Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
Author Message
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #61
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(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.
08-17-2016 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #62
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 10:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (1) Federal anti-discrimination laws state that sexual orientation is a protected class. It's not my opinion that there is discrimination here. The law states it.

That's not really true. There's no specific federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference. "Sex" is a protected class under the civil rights act and the EEOC has used this to bring lawsuits for workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians. It's a fairly new development and I'm not sure if courts have ruled on it one way or another.
08-17-2016 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #63
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
But to bring this back to the Big XII

Who are BYU's 8 votes for Big XII expansion?

I've got TCU as a hard no. I've Baylor as a soft no. I've got WVU as a hard no unless they get UC. Which brings up another problem for BYU. Only way BYU gets in, assuming TCU and Baylor are voting no, is if WVU gets what it wants, which is UC. The problem with that is that if the Big XII expands to 12 and not 14, there's no room for both BYU and UH. So a team that might support UH (Tech) would be smart to block BYU in order to leave UH as an option for the other team.

Three no votes means...no bid.

Add to that the fact that BYU adds no new recruiting areas or leverage for Big XII teams.....and the discrimination....

BYU shouldn't be blaming the LGBT folks if they don't get in, but rather TCU and Baylor, who if I'm correct on this (I'm not always), created the situation where BYU can't be added.

What the issue of BYU's policies discriminating against LGBT coaches, athletes, and students does do, is that it softens up BYU's supporters in the Big XII.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2016 11:25 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
08-17-2016 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shox Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 883
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Wichita State
Location:
Post: #64
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
What's your theory on why TCU and Baylor votes no? Baylor seems like a lock to vote yes. I could buy into TCU and WVU both being a no.
08-17-2016 11:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #65
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 11:25 AM)Shox Wrote:  What's your theory on why TCU and Baylor votes no? Baylor seems like a lock to vote yes. I could buy into TCU and WVU both being a no.

I don't have any specific information, just read it on these boards.

To me that doesn't make sense either. Maybe Baylor is worried that their discriminatory practices (much less severe than BYU by the way) will get more visibility if BYU is added. Because there will be some LGBT persons and their allies losing their collective sh*t if BYU gets added. Perhaps they realize that adding BYU might cause a blowback that hits them too. Talk on the LGBT forums is moving towards a push on the NCAA to eject discriminatory schools. The whole NCAA. Best to not upset the apple cart might be the thinking. Baylor also has some player assault issues that dovetail as well.

Or

It could be that Baylor simply has some geographic/recruiting focus reason to support UH or oppose BYU. Much like Tech.

---

With TCU, again I have no personal information, but TCU has a history with BYU and apparently it wasn't a nice one. And the Assistant AD is openly Gay, which might show some light into how TCU feels about discrimination.

---

With WVU, its pretty obvious they don't want the conference to shift west while they're still on an island.

---

For Tech, its probably related to recruiting. Houston is a football hotbed with a metro population approaching 7 million. And Houston is becoming a SEC town. Maybe Tech and Baylor are "we don't recruit Utah, but we need to keep the Big XII prominent in Houston".

---

Again, no personal info here. Just regurgitating what I've heard on here and elsewhere.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2016 11:36 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
08-17-2016 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU BLUE Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,182
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 111
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #66
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 10:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The NCAA should be a melting pot of educational institutions at all levels P5,G5, FCS.

I think parents should have choices. They should be able to send their daughter to an all girls school, or son to an all boys school. They should be able to send their kids to a Muslim, Christian or secular school. These are choices Americans families should have. The NCAA should not be involved in liberal social engineering.

Okay Corky, where is the NCAA saying people can't go to BYU? Just throw some more "liberals" out there like you know what you're talking about.

NCAA athletics should stay completely out of "controversial liberal social engineering". Issues like this should not play any role in joining a conference. Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athlete, whether it's an all girls school, all boys school, all transgender school, a Muslim school, a Christian school or a secular school. One size doesn't all families. The NCAA should stick to sports.

