Exactly right!

People are admonishing the ACC for "getting involved in politics" but what are they supposed to do? They are located in the state of North Carolina and do hundreds of millions of dollars in business there. The politics were dropped right on their head. They had no choice but to respond.

And that's before we even get into issues like sponsorships and other important financial relationships.

Finally, you have to understand that these are not athletic franchises that operate in a bubble. They represent an entire university – at the very least. In some cases they represent entire cities or regions or states. In Notre Dame's case, they feel like they represent the Catholic Church in the United States.

Well, in states and cities and university communities you have all kinds of people including gays and straights, blacks and whites, fat and skinny people, short and tall people, etc. You also have transgender people and you have a responsibility to defend that constituency if they are being attacked – as they clearly are in this instance.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. once famously said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

That's exactly right. People don't have to like it but it is the truth. If you let this go, where does it stop? Could they reinstate Jim Crow laws? Could they force blacks and whites to use separate bathrooms like they used to do back in "the good old days?"

Sounds ridiculous, right? That would never happen. This guy is FOS and doesn't know what he's talking about. He is using all stereotypes against the south. Welp, just this week another insane legislator there compared Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler. How do you think he might feel about separate bathrooms for blacks and whites?

This isn't about what the ACC could have done differently. They are not the irrational actors in this situation. It's about what these nutcase politicians in North Carolina need to do differently that needs to be the focus of this discussion.

It is not good enough to just wash our hands of this and say, "Oh well, what can you do?" Nope. That is unacceptable. Stand up to these cocksuckkkers and let them know the score. Fight line hell at every turn. Also, the Democratic Party needs to pound the state of North Carolina with political messaging. And, if they continue to act like lunatics, businesses need to pull out. There's no place for this kind of fundamentalist bullshitt in a free society.

Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Exactly right!

People are admonishing the ACC for "getting involved in politics" but what are they supposed to do? They are located in the state of North Carolina and do hundreds of millions of dollars in business there. The politics were dropped right on their head. They had no choice but to respond.

And that's before we even get into issues like sponsorships and other important financial relationships.

Finally, you have to understand that these are not athletic franchises that operate in a bubble. They represent an entire university – at the very least. In some cases they represent entire cities or regions or states. In Notre Dame's case, they feel like they represent the Catholic Church in the United States.

Well, in states and cities and university communities you have all kinds of people including gays and straights, blacks and whites, fat and skinny people, short and tall people, etc. You also have transgender people and you have a responsibility to defend that constituency if they are being attacked – as they clearly are in this instance.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. once famously said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

That's exactly right. People don't have to like it but it is the truth. If you let this go, where does it stop? Could they reinstate Jim Crow laws? Could they force blacks and whites to use separate bathrooms like they used to do back in "the good old days?"

Sounds ridiculous, right? That would never happen. This guy is FOS and doesn't know what he's talking about. He is using all stereotypes against the south. Welp, just this week another insane legislator there compared Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler. How do you think he might feel about separate bathrooms for blacks and whites?

This isn't about what the ACC could have done differently. They are not the irrational actors in this situation. It's about what these nutcase politicians in North Carolina need to do differently that needs to be the focus of this discussion.

It is not good enough to just wash our hands of this and say, "Oh well, what can you do?" Nope. That is unacceptable. Stand up to these cocksuckkkers and let them know the score. Fight line hell at every turn. Also, the Democratic Party needs to pound the state of North Carolina with political messaging. And, if they continue to act like lunatics, businesses need to pull out. There's no place for this kind of fundamentalist bullshitt in a free society.

Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

(04-14-2017 02:43 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-12-2017 09:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  Unfortunately the Conference and the NCAA have already gotten into politics when they shouldn't have.

(04-12-2017 09:13 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Discrimination of every kind is illegal.

Yes. Once a state passes constitutionally dubious laws that can affect students, schools have little choice. It's not a matter of 'getting involved'. It's a matter of refusing to be involved.

