Big Ten discuss Indiana Religious Objections Law

[Hedgerunner]

Athletes, ADs sound off on new law



Updated: March 28, 2015, 3:31 AM ETESPN.com news services



Religious Freedom Act Signed Into Law In Indiana







Indiana Gov. Mike Pence defends legislation he signed into law, which has caused NCAA president Mark Emmert to voice concern about how student-athletes and NCAA employees could be affected.

Tags: Religious Freedom Act Signed Into Law In Indiana

Indiana's new religious objections law, which could allow businesses to discriminate against gay people, continued to be a talking point in the sports world Friday.

Two Big Ten athletic directors told ESPN.com that the impact of the new law will be discussed when they meet May 18-20. One athletic director was "highly disappointed" that the law passed in Indiana.

Michigan State president Lou Anna Simon, meanwhile, told ESPN at halftime of the Michigan State-Oklahoma Sweet 16 game Friday night, "Our commitment to diversity remains unchanged. It's something for the Big Ten to think about as we (school presidents and chancellors) meet (in June)."

The Big Ten holds its championship football game at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis.

NCAA headquarters, meanwhile, have been a mainstay in downtown Indianapolis since 1999, and the city will host the men's Final Four next weekend.

As to whether the law should affect the NCAA tournaments being held in Indianapolis in the coming years, including the 2016 women's Final Four, Simon, a former leader of the NCAA Board of Governors, said, "We have to look at this and make sure it reflects our values.''

The measure, which takes effect in July, prohibits state and local laws that "substantially burden'' the ability of people -- including businesses and associations -- to follow their religious beliefs.

Some national gay rights groups say lawmakers in Indiana and about a dozen other states proposed such bills this year as a way to essentially grant a state-sanctioned waiver for discrimination as the nation's highest court prepares to mull the gay marriage question.

The new law in Indiana could put the NCAA in a difficult position. While it has a close relationship with Indiana's capital city, college sports have been at the forefront of several breakthroughs for gay rights in the last two years, and the young adults and college students the NCAA represents have generally been supportive of those changes.

In a statement Thursday, NCAA president Mark Emmert said the organization was "especially concerned" about how the law might impact student-athletes and employees.

NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley said Thursday that Indianapolis shouldn't host the Final Four or the Super Bowl in future years.

"Discrimination in any form is unacceptable to me," Barkley said in a statement. "As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the Final Four and Super Bowl should not be held in those states' cities."

Fellow NBA great Reggie Miller also spoke out against the law Friday.

"I've never been big into politics but I'm very disappointed in my adopted home state of Indiana and the passing of Senate Bill 101," he said. "I've always been about inclusion for all, no matter your skin color, gender or sexual preference. We are all the same people, beautiful creatures."

Information from ESPN.com's Andy Katz and Adam Rittenberg and The Associated Press was used in this report.

This post was edited on 3/28 12:47 PM by Hedgerunner

 

[beantowncard]

Apparently, the NCAAs "values" include compelling someone to act against their faith. Meanwhile, this organization is clearly one of the most corrupt and ineffectual institutions in the country.

 

[EasyCard]

The NCAA might place sanctions against the state of Indiana, but a few years later they will lift those sanctions. No worries.

 

[RalphDawkins]

The corporate response to the new Indiana law is a big sign that we as a nation are ready to move beyond gender identity issues. Those that want to go against this will suffer the backlash. Even if you believe it's a sin, we do not discriminate against other types of sinners. The polling among the younger generations on these issues is overwhelming in favor of fairness. History will not be kind to those who resist treating all fairly.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[beantowncard]

Originally posted by RalphDawkins:
The polling among the younger generations on these issues is overwhelming in favor of fairness. History will not be kind to those who resist treating all fairly.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Is it "fair" to compel someone to violate his/her religious beliefs? This law has been enacted in many states without incident. Indiana permits homosexuals to marry. The argument against it based on "fairness" is a red herring. Certain segments of our society simply react against faith, whatever the specific issue.

 

[turducken71]

Right on. This law is in many state, and started with President Clinton in 1993. Atheists don't think Christians should have rights.

 

[SpotHogCard]

Athletic Directors should have no voice in this. This is about free enterprise, The right to refuse business to ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON is the business owners right. PERIOD

 

[CardX]

I'm surprised this has turned into just a gay rights thing. Everyone of all types of backgrounds could potentially be negatively impacted. A Jew could turn away Christians. A Muslim could refuse service to a Hindu. A homosexual could not sell to a heterosexual. It's a free for all. Also, as important as freedom of religion is, so is the freedom from it.