All that should matter is fan base, facilities, academics and money.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2016 01:24 PM by ODU BLUE.)
08-17-2016 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #67
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 10:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(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. BYU feels the activity falls in the category of morally objectionable. It's where they draw the line in the sand. 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. You know it and I know it. 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.

Two points:

(1) Federal anti-discrimination laws state that sexual orientation is a protected class. It's not my opinion that there is discrimination here. The law states it.

(2) No one is trying to tell BYU what they must believe is a sin. BYU has a constitutionally protected right to believe what they want to believe. However, just because you have a constitutionally protected right to believe what you want to believe doesn't mean that you have a constitutionally protected right from consequences from holding that viewpoint. Your First Amendment rights protect you from the government restricting your speech or practice of religion, but the government doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech or practice of religion. Your employer can certainly fire you for having homophobic (or racist or sexist) viewpoints (and in fact, it would happen at my own company, which is in the Global Fortune 100) even though you have a right to have those viewpoints or even sincerely believe there's a moral basis to such viewpoints. You are NOT protected from those consequences. Likewise, the Big 12 has their own policies that object to homophobia and they are perfectly free to choose or not choose BYU on that basis.

Too many people are confusing the right to free speech or the establishment of religion with believing that you have a right to be free from social consequences from exercising that right. That's completely wrong. The government can't put you into jail for exercising that right. However, broader society can impose whatever negative consequences on what they find to be objectionable speech or viewpoints that they please.

Quote:
(08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The comparison to racial discrimination is NOT a stretch. It's actually exactly on point: separate but equal conditions are unconstitutional.

Once again, that is NOT equal. It's not anymore equal than married and unmarried people at BYU. The law says either are ok. BYU has a moral standard which differentiates.

No. It's quite different than, say, the rules regarding sexual activity as applied to married versus unmarried people. If BYU simply stated everyone must practice chastity regardless of sexual orientation, then no one would have an issue. Where BYU gets scrutiny is having rules where heterosexuals are allowed to display other types of intimacy whereas homosexuals are not allowed to do the same.

Now, the law states that's acceptable within the context of BYU under the establishment clause. I'm not disputing that fact. (Of course, if the University of Texas and other public institutions did the same, they would be in violation of federal equal protection laws.) However, the fact that a religion believes that an act is based on a moral standard is irrelevant and doesn't make it immune from criticism or social consequences (as there are lots of terrible actions throughout history that were justified by religious moral imperatives).

Quote:
(08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Now, BYU certainly has a right to discriminate based on its religious belief. However, you cannot turn around and then state that the Big 12 is suddenly engaging in religious discrimination if it doesn't take in BYU.

Frank, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now. You are on the discrimination bandwagon. Either both are discrimination or neither are discrimination. You've backed yourself into that corner. If BYU is discriminating because they morally believe homosexuality is a sin then the Big 12 is SURELY discriminating if they bar BYU because they don't agree with BYU's religious beliefs. If BYU doesn't have a right to decide what is right or wrong then the Big 12 can't be given that right either.

Not quite sure what you mean by talking out of both sides of my mouth. Just because a group believes something is a sin or has some type of moral basis doesn't suddenly give it immunity. Slaveowners used the Bible to provide a moral basis for justify slavery (and if you take the Bible literally as many fundamentalists insist upon, the Old Testament in particular is VERY comfortable with the notion of slavery). Religious moral beliefs were used as the justifications for witch burnings in this country. The Mormon Church didn't allow for black ministers until 1978 based on its moral beliefs. Heck, in the most extreme example, ISIS fighters sincerely believe that they have a moral basis under the Koran to engage in terrorism.

There are lots and lots and lots religious groups throughout history that sincerely believed that what they were doing was morally correct based on their religion, yet we can now see that it was reprehensible behavior. Once again, people have the right to believe what they want to believe. However, when the exercise of that belief then results in a harm to another person (whether it's discrimination or physical harm), then that certainly doesn't provide that person immunity from criticism and social consequences (and, in the cases of criminal activity based on moral platitudes, legal consequences). The fact that one group believes that a viewpoint is morally justified doesn't mean that the rest of the word has to accept it, particularly if harm is being done to others in the process.