It's a matter of lawsuit avoidance.

You're a university president who opted to keep conference events in a state with discriminatory laws? And now you are going to send your students to those events? Congratulations. You have now opened your school and your conference to some expensive headaches.

Students who encounter discrimination at the events--discrimination that was perfectly foreseeable by you and other officials who sent them there--have grounds now to sue not only that state, but your university and its conference.

Definitely not the call to make if you like your job.

When a discriminatory law is passed in a state, you have two options: (1) make sure your students aren't affected by that law, or (2) stay away. That state's lawmakers are best left to defend their mistakes without you.

The issue is that discrimination "of any kind" isn't illegal - anywhere.

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

The majority of everyday people in North Carolina supported HB2. The voters had already passed a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that marriage only existed between a man and a women. This is America.
The ACC as an athletic entity and the NCAA as an athletic entity were wrong to engage in politics.
Perhaps if you were on the side that was being pushed on, instead of being a pusher you may feel differently as the majority of people in North Carolina do.

EDITORIALS
APRIL 11, 2017 5:11 PM
Liberals can’t demand tolerance and then be intolerant
THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL BOARD
LINKEDIN
GOOGLE+
PINTEREST
REDDIT
PRINT
ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
In pushing society away from the sense that sexuality is binary, LGBT activists are using a long list of relatively new and unfamiliar terms: Gender nonconforming and genderfluid; androsexual and aromantic; bigender and biphobia; cissexism and cisnormativity, among others. While the scientific community has known for a while that the terms “man” and “woman” don’t fully account for a variety of ways human sexuality is expressed from birth, the broader society is only now being exposed to that reality.

That has brought with it natural tensions that accompany any significant change, as well as a less-healthy, uglier reaction borne of a tendency to assume the “other side” must have bad intentions.

Those tensions were at the heart of the push for and against HB2.

Let’s face it. No matter your political leanings, evangelical Christians clearly have been asked to absorb an enormous amount of that social change. It’s been change that contradicts their long-held worldview that committed relationships between one man and one woman are the rightful foundation of a strong civilization. It’s a view based on their understanding of biblical scripture that dates back thousands of years.

We strongly believe that LGBT people have been mistreated and denied basic human rights over the years. But it makes sense that evangelical Christians would fight the legalization of gay marriage and the social equality of transgender people. It is not just bigotry driving concern over government mandates on contraception coverage in health plans and owners of florists being run out of business for not wanting to participate in gay weddings.

They’ve been asked to accept these changes, or at least not stand in the way of what we and many others consider long-overdue progress for marginalized groups, despite not understanding why those changes might be proper or necessary. Even non-evangelical Christians and those fighting for a broader set of civil rights protections can be excused for not fully understanding.

That’s why it was disheartening to hear the instantaneous backlash recently about the revelation (actually a resurfacing of a 15-year-old revelation) that Vice President Mike Pence adheres to the “Billy Graham Rule.” He tries not to dine alone with any woman other than his wife and takes other precautions to respect his marriage so as to not provide even a hint of impropriety.

He and those who believe as he does have been accused of either hating women or treating them as second-class citizens – though there is no evidence Pence has ever mistreated the women in his orbit or denied them earned promotions. It’s the kind of double standard that undercuts arguments for a greater tolerance of diversity.

Evangelical Christians likely won’t ever agree with social changes society is undergoing. But they are told to accept them anyway, even if they don’t fully understand why they are occurring. Some of that tolerance has to be reserved for traditions they are holding fast to, even if others don’t understand why they adhere to them.


While I do take exception to the statement in the editorial about "expression" of sexuality as being reality, I think it does offer understanding.

Please do not confuse the idiotic actions of the NCGA with the wishes of the citizens of my state. These House and senate members were elected from highly gerrymandering districts that assure them of reelection and they don't reflect the views of a majority of the state. They can pretty much do whatever they want without fear of repercussions. I'm not even sure if the live boy / dead girl rule applies here.