 

[Rollem Cards]

Originally posted by CardX:


I'm surprised this has turned into just a gay rights thing. Everyone of all types of backgrounds could potentially be negatively impacted. A Jew could turn away Christians. A Muslim could refuse service to a Hindu. A homosexual could not sell to a heterosexual. It's a free for all. Also, as important as freedom of religion is, so is the freedom from it.

Just for the sake of argument, if all the above occurred, would that not in fact BE fair?

You won't sell to me; I won't sell to you.

Boom. We're even. Fair

No, I'm not serious. But I am old enough to know that no matter what we do, somebody is going to be offended, pissed, upset, mad, or what-have-you.

There ain't nothing dead solid perfect, and we're not going to make it so.

In fact, the more the Gov't forces people to bend, the more people are prone to resist.

 

[zipp]

I don't know the details of the law even though I live in Indiana. I hear it couched in a G&L debate. Does it give broad cover for discrimination against federally protected classes based on your religious beliefs? If so, would a practicing Islamist business owner be able to discriminate against women in his business? That would be a much larger problem.

Full disclosure, I'm a conservative and practicing Catholic. But I've also conducted a lot of business in my life, and I've never considered it good business practice to assert my personal beliefs on clients and employees...

 

[Mayoman]

Originally posted by zipp:
I don't know the details of the law even though I live in Indiana. I hear it couched in a G&L debate. Does it give broad cover for discrimination against federally protected classes based on your religious beliefs? If so, would a practicing Islamist business owner be able to discriminate against women in his business? That would be a much larger problem.

Full disclosure, I'm a conservative and practicing Catholic. But I've also conducted a lot of business in my life, and I've never considered it good business practice to assert my personal beliefs on clients and employees...

As a Catholic you are familiar with the Fifth Commandment: promote the Culture of Life.(ref the US Catholic Catechism for Adults; P 397):
SCANDAL
"In its focus on the preservation of life, the 5th Commandment also is concerned with the care we show for each others moral life. A person whose words or actions lead others to believe that evil or sinful behavior is acceptable and not morally wrong is guilty of the sin of scandal.

Scandal can also be caused by laws or institutions that legitimize sinful actions. An example from the history of the U.S. can be seen in the laws that allowed slavery. A modern example is seen in those laws that allow abortion."

And on pg 401: "In addition to the respect for bodily life, there must also be reverence for the souls of others. One must always avoid scandal, which is a grave offense when, by deed or omission, one leads another to sin gravely. The 5th Commandment also forbids other sins: bigotry and hatred, physical or emotional abuse, violence of any kind against another person, inattention to one's health, or the abuse of alcohol or drugs."

Do clients or the government have the right to force any religious faith follower to go against a core commandment and commit the sin of 'Scandal"? Where should the line be drawn? Where does the discrimination begin and end...ok for a business to break or not break from a commandment or from a man made law? or for a gay non-believer to penalize a business for having a moral compass? What is fair and just for both on either side of this issue?.

Sports figures.....to much sway......crossing the line of 'Scandal' or not? What do you think? Why does it matter what Barkley or Miller think? Is that newsworthy? They want to punish the city of Indy...like that isn't being overly judgemental.....who made them the PC police to decide economic sanctions on a city for a state law. Sounds fair to me.

 

[yumcard]

I really dont think it is going to be a problem. What do think is going to happen to the first business that refuses business to someone who doesnt fit into there religious beliefs. The bad press will ruin them. This is nothing more than a holier than thou attitude by people that justify there hate with religeon.

This post was edited on 3/30 7:00 PM by yumcard

 

[tkdcoach]

Originally posted by beantowncard:

Originally posted by RalphDawkins:
The polling among the younger generations on these issues is overwhelming in favor of fairness. History will not be kind to those who resist treating all fairly.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Is it "fair" to compel someone to violate his/her religious beliefs? This law has been enacted in many states without incident. Indiana permits homosexuals to marry. The argument against it based on "fairness" is a red herring. Certain segments of our society simply react against faith, whatever the specific issue.

Firstly, I think there are very few occasions that discussion of politics on the Football forum are appropriate. I'm unsure if this one is an exception ...it certainly has the potential to affect college athletics in Indiana, if not the U of L itself.