Quote:
(08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  if the argument from the defenders of the honor code is that BYU doesn't punish anyway for a violation

Frank, it's because there are different levels of violation. Drinking coffee is not the same as doing LSD.

Sure, I understand that there are different levels of violation. However, being a coffee drinker doesn't make you part of a protected class. Doing LSD doesn't make you part of a protected class. Engaging in premarital sex doesn't make you part of a protected class. There is nothing prohibited in the BYU honor code that makes you part of a protected class... except for the paragraph that prohibits homosexual activity. That is why there's an issue here.

Therefore, if there is one paragraph in the BYU honor code that is discriminating against a protected class and BYU truly doesn't actually enforce it, then why the heck is that paragraph still in there? What is the value in keeping it? The school can still teach that homosexuality is a sin (just as Baylor and Notre Dame do) without having discriminatory *treatment* of its students in its honor code (which is what Baylor and Notre Dame have been able to avoid). Believing a viewpoint in and of itself is one thing, but harming someone else based on that belief is where the general public has a problem.

As a practical matter, it seems that BYU is getting all of the downside of being accused of being discriminatory (whether you personally believe it or not) when it's not actually putting it into practice. That's actually the worst of both worlds for BYU. They seem to be dying on the vine (at least from a conference realignment perspective) on principle when they're not enforcing that principle in practice. That doesn't make sense to me.

Frank, the law says that what BYU is doing is legal. If it was illegal, they'd be sued yesterday and wouldn't be allowed to do it.

If you want to argue that BYU's policy is morally wrong, that's fine and it's a worthwhile discussion. I know you're a lawyer and tend to equate moral right to being legally right, but that's not always a true equation. And it's certainly not a true equation in new specialities where new law is being made as we speak.

Anyways, forming your entire argument around legal definitions of discrimination (as you are doing) and turning this into a legal argument only tells the non-lawyers on this forum that you disagree with the courts' interpretation of the law. That's your right to do, but I doubt it factors into the Big 12 presidents' decisions.
08-17-2016 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,127
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 152
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #68
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 12:09 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 10:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The NCAA should be a melting pot of educational institutions at all levels P5,G5, FCS.

I think parents should have choices. They should be able to send their daughter to an all girls school, or son to an all boys school. They should be able to send their kids to a Muslim, Christian or secular school. These are choices Americans families should have. The NCAA should not be involved in liberal social engineering.

Okay Corky, where is the NCAA saying people can't go to BYU? Just throw some more "liberals" out there like you know what you're talking about.

NCAA athletics should stay completely out of "controversial liberal social engineering". Issues like this should not play any role in joining a conference. Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athlete, whether it's an all girls school, all boys school, all transgender school, a Muslim school, a Christian school or a secular school. One size doesn't all families. The NCAA should to stick to sports.

All that should matter is fan base, facilities, academics and money.

This isn;t the NCAA though, so either inform yourself or leave the discussion to those who actually understand how things work.

I love how "Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athletes" like anyone is stopping them from doing so, but then advocates that the Big XII shouldn't have the right to accept whomever they want to accept but this school should be forced upon them. Thats some great right wing nut job thinking.

Keep throwing liberal out there though, it makes it easier to see who the truly delusional ones are.
08-17-2016 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU BLUE Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,182
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 111
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #69
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 12:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 12:09 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 10:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The NCAA should be a melting pot of educational institutions at all levels P5,G5, FCS.

I think parents should have choices. They should be able to send their daughter to an all girls school, or son to an all boys school. They should be able to send their kids to a Muslim, Christian or secular school. These are choices Americans families should have. The NCAA should not be involved in liberal social engineering.

Okay Corky, where is the NCAA saying people can't go to BYU? Just throw some more "liberals" out there like you know what you're talking about.