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

To be honest, I don't think that the ACC should have done anything. It's an athletic organization, not a political party.

"Mission Statement: To maximize the educational and athletic opportunities that shape our leaders of tomorrow – in the classroom, in competition, and in life."

That's the ACC's mission statement, and it's what the ACC should do.

(04-14-2017 09:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The issue is that discrimination "of any kind" isn't illegal - anywhere.

public discrimination is illegal ...
U.S. constitution, federal & state law prohibit ...
not sure transgender bathroom use rises to the civil rights issue of our time though ...
where it gets murky ...

PEE PEE IN MY PANTS

(04-15-2017 12:00 PM)green Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:46 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The issue is that discrimination "of any kind" isn't illegal - anywhere.

public discrimination is illegal ...
U.S. constitution, federal & state law prohibit ...
not sure transgender bathroom use rises to the civil rights issue of our time though ...
where it gets murky ...

PEE PEE IN MY PANTS

No, it's not.

"Outside of the newly clarified right to marry, there is currently no federal law prohibiting other types of sexual orientation discrimination. Sexual orientation is not protected by federal law the way race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability are for private employers. Around two dozen states still don't have anti-discrimination laws protecting individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Nonetheless, many companies, workplaces, and legislators are working to change that. While there are efforts underway to pass additional federal laws to make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal, no bills on this topic have become law yet."

http://www.workplacefairness.org/sexual-...mination#2

Discrimination is very clearly very legal in a number of capacities. I honestly neither know or care whether or not NC bathrooms is one of those, but the blanket statement that "discrimination of any kid, public or otherwise, is illegal" is wholly erroneous.

(04-15-2017 01:43 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  the blanket statement that "discrimination of any kid, public or otherwise, is illegal" is wholly erroneous.

on that we agree ...
I omitted the word generally ...
generally, public discrimination is illegal ...

HATE THY NEIGHBOR

(04-15-2017 09:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

The majority of everyday people in North Carolina supported HB2. The voters had already passed a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that marriage only existed between a man and a women. This is America.
The ACC as an athletic entity and the NCAA as an athletic entity were wrong to engage in politics.
Perhaps if you were on the side that was being pushed on, instead of being a pusher you may feel differently as the majority of people in North Carolina do.

EDITORIALS
APRIL 11, 2017 5:11 PM
Liberals can’t demand tolerance and then be intolerant
THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL BOARD
LINKEDIN
GOOGLE+
PINTEREST
REDDIT
PRINT
ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
In pushing society away from the sense that sexuality is binary, LGBT activists are using a long list of relatively new and unfamiliar terms: Gender nonconforming and genderfluid; androsexual and aromantic; bigender and biphobia; cissexism and cisnormativity, among others. While the scientific community has known for a while that the terms “man” and “woman” don’t fully account for a variety of ways human sexuality is expressed from birth, the broader society is only now being exposed to that reality.

That has brought with it natural tensions that accompany any significant change, as well as a less-healthy, uglier reaction borne of a tendency to assume the “other side” must have bad intentions.

Those tensions were at the heart of the push for and against HB2.

Let’s face it. No matter your political leanings, evangelical Christians clearly have been asked to absorb an enormous amount of that social change. It’s been change that contradicts their long-held worldview that committed relationships between one man and one woman are the rightful foundation of a strong civilization. It’s a view based on their understanding of biblical scripture that dates back thousands of years.

We strongly believe that LGBT people have been mistreated and denied basic human rights over the years. But it makes sense that evangelical Christians would fight the legalization of gay marriage and the social equality of transgender people. It is not just bigotry driving concern over government mandates on contraception coverage in health plans and owners of florists being run out of business for not wanting to participate in gay weddings.

They’ve been asked to accept these changes, or at least not stand in the way of what we and many others consider long-overdue progress for marginalized groups, despite not understanding why those changes might be proper or necessary. Even non-evangelical Christians and those fighting for a broader set of civil rights protections can be excused for not fully understanding.

