• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

The NFL’s Bullying of Believers

SteelChip

Well-known member
Contributor
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
8,290
Reaction score
9,782
Points
113
Location
Interlachen, Florida
http://click.heritage.org/a0301e0pKM0Y00TTPHrcPps

Do you think a pastor who’s against same-sex marriage should be forced to perform same-sex weddings? Do you believe that a religious college should be allowed to hire only people who agree with the religious beliefs of the college? Do you think no one should be forced to attend a wedding he doesn’t agree with?

If so, cheers: The National Football League basically thinks you’re a bigot.

A CBS News/Associated Press story Sunday, headlined “NFL warns state of Georgia over ‘religious freedom’ bill,” reported that “the NFL acknowledged that the religious exemptions bill … could have an impact on the selection process for the championship game in 2019 and 2020.” Atlanta is one of four cities up for the next two Super Bowls.

Yes, because who wants the Super Bowl in a state where some random clergy member may not be forced to perform a gay wedding? That would totally wreck the ambiance of…a sports game.

The bill in question, now on the desk of Gov. Nathan Deal, a Republican, is embarrassingly limited. I’m not exaggerating: The bill’s applications to religious liberty are so minor that it likely wouldn’t even protect Catholic nuns like the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are currently in a legal fight to not be forced by the federal government to offer health care that includes contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

And according to my Heritage Foundation colleagues Ryan T. Anderson and Roger Severino, the Georgia bill “provides no protection for bakers or florists or other similar wedding professionals who cannot help celebrate a same-sex wedding” because of their religious beliefs.

In other words, Georgia residents like the Kleins (the Oregon bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding), the Giffords (the New York couple fined $13,000 for declining to host a gay wedding at their family farm), and Barronelle Stutzman (the Washington state florist in a legal battle over her refusal to provide flowers for a gay wedding) wouldn’t be protected by the proposed law at all.

“NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement, adding that the NFL may evaluate “whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies” when looking at Super Bowl contenders.

This is unbelievable.

There is no doubt that lesbian and gay Americans have not always been treated with the civility and respect they deserve throughout our history. And that is a shame. But the answer is not now to force those who have deeply held moral beliefs about the nature of marriage to act against their consciences.

And in fact, the Georgia bill could also help protect the consciences of LGBT residents, such as by allowing a college founded by those who believe that same-sex marriage is a moral necessity to decline to hire professors who disagreed.

Ultimately, if the NFL were serious about limiting the Super Bowl to states and local areas that promote “tolerance,” that would mean the NFL should look to hold Super Bowls only in states with religious freedoms.

Unfortunately, it looks as if football fans can join Apple users and others in realizing that the businesses they once loved are now working vehemently against them—and their beliefs.
 
The NFL plays games in London and Mexico City. Do England and Mexico allow legal same-sex marriages? I don't know, I'm just asking.
 
The NFL plays games in London and Mexico City. Do England and Mexico allow legal same-sex marriages? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I don't know either, it just surprised me that the NFL would even think about threatening a State with taking away their chance at a SB because they passed a law the NFL deemed inappropriate. I haven't heard of such stuff before, that's a first as far as I know.
 
What...the..****. How about the NFL and Salesforce and any other business who wants to threaten states over public policy just suck a dick. I will always watch the Steelers but I will try to avoid any commerce that benefits the NFL.
 
This is the same crew that feels the need to lecture the entire country about abuse, as if everyone does it, just because there are some ******** playing football. Sanctimonious fucktards.
 
The NFL is making it tougher by the day to want to support its product.
 
I wonder who made this decision. Goodell, the owners or some dumb committee? The NFL is overstepping their boundaries in my opinion. People can make their own life choices but don't force me or anyone else to participate.
 
The NFL plays games in London and Mexico City. Do England and Mexico allow legal same-sex marriages? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Yes and yes. Mexico (legality is state by state) is a very gay friendly country from a legal/media standpoint. On the streets, though, it's a different ballgame. Machismo culture is deeply embedded, as is Catholicism.

Briton, as with the rest of Western Europe, is super leftist by American standards.

As the larger point of this thread: the NFL wants to make the most money possible. They do not care about the politics. Which is the path of least resistance: appearing to sympathize with gender/orientation discrimination or being super PC? The answer is obvious. Super PC rarely if ever hurts your bottom line because it appeases the media.
 
Yes and yes. Mexico (legality is state by state) is a very gay friendly country from a legal/media standpoint. On the streets, though, it's a different ballgame. Machismo culture is deeply embedded, as is Catholicism.