NCAA athletics should stay completely out of "controversial liberal social engineering". Issues like this should not play any role in joining a conference. Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athlete, whether it's an all girls school, all boys school, all transgender school, a Muslim school, a Christian school or a secular school. One size doesn't all families. The NCAA should to stick to sports.

All that should matter is fan base, facilities, academics and money.

This isn;t the NCAA though, so either inform yourself or leave the discussion to those who actually understand how things work.

I love how "Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athletes" like anyone is stopping them from doing so, but then advocates that the Big XII shouldn't have the right to accept whomever they want to accept but this school should be forced upon them. Thats some great right wing nut job thinking.

Keep throwing liberal out there though, it makes it easier to see who the truly delusional ones are.

All that should matter to the Big 12 or NCAA is fan base, facilities, academics and money. Not some delusional liberal social engineering agenda.
08-17-2016 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #70
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 12:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Frank, the law says that what BYU is doing is legal. If it was illegal, they'd be sued yesterday and wouldn't be allowed to do it.

I agree with you. Here is what I stated in my quote that you quoted:

"Now, the law states that's acceptable within the context of BYU under the establishment clause. I'm not disputing that fact. (Of course, if the University of Texas and other public institutions did the same, they would be in violation of federal equal protection laws.) However, the fact that a religion believes that an act is based on a moral standard is irrelevant and doesn't make it immune from criticism or social consequences (as there are lots of terrible actions throughout history that were justified by religious moral imperatives)."

Quote:If you want to argue that BYU's policy is morally wrong, that's fine and it's a worthwhile discussion. I know you're a lawyer and tend to equate moral right to being legally right, but that's not always a true equation. And it's certainly not a true equation in new specialities where new law is being made as we speak.

Once again, I actually don't disagree with you here. I will freely admit that I personally believe that BYU's policy is morally wrong, even though I would defend BYU's Establishment Clause right to have that policy. By the same token, though, many of those that personally believe BYU's policy is morally correct seem to have a hard time acknowledging that there is also NO legal requirement for the Big 12 to accept BYU's policy, either. The Big 12, as a private association, can freely nix BYU's candidacy because it doesn't agree with BYU's policy regardless of whether such policy is based on a religious belief.

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe that BYU's policy is morally wrong or right. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether even BYU believes its policy is morally wrong or right. At the end of the day, the Big 12 has an absolute LEGAL right to decide whether it believes BYU's policy is morally wrong or right (and once again, the fact that its policy is based on a religious belief is legally irrelevant in this context). There is NO violation of the Establishment Clause if the Big 12 rejects BYU on this basis. You might understand this, but some of the others here don't seem to get it. That is where the law comes in on this matter.

Quote:Anyways, forming your entire argument around legal definitions of discrimination (as you are doing) and turning this into a legal argument only tells the non-lawyers on this forum that you disagree with the courts' interpretation of the law. That's your right to do, but I doubt it factors into the Big 12 presidents' decisions.

Once again, I don't disagree with the interpretation of the law. BYU is free to enact whatever honor code that it wants. It could be homophobic, racist, sexist and every other "-ic" or "-ist" in the book and it would be perfectly legal. However, the Big 12 has an equal legal right to reject BYU based on that honor code. That is the primary frustration that I have with many of the people on this thread. The fact that the honor code is based upon a religious belief is legally irrelevant since the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the Big 12 (a private association) here.

So, I fully agree that the Big 12 presidents do not care about the legal interpretation of BYU's honor code. They would know that BYU has a constitutionally protected right to enact whatever rules that they please. The overarching point, though, is that the Big 12 presidents concurrently have a full legal right to not allow in BYU based on its honor code language regardless of whether it is based on religion... and if they believe what BYU doing is engaging in discrimination that they wouldn't allow for on their own campuses (which is actually true even in the case of Baylor), then that could very well factor into the Big 12's interests.
08-17-2016 01:31 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 10:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(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. BYU feels the activity falls in the category of morally objectionable. It's where they draw the line in the sand. 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. You know it and I know it. 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.

Two points:

(1) Federal anti-discrimination laws state that sexual orientation is a protected class. It's not my opinion that there is discrimination here. The law states it.