That’s why it was disheartening to hear the instantaneous backlash recently about the revelation (actually a resurfacing of a 15-year-old revelation) that Vice President Mike Pence adheres to the “Billy Graham Rule.” He tries not to dine alone with any woman other than his wife and takes other precautions to respect his marriage so as to not provide even a hint of impropriety.

He and those who believe as he does have been accused of either hating women or treating them as second-class citizens – though there is no evidence Pence has ever mistreated the women in his orbit or denied them earned promotions. It’s the kind of double standard that undercuts arguments for a greater tolerance of diversity.

Evangelical Christians likely won’t ever agree with social changes society is undergoing. But they are told to accept them anyway, even if they don’t fully understand why they are occurring. Some of that tolerance has to be reserved for traditions they are holding fast to, even if others don’t understand why they adhere to them.


While I do take exception to the statement in the editorial about "expression" of sexuality as being reality, I think it does offer understanding.

Evangelical Christians don't have to absorb anything. Neither have they been asked to absorb anything. If they think some aspects of social change are immoral, why can't they be content to wait until judgment day and let God sort things out? It's a foundation of their beliefs, isn't it? Or do they secretly fear or know that all those promises of reward (for them, of course) and punishment (for everyone else) at the end of life are just a bunch of hooey? Maybe that's what's really got their panties in a wad -- doubt.

(04-15-2017 09:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

The majority of everyday people in North Carolina supported HB2. The voters had already passed a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that marriage only existed between a man and a women. This is America.
The ACC as an athletic entity and the NCAA as an athletic entity were wrong to engage in politics.
Perhaps if you were on the side that was being pushed on, instead of being a pusher you may feel differently as the majority of people in North Carolina do.

EDITORIALS
APRIL 11, 2017 5:11 PM
Liberals can’t demand tolerance and then be intolerant
THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL BOARD
LINKEDIN
GOOGLE+
PINTEREST
REDDIT
PRINT
ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
In pushing society away from the sense that sexuality is binary, LGBT activists are using a long list of relatively new and unfamiliar terms: Gender nonconforming and genderfluid; androsexual and aromantic; bigender and biphobia; cissexism and cisnormativity, among others. While the scientific community has known for a while that the terms “man” and “woman” don’t fully account for a variety of ways human sexuality is expressed from birth, the broader society is only now being exposed to that reality.

That has brought with it natural tensions that accompany any significant change, as well as a less-healthy, uglier reaction borne of a tendency to assume the “other side” must have bad intentions.

Those tensions were at the heart of the push for and against HB2.

Let’s face it. No matter your political leanings, evangelical Christians clearly have been asked to absorb an enormous amount of that social change. It’s been change that contradicts their long-held worldview that committed relationships between one man and one woman are the rightful foundation of a strong civilization. It’s a view based on their understanding of biblical scripture that dates back thousands of years.

We strongly believe that LGBT people have been mistreated and denied basic human rights over the years. But it makes sense that evangelical Christians would fight the legalization of gay marriage and the social equality of transgender people. It is not just bigotry driving concern over government mandates on contraception coverage in health plans and owners of florists being run out of business for not wanting to participate in gay weddings.

They’ve been asked to accept these changes, or at least not stand in the way of what we and many others consider long-overdue progress for marginalized groups, despite not understanding why those changes might be proper or necessary. Even non-evangelical Christians and those fighting for a broader set of civil rights protections can be excused for not fully understanding.

That’s why it was disheartening to hear the instantaneous backlash recently about the revelation (actually a resurfacing of a 15-year-old revelation) that Vice President Mike Pence adheres to the “Billy Graham Rule.” He tries not to dine alone with any woman other than his wife and takes other precautions to respect his marriage so as to not provide even a hint of impropriety.

He and those who believe as he does have been accused of either hating women or treating them as second-class citizens – though there is no evidence Pence has ever mistreated the women in his orbit or denied them earned promotions. It’s the kind of double standard that undercuts arguments for a greater tolerance of diversity.