Briton, as with the rest of Western Europe, is super leftist by American standards.

As the larger point of this thread: the NFL wants to make the most money possible. They do not care about the politics. Which is the path of least resistance: appearing to sympathize with gender/orientation discrimination or being super PC? The answer is obvious. Super PC rarely if ever hurts your bottom line because it appeases the media.

Right on... I seriously doubt that a bunch of old rich white guys are doing this based on their own privately held beliefs. I'm sure most of them are as old school anti gay, most likely religious, as they come. They're just smart enough business men to go with the flow and not do anything that's going to turn the media against them and their brand. There is only one thing old rich white guys love more than their traditional values and their old time religion.. and I don't have to tell you what it is.... Alright it's the cash....
 
Right on... I seriously doubt that a bunch of old rich white guys are doing this based on their own privately held beliefs. I'm sure most of them are as old school anti gay, most likely religious, as they come. They're just smart enough business men to go with the flow and not do anything that's going to turn the media against them and their brand. There is only one thing old rich white guys love more than their traditional values and their old time religion.. and I don't have to tell you what it is.... Alright it's the cash....

LOL, telling mindset to say the least there Red. You could at least try to mask your racism just a little.
 
LOL, telling mindset to say the least there Red. You could at least try to mask your racism just a little.

QFT............Disney's entered the fray as well.

oh....and


“NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,”

........which is EXACTLY what they are doing here. Whiskey tango foxtrot?
 
QFT............Disney's entered the fray as well.

oh....and


“NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,”

........which is EXACTLY what they are doing here. Whiskey tango foxtrot?

This is being all things for all people and sooner or later I would think that burden will be too heavy to carry.

This story about how the NFL bribed the Rams to take the under qualified but openly gay Sams in the draft is telling. They pander to anything and anybody to enhance the agenda and it may prove to be successful even though it feels a little sleazy. We'll see what the product looks like down the road but it looks to me that right now they are slowly losing core support.

I know I'm gonna get that linky linky request... so here.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...raft_sam/RK=0/RS=mt9U.wME8TMueDoeUWDeSLflYys-

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...hael-sam/RK=0/RS=gfb0_.qcioR55OKX0MKST96GM20-
 
Last edited:
You "Christian rights" supporters are playing a very dangerous game wanting laws that protect you and your beliefs vs. the laws of the land.

Every law you pass will rarely be used by Christians and will more often be the precedence that lets Muslims start to bring their backwards Sharia into our country. If a Christian doesn't want to approve of a gay-marriage license, what's to prevent a Muslim from refusing to grant a divorce based on adultery because the adulterer should be "stoned" instead?

You guys think you're fighting for "Christian" rights and what you are really fighting for is "Muslim" rights too.

Just remember that with all this hogwash....
 
Does anyone remember the signs that used to be posted on establishments that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? I do. It's called freedom.
 
Does anyone remember the signs that used to be posted on establishments that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? I do. It's called freedom.

I don't think those signs are legal anymore are they ?

right-refuse-services-sign-s-7385.png


Curiosity won out, I looked it up.

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...pearance/RK=0/RS=FcORAplo2YcfqVEZzn5qjBBGCRs-
 
This is being all things for all people and sooner or later I would think that burden will be too heavy to carry.

This story about how the NFL bribed the Rams to take the under qualified but openly gay Sams in the draft is telling. They pander to anything and anybody to enhance the agenda and it may prove to be successful even though it feels a little sleazy. We'll see what the product looks like down the road but it looks to me that right now they are slowly losing core support.

I know I'm gonna get that linky linky request... so here.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...raft_sam/RK=0/RS=mt9U.wME8TMueDoeUWDeSLflYys-

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...hael-sam/RK=0/RS=gfb0_.qcioR55OKX0MKST96GM20-

Links don't work......censorship no doubt.

You "Christian rights" supporters are playing a very dangerous game wanting laws that protect you and your beliefs vs. the laws of the land.

Every law you pass will rarely be used by Christians and will more often be the precedence that lets Muslims start to bring their backwards Sharia into our country. If a Christian doesn't want to approve of a gay-marriage license, what's to prevent a Muslim from refusing to grant a divorce based on adultery because the adulterer should be "stoned" instead?

You guys think you're fighting for "Christian" rights and what you are really fighting for is "Muslim" rights too.

Just remember that with all this hogwash....

Christians already have rights. As do 'sloids. That fight was fought waaay back in the day. But the last time I checked, stoning someone was illegal....or maybe it's just eating the stonee afterward, I forget. Bottom line, you have stretched this point to absurdity.
 
Top