The short answer to your question us "Yes, yes it is fair" to expect those with religious beliefs to operate within rules of fairness in business and civic life. Religious beliefs that insist on some form of hegemony for one group's beliefs are trumped by common law (not to mention basic Judaeo-Christian notions of decency) if those "beliefs" impair another person's access to services, fair market housing, an even playing field, etc. All based on some bogus preset beliefs or flip judgments about another person's immutable characteristics or perceived life choices?

Our liberty to exercise our faith ends where another person's liberty (religious and other) begins. No one has a right to try and exclude any person from any public accommodation or access to civic forums et al.

This law endorses a tacit form of --to be blunt-- racketeering...that will be used in order to harass, intimidate, and materially harm other humans also exercising their ...wait for it... God given rights to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as formally construed in our Constitution and its various Amendments).

This law is a perversion of every intent of Americanism as expressed within the confines of a civic polity. Seriously, be real. smh. Where do you think this sort of thing really leads anyway?

This post was edited on 3/30 9:08 PM by tkdcoach

 

[PushupMan]

It's perfectly okay for a company to have a moral compass. The problem comes in when that moral compass sanctions discrimination against groups of people who are already specifically protected from discrimination by the Federal government.

I have very little doubt that Indiana will lose in the Supreme Court on this issue. And Indiana will also lose business - one of the first to pull up stakes will be the NCAA. There's also a very large military base in Indiana that could be closed if Indiana continues to push this issue.

I wasn't a big fan of Governor Pence before this nonsense. I'm pleased that, by signing this into law, he just destroyed any shot he had at the Presidency.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Originally posted by Mayoman:

Originally posted by zipp:
I don't know the details of the law even though I live in Indiana. I hear it couched in a G&L debate. Does it give broad cover for discrimination against federally protected classes based on your religious beliefs? If so, would a practicing Islamist business owner be able to discriminate against women in his business? That would be a much larger problem.

Full disclosure, I'm a conservative and practicing Catholic. But I've also conducted a lot of business in my life, and I've never considered it good business practice to assert my personal beliefs on clients and employees...

As a Catholic you are familiar with the Fifth Commandment: promote the Culture of Life.(ref the US Catholic Catechism for Adults; P 397):
SCANDAL
"In its focus on the preservation of life, the 5th Commandment also is concerned with the care we show for each others moral life. A person whose words or actions lead others to believe that evil or sinful behavior is acceptable and not morally wrong is guilty of the sin of scandal.

Scandal can also be caused by laws or institutions that legitimize sinful actions. An example from the history of the U.S. can be seen in the laws that allowed slavery. A modern example is seen in those laws that allow abortion."

And on pg 401: "In addition to the respect for bodily life, there must also be reverence for the souls of others. One must always avoid scandal, which is a grave offense when, by deed or omission, one leads another to sin gravely. The 5th Commandment also forbids other sins: bigotry and hatred, physical or emotional abuse, violence of any kind against another person, inattention to one's health, or the abuse of alcohol or drugs."

Do clients or the government have the right to force any religious faith follower to go against a core commandment and commit the sin of 'Scandal"? Where should the line be drawn? Where does the discrimination begin and end...ok for a business to break or not break from a commandment or from a man made law? or for a gay non-believer to penalize a business for having a moral compass? What is fair and just for both on either side of this issue?.

Sports figures.....to much sway......crossing the line of 'Scandal' or not? What do you think? Why does it matter what Barkley or Miller think? Is that newsworthy? They want to punish the city of Indy...like that isn't being overly judgemental.....who made them the PC police to decide economic sanctions on a city for a state law. Sounds fair to me.

As my Pope recently said, "If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?"

As a business owner, I steer very far away from making moral judgments about my customers.

 

[Sec221]

After doing a little research, I have come to understand why IN, Federal Gov, and other states have enacted such laws.

Go back to the first laws enacted for handicap accessibility. These laws were enacted to help a part of society to gain access to other parts of what were considered normal daily life. At the time, it was just ignorance of the need to meet these needs. Now it is common practice to be inclusive.

The other side of the law that does not get a lot of play is how the laws were used. These laws were used to bully and extort money from business and other groups. Lawyers and "socially conscious groups" would target specific businesses/groups in order to shake them down or in worse case scenario run them out of business.

These groups would go around to various businesses with tape measures and literally measure toilet heights, door widths, sink basins and any other thing that was included in the law. No matter to what extent a business would go through to meet the law, they would find a fault.

Then the results would be taken back to a law firm that represented such groups and law suits and/or letters would be sent out.