Evangelical Christians likely won’t ever agree with social changes society is undergoing. But they are told to accept them anyway, even if they don’t fully understand why they are occurring. Some of that tolerance has to be reserved for traditions they are holding fast to, even if others don’t understand why they adhere to them.


While I do take exception to the statement in the editorial about "expression" of sexuality as being reality, I think it does offer understanding.

Not to get to political but I'm a moderate independent & I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church. Same sex marriage absolutely shouldn't be pushed on churches but I believe that a legal exception should exist outside of church. Nature isn't perfect so I believe tolerance should exist for those that don't fall under our definition of normal. It's not their fault, it's not a choice.

(04-15-2017 10:21 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

To be honest, I don't think that the ACC should have done anything. It's an athletic organization, not a political party.

"Mission Statement: To maximize the educational and athletic opportunities that shape our leaders of tomorrow – in the classroom, in competition, and in life."

That's the ACC's mission statement, and it's what the ACC should do.

One can argue that teaching tolerance & that discrimination is wrong follows that statement. The statement exceeds athletics, "in the classroom, in competition, and in life".

(04-15-2017 05:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 10:21 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

To be honest, I don't think that the ACC should have done anything. It's an athletic organization, not a political party.

"Mission Statement: To maximize the educational and athletic opportunities that shape our leaders of tomorrow – in the classroom, in competition, and in life."

That's the ACC's mission statement, and it's what the ACC should do.

One can argue that teaching tolerance & that discrimination is wrong follows that statement. The statement exceeds athletics, "in the classroom, in competition, and in life".

So your theory is that the conference boycotting NC after playing ~26.67% of its regular season games in NC teaches "tolerance & that discrimination is wrong" in any meaningful way? And if so, is your theory that the boycott and subsequent loss of millions of dollars is the best/most effective way to deploy ACC assets towards that teaching goal? And lastly, do you think that lesson is the lesson that the ACC should be teaching a population that's 100% adult and 100% college educated to varying degrees?

You know my opinion, and I can't prove you wrong if you disagree. But I have a hard time not seeing the boycott as an incredible stretch of the ACC mission statement.

FWIW, here's the vision statement:
"Vision Statement: To be at the forefront in educational excellence, athletic achievement, and innovation while inspiring the development of leaders in the ACC."

I submit that the ACC tried to drive social change, and that the boycott only had a tangential relationship w/ academics, athletics, or shaping the leaders of tomorrow.

(04-15-2017 05:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 05:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 10:21 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

To be honest, I don't think that the ACC should have done anything. It's an athletic organization, not a political party.

"Mission Statement: To maximize the educational and athletic opportunities that shape our leaders of tomorrow – in the classroom, in competition, and in life."

That's the ACC's mission statement, and it's what the ACC should do.

One can argue that teaching tolerance & that discrimination is wrong follows that statement. The statement exceeds athletics, "in the classroom, in competition, and in life".

So your theory is that the conference boycotting NC after playing ~26.67% of its regular season games in NC teaches "tolerance & that discrimination is wrong" in any meaningful way? And if so, is your theory that the boycott and subsequent loss of millions of dollars is the best/most effective way to deploy ACC assets towards that teaching goal? And lastly, do you think that lesson is the lesson that the ACC should be teaching a population that's 100% adult and 100% college educated to varying degrees?

You know my opinion, and I can't prove you wrong if you disagree. But I have a hard time not seeing the boycott as an incredible stretch of the ACC mission statement.

FWIW, here's the vision statement:
"Vision Statement: To be at the forefront in educational excellence, athletic achievement, and innovation while inspiring the development of leaders in the ACC."

I submit that the ACC tried to drive social change, and that the boycott only had a tangential relationship w/ academics, athletics, or shaping the leaders of tomorrow.

The "boycott" was purely for public appearance, I believe, since others had already taken that action & the ACC didn't want the bad press in not following suit but it could have also of had a positive effect in education. I would like to see a leader that would process the traits of tolerance & also be anti discriminatory. I wouldn't dispute your last paragraph but it obviously did have an effect in NC.