(2) No one is trying to tell BYU what they must believe is a sin. BYU has a constitutionally protected right to believe what they want to believe. However, just because you have a constitutionally protected right to believe what you want to believe doesn't mean that you have a constitutionally protected right from consequences from holding that viewpoint. Your First Amendment rights protect you from the government restricting your speech or practice of religion, but the government doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech or practice of religion. Your employer can certainly fire you for having homophobic (or racist or sexist) viewpoints (and in fact, it would happen at my own company, which is in the Global Fortune 100) even though you have a right to have those viewpoints or even sincerely believe there's a moral basis to such viewpoints. You are NOT protected from those consequences. Likewise, the Big 12 has their own policies that object to homophobia and they are perfectly free to choose or not choose BYU on that basis.

Too many people are confusing the right to free speech or the establishment of religion with believing that you have a right to be free from social consequences from exercising that right. That's completely wrong. The government can't put you into jail for exercising that right. However, broader society can impose whatever negative consequences on what they find to be objectionable speech or viewpoints that they please.

Quote:
(08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The comparison to racial discrimination is NOT a stretch. It's actually exactly on point: separate but equal conditions are unconstitutional.

Once again, that is NOT equal. It's not anymore equal than married and unmarried people at BYU. The law says either are ok. BYU has a moral standard which differentiates.

No. It's quite different than, say, the rules regarding sexual activity as applied to married versus unmarried people. If BYU simply stated everyone must practice chastity regardless of sexual orientation, then no one would have an issue. Where BYU gets scrutiny is having rules where heterosexuals are allowed to display other types of intimacy whereas homosexuals are not allowed to do the same.

Now, the law states that's acceptable within the context of BYU under the establishment clause. I'm not disputing that fact. (Of course, if the University of Texas and other public institutions did the same, they would be in violation of federal equal protection laws.) However, the fact that a religion believes that an act is based on a moral standard is irrelevant and doesn't make it immune from criticism or social consequences (as there are lots of terrible actions throughout history that were justified by religious moral imperatives).

Quote:
(08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Now, BYU certainly has a right to discriminate based on its religious belief. However, you cannot turn around and then state that the Big 12 is suddenly engaging in religious discrimination if it doesn't take in BYU.

Frank, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth now. You are on the discrimination bandwagon. Either both are discrimination or neither are discrimination. You've backed yourself into that corner. If BYU is discriminating because they morally believe homosexuality is a sin then the Big 12 is SURELY discriminating if they bar BYU because they don't agree with BYU's religious beliefs. If BYU doesn't have a right to decide what is right or wrong then the Big 12 can't be given that right either.

Not quite sure what you mean by talking out of both sides of my mouth. Just because a group believes something is a sin or has some type of moral basis doesn't suddenly give it immunity. Slaveowners used the Bible to provide a moral basis for justify slavery (and if you take the Bible literally as many fundamentalists insist upon, the Old Testament in particular is VERY comfortable with the notion of slavery). Religious moral beliefs were used as the justifications for witch burnings in this country. The Mormon Church didn't allow for black ministers until 1978 based on its moral beliefs. Heck, in the most extreme example, ISIS fighters sincerely believe that they have a moral basis under the Koran to engage in terrorism.

There are lots and lots and lots religious groups throughout history that sincerely believed that what they were doing was morally correct based on their religion, yet we can now see that it was reprehensible behavior. Once again, people have the right to believe what they want to believe. However, when the exercise of that belief then results in a harm to another person (whether it's discrimination or physical harm), then that certainly doesn't provide that person immunity from criticism and social consequences (and, in the cases of criminal activity based on moral platitudes, legal consequences). The fact that one group believes that a viewpoint is morally justified doesn't mean that the rest of the word has to accept it, particularly if harm is being done to others in the process.

Quote:
(08-16-2016 05:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  if the argument from the defenders of the honor code is that BYU doesn't punish anyway for a violation

Frank, it's because there are different levels of violation. Drinking coffee is not the same as doing LSD.

