.

It would be interesting to attempt to introduce legislation to ban playing against schools from states with voter suppression laws. This could get murky because the definition of what constitutes voter suppression can be directly influenced by the current AG and the courts. Of course Kansas would be front and center on that one, thanks to Kansas AG Chris Kobach and his sophisticated Interstate Crosscheck program.

And finally, it might not matter at all anyhow. The Republicans are 28 State Legislature seats away from being able to call a Constitutional Convention, so everything could be subject to change if the Republicans get sufficiently pissed off .

[sancho]

It would be interesting to attempt to introduce legislation to ban playing against schools from states with voter suppression laws.

Yes, and then we should stop playing schools from states with weak gun control laws. Then, states with tough abortion laws. Once California eliminates all states from future schedules, they can start thinking about intrastate scheduling. Eventually, UCLA will play USC 12 times per season, and Cal will only have scrimmages.

[NorthwestUteFan]

From the legislature's standpoint that would be a positive. All of the gate and TV and merch money gets to remain in the UC and CSU coffers, similar to us playing USU, UVU, SUU, etc.

[chrisrenrut]

it has to come from the state level to affect future schedule making. Ironically this gives the schools themselves a lot of cover. Everything could become very complicated if they are forced to opt out of contracts.

Ncaa games could get very dicey, however. And it may lead to all of the california teams ending up in the same bracket to avoid playing teams from the 4 states.

It would be interesting to attempt to introduce legislation to ban playing against schools from states with voter suppression laws. This could get murky because the definition of what constitutes voter suppression can be directly influenced by the current ag and the courts. Of course kansas would be front and center on that one, thanks to kansas ag chris kobach and his sophisticated interstate crosscheck program.

And finally, it might not matter at all anyhow. The republicans are 28 state legislature seats away from being able to call a constitutional convention, so everything could be subject to change if the republicans get sufficiently pissed off .

NCAA games against schools from those states aren't a problem, as long as they don't play at a venue in those states. It's spending money on traveling to those states that is a problem. But that could also affect bracket selection.

[chrisrenrut]

A weird new restrictive law? In California?! This is crazy!

I think Cal Berkley should be required to change their mascot from the Bears to the Delta Smelt. Or better yet, make Fresno St change to it, just to piss everyone in the V off.