As I stated earlier, "Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues." This would've made a public statement while not taking immediate action & giving the states political leaders a chance to correct things.

That's where I think there's a difference between playing regular season games at NC members than postseason sites. The student athletes are innocent in this & didn't play a part in it so not allowing them to play home games would be extreme considering they didn't play a role in it or had any prior knowledge or control over it. The universities didn't play a role in this as well. Hosting a conference event in a NC city is a different matter.

Let's not forget the entire bill & not just focus on the bathroom portion. IIRC, this bill also took away people's right to sue, for example, when they have been discriminated against.

The world is seldom black & white & I don't know what is the right or wrong answer here but more of an an implication of a preferred effect.

(04-15-2017 07:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 05:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 05:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 10:21 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

To be honest, I don't think that the ACC should have done anything. It's an athletic organization, not a political party.

"Mission Statement: To maximize the educational and athletic opportunities that shape our leaders of tomorrow – in the classroom, in competition, and in life."

That's the ACC's mission statement, and it's what the ACC should do.

One can argue that teaching tolerance & that discrimination is wrong follows that statement. The statement exceeds athletics, "in the classroom, in competition, and in life".

So your theory is that the conference boycotting NC after playing ~26.67% of its regular season games in NC teaches "tolerance & that discrimination is wrong" in any meaningful way? And if so, is your theory that the boycott and subsequent loss of millions of dollars is the best/most effective way to deploy ACC assets towards that teaching goal? And lastly, do you think that lesson is the lesson that the ACC should be teaching a population that's 100% adult and 100% college educated to varying degrees?

You know my opinion, and I can't prove you wrong if you disagree. But I have a hard time not seeing the boycott as an incredible stretch of the ACC mission statement.

FWIW, here's the vision statement:
"Vision Statement: To be at the forefront in educational excellence, athletic achievement, and innovation while inspiring the development of leaders in the ACC."

I submit that the ACC tried to drive social change, and that the boycott only had a tangential relationship w/ academics, athletics, or shaping the leaders of tomorrow.

The "boycott" was purely for public appearance, I believe, since others had already taken that action & the ACC didn't want the bad press in not following suit but it could have also of had a positive effect in education. I would like to see a leader that would process the traits of tolerance & also be anti discriminatory. I wouldn't dispute your last paragraph but it obviously did have an effect in NC.

As I stated earlier, "Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues." This would've made a public statement while not taking immediate action & giving the states political leaders a chance to correct things.

That's where I think there's a difference between playing regular season games at NC members than postseason sites. The student athletes are innocent in this & didn't play a part in it so not allowing them to play home games would be extreme considering they didn't play a role in it or had any prior knowledge or control over it. The universities didn't play a role in this as well. Hosting a conference event in a NC city is a different matter.

Let's not forget the entire bill & not just focus on the bathroom portion. IIRC, this bill also took away people's right to sue, for example, when they have been discriminated against.

The world is seldom black & white & I don't know what is the right or wrong answer here but more of an an implication of a preferred effect.

To clarify, I'm not taking a stand on the bill. I just don't think that the ACC is the appropriate vehicle to drive thank kind of change.

I honestly have a hard time convincing myself that a private school in New York should meddle in North Carolina politics. The same goes for private schools in Florida, Massachusetts, and Indiana, and public schools in Kentucky, Florida, and possibly even the states that neighbor NC. But if those schools do desire to influence NC politics, I think there are more impactful ways to do it than through the ACC.

(04-15-2017 09:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 09:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 04:52 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Within the past few weeks that same group of extremists has talk openly of seceding from the union, defying the Supreme Court of the United States on gay marriage, and of course the Lincoln/Hitler comparison. Let's deal with those lunatics first before we start scolding others.

I don't think that the ACC needed to take a stand.