The practice was to settle out of court. These groups were getting rich and yielded a lot of unearned influence and unchecked power. It was so bad, that major corporations would just cut a check as to avoid any negative press.

It was not until these laws were amended, or new laws enacted was there any protection from such actions. Of course this went on for years.

In today's environment, laws exists that allow such abuses against religious groups.

An example; Suing the a "Catholic Hospital" for not performing abortions on demand.

As bizarre as that may sound, it is happening now. That is why states and the Federal Government have enacted such laws.

You will not find any language in these "Religious Objection Laws" that prescribe discriminatory practices. On the contrary, the language offers protection from groups that wish to harm these religious groups due in part because they do not like them.

Hobby Lobby was sued because they would not pay for an abortion process that the owners did not want to be involved in. From my understanding they did pay for birth control and other emergency related medical procedures. They just drew the line for what they were willing to pay for.

My disclosure:

I have personally known someone who was a target of one of these groups in regards to handicap laws. The shake down came because his sink was a 1/4" inch above the minimal height requirement. It was either pay them tens of thousands of dollars or go to court. He was forced to close his family business because he could not meet their demand. The licensed plumber/company who installed his bathroom escaped the complaint due in part by they were never named specifically.

I learned when they started running out of businesses, they started going after the contractors.

I am also a practicing Catholic.

 

[turducken71]

This all boils down to politics. Many other states have bills like this. The Supreme Court ruled that each state should have their own bill. Obama and Bill Clinton supported these types of bills. Since Indiana has a Republican governor and legislature they are going to be attacked by leftist liberal Democrats for anything. If a liberal governor signed a bill like this nothing would be said.

 

[EasyCard]

Should a practicing Catholic who is a surgical doctor be allowed to refuse performing abortions because of religious objections? In principle, what is the difference between this and a florist refusing to work a gay wedding?

 

[71card]

Add me to the roster of practicing Catholics. It is nice to see states passing religious freedom laws. However, why should that be an issue. Is the First Amendment now redundant?

About our new Pope: He is 'all inclusive' about the sinners he ministers to. Note that he does NOT say that sins are not sins. He is, like Jesus, merciful, forgiving and full of infinite love.

BTW, no one has to believe that. Just let me, a USA citizen, believe it. Please do not behead me because of it. Without my head, I won't be able to pray for you.

 

[Sec221]

Originally posted by EasyCard:
Should a practicing Catholic who is a surgical doctor be allowed to refuse performing abortions because of religious objections? In principle, what is the difference between this and a florist refusing to work a gay wedding?

Quite a bit of difference.

One is a retail business serving the public, while the other is a private/DBA/contract service provider.

Even if a doctor works for a hospital, university, research, or other type of firm, they are asked about such things prior to hiring.

However, that is not what this law is all about. It is covers those situations like a Catholic Hospital refusing to offer abortions on demand.

Even more so as a private business (no tangible public advertisement), there is no law mandating that you have to work with anyone you don't want to. If you cater weddings and don't advertise to the general public, you are not obligate to accept business from anyone.

The key to this is that you cannot practice as a public business.

 

[vivid_red]

Many a bigot hides behind the cloak of their religion.

 

[nolegeorge]

Originally posted by SpotHogCard:
Athletic Directors should have no voice in this. This is about free enterprise, The right to refuse business to ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON is the business owners right. PERIOD

If I could like this I would ... this statement is right on point.

 

[Sec221]

Originally posted by vivid_red:
Many a bigot hides behind the cloak of their religion.

Sad but true.

 

[Knucklehank1]

Originally posted by nolegeorge:

Originally posted by SpotHogCard:
Athletic Directors should have no voice in this. This is about free enterprise, The right to refuse business to ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON is the business owners right. PERIOD

If I could like this I would ... this statement is right on point.

The segregated Jim Crow south of yesteryear felt this way as well.

 

[Briggsky]

The states that have passed this law have many that already have protections for for gays and lesbians. If they can find a place where Christ said this, I would go along. The bible also says I can sell my daughters into slavery if they displease me or stone my neighbors if I don't agree with his planting choices. This idea of picking and choosing what you want to believe is simply an excuse to back up personal hatred shared by some cave dwellers. Anyone who believes in a book that tells you how to be a good slave is not one to guide me. I believe in Christ and his every move and statement was one of inclusion. The old adage of love the sinner and hate the sin is proven in these cases is really one of hating the sinner too. Failure to feed or offer services to all Americans is directly opposed to the way Christ lived his life.