Sure, I understand that there are different levels of violation. However, being a coffee drinker doesn't make you part of a protected class. Doing LSD doesn't make you part of a protected class. Engaging in premarital sex doesn't make you part of a protected class. There is nothing prohibited in the BYU honor code that makes you part of a protected class... except for the paragraph that prohibits homosexual activity. That is why there's an issue here.

Therefore, if there is one paragraph in the BYU honor code that is discriminating against a protected class and BYU truly doesn't actually enforce it, then why the heck is that paragraph still in there? What is the value in keeping it? The school can still teach that homosexuality is a sin (just as Baylor and Notre Dame do) without having discriminatory *treatment* of its students in its honor code (which is what Baylor and Notre Dame have been able to avoid). Believing a viewpoint in and of itself is one thing, but harming someone else based on that belief is where the general public has a problem.

As a practical matter, it seems that BYU is getting all of the downside of being accused of being discriminatory (whether you personally believe it or not) when it's not actually putting it into practice. That's actually the worst of both worlds for BYU. They seem to be dying on the vine (at least from a conference realignment perspective) on principle when they're not enforcing that principle in practice. That doesn't make sense to me.

Are you certain sexual orientation is a federal "protected class?" All of these city and state law fights are because it is not protected. The Supreme Court case requiring states to recognize same sex marriage overturned not just state laws, but also a federal law, the "Defense of Marriage Act," passed during the Clinton administration.
08-17-2016 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyHawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 145
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 6
I Root For: UConn, Kansas
Location:
Post: #72
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 12:36 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Frank, the law says that what BYU is doing is legal. If it was illegal, they'd be sued yesterday and wouldn't be allowed to do it.

I agree with you. Here is what I stated in my quote that you quoted:

"Now, the law states that's acceptable within the context of BYU under the establishment clause. I'm not disputing that fact. (Of course, if the University of Texas and other public institutions did the same, they would be in violation of federal equal protection laws.) However, the fact that a religion believes that an act is based on a moral standard is irrelevant and doesn't make it immune from criticism or social consequences (as there are lots of terrible actions throughout history that were justified by religious moral imperatives)."

Quote:If you want to argue that BYU's policy is morally wrong, that's fine and it's a worthwhile discussion. I know you're a lawyer and tend to equate moral right to being legally right, but that's not always a true equation. And it's certainly not a true equation in new specialities where new law is being made as we speak.

Once again, I actually don't disagree with you here. I will freely admit that I personally believe that BYU's policy is morally wrong, even though I would defend BYU's Establishment Clause right to have that policy. By the same token, though, many of those that personally believe BYU's policy is morally correct seem to have a hard time acknowledging that there is also NO legal requirement for the Big 12 to accept BYU's policy, either. The Big 12, as a private association, can freely nix BYU's candidacy because it doesn't agree with BYU's policy regardless of whether such policy is based on a religious belief.

It doesn't matter whether you or I believe that BYU's policy is morally wrong or right. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether even BYU believes its policy is morally wrong or right. At the end of the day, the Big 12 has an absolute LEGAL right to decide whether it believes BYU's policy is morally wrong or right (and once again, the fact that its policy is based on a religious belief is legally irrelevant in this context). There is NO violation of the Establishment Clause if the Big 12 rejects BYU on this basis. You might understand this, but some of the others here don't seem to get it. That is where the law comes in on this matter.

Quote:Anyways, forming your entire argument around legal definitions of discrimination (as you are doing) and turning this into a legal argument only tells the non-lawyers on this forum that you disagree with the courts' interpretation of the law. That's your right to do, but I doubt it factors into the Big 12 presidents' decisions.

Once again, I don't disagree with the interpretation of the law. BYU is free to enact whatever honor code that it wants. It could be homophobic, racist, sexist and every other "-ic" or "-ist" in the book and it would be perfectly legal. However, the Big 12 has an equal legal right to reject BYU based on that honor code. That is the primary frustration that I have with many of the people on this thread. The fact that the honor code is based upon a religious belief is legally irrelevant since the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the Big 12 (a private association) here.