I personally believe in equality of opportunity, a strong fed. gov., and failing that, a strong state gov. (vs municipal gov.), and I would have had no issues w/ SU opposing HB2, despite my beliefs (or possibly because of my beliefs). However, I do have an issue w/ the ACC doing it, as the ACC is purely an athletic org. - at least in my mind.

So they not only want to succeed from the ACC but America as well?!

Perhaps a more appropriate response from the ACC would have been a pledge not to award NC any future sites as long as the bill existed. Finished out the current year & then made the changes, if necessary, allowing time for the state to resolve the issues.

The majority of everyday people in North Carolina supported HB2. The voters had already passed a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that marriage only existed between a man and a women. This is America.
The ACC as an athletic entity and the NCAA as an athletic entity were wrong to engage in politics.
Perhaps if you were on the side that was being pushed on, instead of being a pusher you may feel differently as the majority of people in North Carolina do.

EDITORIALS
APRIL 11, 2017 5:11 PM
Liberals can’t demand tolerance and then be intolerant
THE OBSERVER EDITORIAL BOARD
LINKEDIN
GOOGLE+
PINTEREST
REDDIT
PRINT
ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY
In pushing society away from the sense that sexuality is binary, LGBT activists are using a long list of relatively new and unfamiliar terms: Gender nonconforming and genderfluid; androsexual and aromantic; bigender and biphobia; cissexism and cisnormativity, among others. While the scientific community has known for a while that the terms “man” and “woman” don’t fully account for a variety of ways human sexuality is expressed from birth, the broader society is only now being exposed to that reality.

That has brought with it natural tensions that accompany any significant change, as well as a less-healthy, uglier reaction borne of a tendency to assume the “other side” must have bad intentions.

Those tensions were at the heart of the push for and against HB2.

Let’s face it. No matter your political leanings, evangelical Christians clearly have been asked to absorb an enormous amount of that social change. It’s been change that contradicts their long-held worldview that committed relationships between one man and one woman are the rightful foundation of a strong civilization. It’s a view based on their understanding of biblical scripture that dates back thousands of years.

We strongly believe that LGBT people have been mistreated and denied basic human rights over the years. But it makes sense that evangelical Christians would fight the legalization of gay marriage and the social equality of transgender people. It is not just bigotry driving concern over government mandates on contraception coverage in health plans and owners of florists being run out of business for not wanting to participate in gay weddings.

They’ve been asked to accept these changes, or at least not stand in the way of what we and many others consider long-overdue progress for marginalized groups, despite not understanding why those changes might be proper or necessary. Even non-evangelical Christians and those fighting for a broader set of civil rights protections can be excused for not fully understanding.

That’s why it was disheartening to hear the instantaneous backlash recently about the revelation (actually a resurfacing of a 15-year-old revelation) that Vice President Mike Pence adheres to the “Billy Graham Rule.” He tries not to dine alone with any woman other than his wife and takes other precautions to respect his marriage so as to not provide even a hint of impropriety.

He and those who believe as he does have been accused of either hating women or treating them as second-class citizens – though there is no evidence Pence has ever mistreated the women in his orbit or denied them earned promotions. It’s the kind of double standard that undercuts arguments for a greater tolerance of diversity.

Evangelical Christians likely won’t ever agree with social changes society is undergoing. But they are told to accept them anyway, even if they don’t fully understand why they are occurring. Some of that tolerance has to be reserved for traditions they are holding fast to, even if others don’t understand why they adhere to them.


While I do take exception to the statement in the editorial about "expression" of sexuality as being reality, I think it does offer understanding.

That editorial is completely insane. It sounds fairly reasonable at first blush ("hey we know that scientists have known this for years but not everyone is as erudite as us newspaper readers/writers") but when you start to break it down, it's batshitt crazy.

Comparing a few people make making fun of Mike Pence's dinner related martial beliefs is not REMOTELY the same as discriminating against an entire class of people because you "disapprove" of their "lifestyle."