I wish this thing about my daughters would have been pointed out to me while they were teenagers.

I will go along with this if these businesses will post the types of people they don't want to deal with. They won't do it because most of us this exclusion is being offered by cowards. Simply post and see how that works.

By the way, this is exactly the excuse that these pinheads used to refuse these same services to blacks. I'm getting tired of hateful people getting in the middle of my life.

 

[turducken71]

The only signs I have seen are "No shoes, No shirt, no service." A law should be passed exempting attractive ladies.

 

[Morgantown Card]

Originally posted by Knucklehank1:

Originally posted by nolegeorge:

Originally posted by SpotHogCard:
Athletic Directors should have no voice in this. This is about free enterprise, The right to refuse business to ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON is the business owners right. PERIOD

If I could like this I would ... this statement is right on point.

The segregated Jim Crow south of yesteryear felt this way as well.

If I'ns don't wanna sale to them thar homersayxuals, den I don't'a haf to if I'ns don't'a wanna! Instead I'ns take them out Lexington-way 'n lern 'em a good'un!

 

[Morgantown Card]

Originally posted by beantowncard:
Apparently, the NCAAs "values" include compelling someone to act against their faith. Meanwhile, this organization is clearly one of the most corrupt and ineffectual institutions in the country.

I don't understand why "gay people" are the alpha and omega in all of this morality talk. Why is that the line that can't be crossed instead of lack of tithing, lying, divorce, pre-marital relations, coveting, swearing, etc? You can lie, cheat, whore, gamble, and be a drunk and we'll sell you wahtever you want. But by gawd, if youns one them thar homersayxual quors, well I'll lern youns and then I'll turn youns away!

 

[Hedgerunner]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/01/jake-tapper-asks-the-simple-religious-freedom-q/203135

 

[beantowncard]

Originally posted by EasyCard:
Should a practicing Catholic who is a surgical doctor be allowed to refuse performing abortions because of religious objections? In principle, what is the difference between this and a florist refusing to work a gay wedding?

No a surgeon can refuse an assignment on any grounds, just as a florist can refuse an assignment on any grounds. There are plenty of florists, or surgeons, who will do the job.

 

[Louisvillian]

Originally posted by Briggsky:
The states that have passed this law have many that already have protections for for gays and lesbians. If they can find a place where Christ said this, I would go along. The bible also says I can sell my daughters into slavery if they displease me or stone my neighbors if I don't agree with his planting choices. This idea of picking and choosing what you want to believe is simply an excuse to back up personal hatred shared by some cave dwellers. Anyone who believes in a book that tells you how to be a good slave is not one to guide me. I believe in Christ and his every move and statement was one of inclusion. The old adage of love the sinner and hate the sin is proven in these cases is really one of hating the sinner too. Failure to feed or offer services to all Americans is directly opposed to the way Christ lived his life.

I wish this thing about my daughters would have been pointed out to me while they were teenagers.

I will go along with this if these businesses will post the types of people they don't want to deal with. They won't do it because most of us this exclusion is being offered by cowards. Simply post and see how that works.

By the way, this is exactly the excuse that these pinheads used to refuse these same services to blacks. I'm getting tired of hateful people getting in the middle of my life.

Well said and about as close to the way I feel on the subject as you can get, just articulated better.

 

[turducken71]

This law was originated by Bill Clinton and Democrats in 1993. Similar laws are in effect in 30 other states as ruled on by by the Supreme Court. The liberal media used this as an excuse to hate on religious people and Indiana. Meanwhile, the liberals support letting illegals along with illegal drug dealing criminals in the country unchecked. Pretty disgusting

 

[SpotHogCard]

Originally posted by Morgantown Card:

Originally posted by Knucklehank1:

Originally posted by nolegeorge:

Originally posted by SpotHogCard:
Athletic Directors should have no voice in this. This is about free enterprise, The right to refuse business to ANYONE, FOR ANY REASON is the business owners right. PERIOD

If I could like this I would ... this statement is right on point.

The segregated Jim Crow south of yesteryear felt this way as well.

If I'ns don't wanna sale to them thar homersayxuals, den I don't'a haf to if I'ns don't'a wanna!

Exactly right. You may want to work on the way you present yourself though, some folks may not take you seriously.

I do not want "insert anyone here or anything" in my place of business. I do not see the problem with that.

Newton's third law of physics can be applied to this issue as well.