So, I fully agree that the Big 12 presidents do not care about the legal interpretation of BYU's honor code. They would know that BYU has a constitutionally protected right to enact whatever rules that they please. The overarching point, though, is that the Big 12 presidents concurrently have a full legal right to not allow in BYU based on its honor code language regardless of whether it is based on religion... and if they believe what BYU doing is engaging in discrimination that they wouldn't allow for on their own campuses (which is actually true even in the case of Baylor), then that could very well factor into the Big 12's interests.

Yes, it's pretty simple really. BYU can do what it wants. The Big 12 can keep them out because of it. If today's new rumor is true, they plan to do exactly that.
08-17-2016 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #73
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 02:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Are you certain sexual orientation is a federal "protected class?" All of these city and state law fights are because it is not protected. The Supreme Court case requiring states to recognize same sex marriage overturned not just state laws, but also a federal law, the "Defense of Marriage Act," passed during the Clinton administration.

In the EEOC context, it is deemed to be a protected class. As someone else alluded to earlier, "sexual orientation" is not specifically stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which is where we find the concept of "protected classes"), but the federal government uses protection for "sex" to find Title VII violations in discrimination cases against LGBT people. That's actually pretty well-settled at the federal level.

The fights at local levels are generally with respect to "religious liberty" or attempting to use a compelling state interest justification (e.g. safety) in the bathroom-type laws.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2016 02:31 PM by Frank the Tank.)
08-17-2016 02:30 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,127
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 152
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #74
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 01:30 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 12:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 12:09 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 10:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The NCAA should be a melting pot of educational institutions at all levels P5,G5, FCS.

I think parents should have choices. They should be able to send their daughter to an all girls school, or son to an all boys school. They should be able to send their kids to a Muslim, Christian or secular school. These are choices Americans families should have. The NCAA should not be involved in liberal social engineering.

Okay Corky, where is the NCAA saying people can't go to BYU? Just throw some more "liberals" out there like you know what you're talking about.

NCAA athletics should stay completely out of "controversial liberal social engineering". Issues like this should not play any role in joining a conference. Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athlete, whether it's an all girls school, all boys school, all transgender school, a Muslim school, a Christian school or a secular school. One size doesn't all families. The NCAA should to stick to sports.

All that should matter is fan base, facilities, academics and money.

This isn;t the NCAA though, so either inform yourself or leave the discussion to those who actually understand how things work.

I love how "Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athletes" like anyone is stopping them from doing so, but then advocates that the Big XII shouldn't have the right to accept whomever they want to accept but this school should be forced upon them. Thats some great right wing nut job thinking.

Keep throwing liberal out there though, it makes it easier to see who the truly delusional ones are.

All that should matter to the Big 12 or NCAA is fan base, facilities, academics and money. Not some delusional liberal social engineering agenda.

Point out where the NCAA is involved in this at all. Point it out or STFU. Also the Big XII is free to use any criteria they want to pick it's members. Why is free association liberal social engineering to you?
08-17-2016 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,463
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 3153
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: The woods of Bammer

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #75
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
I'm not jumping into the fray with a position, but I do believe that this issue is costing BYU a spot in the Big 12. It's b/c the Big 12 doesn't want this controversy to carry over to them, which is exactly what would happen if they issue an invite to BYU now. That is the Big 12's prerogative.
08-17-2016 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #76
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 02:58 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm not jumping into the fray with a position, but I do believe that this issue is costing BYU a spot in the Big 12. It's b/c the Big 12 doesn't want this controversy to carry over to them, which is exactly what would happen if they issue an invite to BYU now. That is the Big 12's prerogative.

