(08-17-2016 03:20 AM)KUGR Wrote: (08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Ah, I see that you're a subscriber to the popular "You're discriminating against my right to discriminate!" or "People should be tolerant of my intolerance!" argument.
That's just the point, Frank. Just because YOU say it is discrimination and it's not what YOU believe doesn't make that so.
However, Frank does offer an argument.
Quote: BYU feels the activity falls in the category of morally objectionable. It's where they draw the line in the sand.
But the basis for the discrimination is not really the sticking point, is it? Its the existence of the discriminatory policy that is the sticking point.
Quote: Once you allow others to re-draw that line where does it end? It's only a matter of time before someone challenges the courts on something like incest as long as it is between "consenting adults". Deviants are always upping the ante.
And here you have gone off the deep end.
(1) There is absolutely nothing in this which involves forcing BYU to do anything. BYU is exercising its right to have a discriminatory honor code because it is a private organization operated by a religious group. And if as a result the Big12 decides it is not interested in having BYU as a member, that would be the Big12 exercising its freedom of association rights.
(2) Calling LGBT people "deviants" and then saying that denying the freedom to discriminate against LGBT people is the first step in a slippery slope to allowing anything ignores the fact that if the BYU honor code forbade any display of "intimacy" by
any student, gay or lesbian or straight, there would be no discrimination.
Quote: You know it and I know it.
So I don't know it. I don't know why God made some people straight and some people gay, but your "knowledge" that the ones he made gay are deviants is not something that we both "know".
Quote: And someone will be calling BYU bigots for that at some point when they say that is morally objectionable. You can love the sinner without loving the sin. Trying to tell BYU what they must believe is a sin is where the discrimination occurs.
In this case, nobody is telling BYU what they must believe.
If we have a scotch drinking club, and drinking scotch is a requirement to be in the club, then a devout Muslim cannot join our club.
We are not telling a devout Muslim that they have to believe that it is OK to drink alcohol. We are simply letting them know that there is a choice between joining our club and following that religious belief.
And while your argument makes it appear that
you are bigoted against LGBT people, it really doesn't matter what the
motivation for the discriminatory policy is. If three or more Big12 Presidents don't want to deal with the headache with LGBT activists that results from the
fact of the discriminatory policy, they have every legitimate right to block BYU from entering.
Or if one Big12 President doesn't want to deal with that, and two of them don't want to deal with the injuries that come from BY's dirty play on the football field, same thing.