"You see, it's just fine that we are openly discriminating against gays and transgenders. After all, one night last week, Stephen Colbert made fun of Mike Pence on his television show. So in a way, samesies, right?"

Uh, no. Not even close.

Nobody is telling Mike Pence that he is legally compelled to have dinner with women other than his wife. That's such a stupid point I don't know what to say?

And when people start resorting to nonsense like this to make their "point," you have your answer about the defensibility of their position.

Also, the Fundamentalist Christians haven't been asked to absorb jack shitt. Nobody is telling them what they have to believe. However, the rest of us shouldn't have to live by their warped world view because they have figured out a way to gerrymander some congressional districts and because "change is hard for them."

Who cares if they've heard these terms before? I've got an idea, instead of folding your arms and condemning people you fully admit you don't understand, why don't you first make an effort to educate yourself?

No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. It's far easier to wag your finger of people who disagree with your ludicrously narrow worldview.

Where they lose all credibility is in the ban placed on the municipal governments. That makes it even more ridiculous.

"You see, state government is better than federal government because it is smaller and more local. This is all a states rights thing, you see. This isn't unreasonable at all.

"But you can completely disregard that logic when it comes to municipal government versus state government because...uh... we are not going to cede an ounce of power to those GD liberals in Charlotte."

It's totally crazy.

People say to me, "Stay out of it. You're not a North Carolinian and this doesn't concern you."

Bullshitt!

You are openly discriminating against people because you think you can get away with it. That may be what North Carolina is all about - that's TBD - but it is not about the United States of America is all about.

If this were any other sub-group, people wouldn't sit idly by and allow it to happen and they shouldn't in this instance either.

Finally, I don't think the ACC or the NCAA had any choice but to get involved here. Cynically, I don't think they're doing this for ideological reasons. I don't think they are genuinely trying to affect change - for all the reasons stated previously in the thread and a few that have not yet been expressed.

These organizations work through sponsorships and I'm guessing that the national sponsors were feeling the heat from various LGBT groups and they voiced those concerns to people in the NCAA and ACC.

In other words, I think they were forced to act. However, before blaming the ACC or the NCAA or Cadillac or Olds Mobile or whomever for sticking their noses where they didn't belong, why don't we start by offering the same advice to the political officials who are telling people who look and feel differently than they do whom they can marry and where they must take a shitt.

That seems way more egregious to me than the fairly meek reaction to it.

You have to understand, now that the Democrats have given in not once but twice to these lunatics, all they have done is ensure that the bullying is going to continue.

This isn't going to get better. This insanity is going to get worse and worse and worse. That's how extremists work. They take and take and take and the only language they understand is the language of power. If you think you are being reasonable and understanding or trying to understand "their side of things," you are in for a very rude awakening because they are not going to suddenly become reasonable.

They think you are the enemy that needs to be destroyed – not someone with a different POV that needs to be reasoned with. These loons genuinely believe that pretty much all of the ills that face our society are the result of "liberalism" and "political correctness."

Believe me, I was raised in that type of household and I know the mentality very, VERY well. So, what constitutes a "liberal?" Anyone who doesn't agree with their radical social and economic agenda, that's who? In my family, I may as well be Ralph Nader. And I vote for Republican candidates roughly half the time. however, these types of lunatic Republicans are not my cup of tea and I would definitely not support them.

This isn't at all about protecting principles or religious liberties, it's about asserting authority. They're already stripped away all the power from the governor. Now they are moving on to other issues to "reset the map."

Its completely ludicrous to try to turn back the clock to the time that you think was simpler but actually wasn't - only better cloaked. However, its is even more ridiculous for the rest of us to sit around and try to rationalize it or refuse to call it by its real name: naked bigotry.

(04-15-2017 09:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  The majority of everyday people in North Carolina supported HB2. The voters had already passed a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that marriage only existed between a man and a women. This is America.

Rights are not subject to majority vote. They are guaranteed by the US Constitution. They are unalienable.

This is America.