I think another thing is that this isn't about appeasing the "liberal SJWs" that are being reflexively criticized by many in this thread. Instead, it's about this list:

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...ID=1514850

That's the list of Big 12 corporate partners. Note that Corporate America (typically a bastion of overwhelming Republican support, although that might be changing this year) is 100% behind LGBT equality efforts. They care very, very, very much about how they are perceived in the marketplace for both consumers and future workers (as the younger you are, the more likely you are to support LGBT rights). They're the ones that are slamming all of these proposed "religious liberty" laws (with the irony that supporters of those laws like to say that it provides business more rights, yet businesses themselves state that these laws are awful). That's the *money* (outside of the TV people) that can pressure Big 12 presidents. Those corporate sponsors don't want blowback, and there's is NOTHING that gets people moving more than when sponsors complain. Forget about the college students (who people here can pass off as uniformly liberal). Look at how Corporate America has changed on these issues.
08-17-2016 03:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyHawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 145
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 6
I Root For: UConn, Kansas
Location:
Post: #77
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 02:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Are you certain sexual orientation is a federal "protected class?" All of these city and state law fights are because it is not protected. The Supreme Court case requiring states to recognize same sex marriage overturned not just state laws, but also a federal law, the "Defense of Marriage Act," passed during the Clinton administration.

In the EEOC context, it is deemed to be a protected class. As someone else alluded to earlier, "sexual orientation" is not specifically stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which is where we find the concept of "protected classes"), but the federal government uses protection for "sex" to find Title VII violations in discrimination cases against LGBT people. That's actually pretty well-settled at the federal level.

The fights at local levels are generally with respect to "religious liberty" or attempting to use a compelling state interest justification (e.g. safety) in the bathroom-type laws.

That and the EEOC's recent promotion of "sex" as inclusive of "gender identity", which is entirely new for them as a formal position. It's been proposed and rejected by Congress several times. I suspect that the courts would not side with the EEOC on that.
08-17-2016 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke3 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 932
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #78
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
This controversy that byu's honor code is causing in this thread and byu fans complete blind spot to the business aspects of this is providing all the evidence as to why they're not going to the big12. First what major group of educational and or athletic institutions would want to touch this hot potato? Secondly if they did offer byu they would have to do so knowing that byu will never back down no matter how much it might eventually hurt the other members of their conference. The big12 has the right to avoid this situation if they so choose
08-17-2016 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #79
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
(08-17-2016 02:48 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 01:30 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 12:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 12:09 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  
(08-17-2016 10:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Okay Corky, where is the NCAA saying people can't go to BYU? Just throw some more "liberals" out there like you know what you're talking about.

NCAA athletics should stay completely out of "controversial liberal social engineering". Issues like this should not play any role in joining a conference. Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athlete, whether it's an all girls school, all boys school, all transgender school, a Muslim school, a Christian school or a secular school. One size doesn't all families. The NCAA should to stick to sports.

All that should matter is fan base, facilities, academics and money.

This isn;t the NCAA though, so either inform yourself or leave the discussion to those who actually understand how things work.

I love how "Americans should be free to choose where they send their NCAA student athletes" like anyone is stopping them from doing so, but then advocates that the Big XII shouldn't have the right to accept whomever they want to accept but this school should be forced upon them. Thats some great right wing nut job thinking.

Keep throwing liberal out there though, it makes it easier to see who the truly delusional ones are.

All that should matter to the Big 12 or NCAA is fan base, facilities, academics and money. Not some delusional liberal social engineering agenda.

Point out where the NCAA is involved in this at all. Point it out or STFU. Also the Big XII is free to use any criteria they want to pick it's members. Why is free association liberal social engineering to you?

Turning down BYU based on the way they treat LGBT would probably be a money based decision.....just ask NC how their discriminatory policies are going.
08-17-2016 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke3 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 932
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #80
RE: DMN - If LGBT stance disqualifies BYU as Big 12 expansion candidate.....
I'm no Cincy fan but I do respect them,so my question is what makes people think that byu is so much more valuable than a Cincy-elite8's,bcs bowls,excellent market and team player and I think the same argument can be made for several other expansion candidates. The only objectively intelligent answer for the big12 would be to move on and find work on the stability of their own conference
08-17-2016 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.