Every time someone screams "discrimination!", does not mean that actual discrimination took place. I love it how certain individuals and groups feel they are the sole and final authority over what is and is not discrimination. Any divergent viewpoints of the matter based on religious, moral, or philosophical reasons are not welcome.

Tom,

I have learned over the years that people of the preach tolerance crowd such as yourself, are the most intolerant people of all. Also, that law is so hypocritical in that California deals a lot with countries like Saudi Arabia that are more restrictive than any of the states on your list, but people like yourself don't care about that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-05-2017 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 02:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 02:30 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 11:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think that the ICC might have some views on discrimination too. Not sure you want to open up that can of worms if you support the discriminatory bills.

To answer the previous posters question, NC is still on the list because HB2 still is in substantial effect. The 'solution' left in place a ban on protecting LGBT persons from discrimination. It was a full throated affirmation and endorsement of discrimination by the NC legislature.

Wow, for someone who admonished everyone to "not make this political" at the start of this thread, you sure haven't shied away from making it political.

What do you expect from a typical liberal loon from California? It is always do as I say, and I can do whatever I want as the rule only applies to peons who don't agree.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In fairness to him, he wanted to have a conversation about the issue--one where he controlled the bounds of it. You know, the kind of conversation where only buzzwords and disingenuous explanations are allowed--the kind of conversation where you not so secretly just get bombarded with bull****.

Don't believe me? See the post to Coog and every subsequent one brushing up on it.

Disingenuous post by disingenuous poster is disingenuous.

For the record, Coog actually make a patently political post attempting to call this somehow religious discrimination on the part of California.

I've found you to be personally rather passive aggressive. Its like expert level. You have a patently political viewpoint too.

These are the facts

1) States ARE passing laws clearly targeting the LGBT community that clearly affirm discriminatory treatment towards LGBT persons.

2) California has passed a law that prohibits state funding for travel and contracting for events where its citizens or employees will face discrimination. This bill, in no way, has anything to do with religious discrimination. It even allows Cal to schedule a game at Liberty.

3) This bill might impact conference realignment.

---

You and I hold different viewpoints. But my viewpoint is probably similar to that of those in California. And its a valid one on here, because that's one of the viewpoints driving this issue. And will remain a salient one. The OP is one that voices the views of those who put up the bill. You are free to put up your interpretation with all the buzzwords and whooey you'd like.

But you rarely bother with discussing the merits on demerits on issues. You seem to just insult me. You are free to bring up your legal opinion as to the legality of the Assembly Bill or the AG's interpretation. You haven't done it. Come on man, show off your training. I'd love to see how you try to shoehorn the ICC into requiring California to use taxpayer dollars to ship LGBT people to Texas so they can be discriminated against.

BTW, I'm perfectly able to understand your arguments. I think I know where you were trained.

Perhaps you should consider contributing to the discussion rather than simply insulting anyone who has a viewpoint that doesn't mesh with yours.

That's not a fact. That's why your posts are a waste of time and why you could not help but make this political.

You can't debate with a person unwilling to actually debate and that is being purely disingenuous.

(07-05-2017 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  3) This bill might impact conference realignment

Disagree 100%.

The proper arena for a political fight isn't anywhere near college athletics. They should, and will I think, let them pass.

(07-05-2017 11:00 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 08:21 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 08:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 12:56 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  FCS Championship in Frisco, Texas. The three California schools, if they go into the playoffs and get to that point will be in a pickle as well.

Potentially, the California teams would have to forfeit. It would be the end of either championships in certain states, or the end of the NCAA.

I doubt it's the end of the NCAA and I doubt the California state government is going to risk the backlash they would be sure to receive if one of their state schools were to be forced to forfeit the opportunity to play in a major bowl or national championship game due to it being played in a state on their ban list. If that occurs then hopefully networks have the intestinal fortitude to either sue them or strip them of P5 status. If either occurs then adjustments to the ban would most likely be made.

Sue them? For what? Obeying California state law? The state of California OWNS the Athletic Department at UCLA and SDSU. Its their property and they can do with it what they wish.

Who would really kick up sand if say Cal had to forfeit a bowl game? Sure there'd be some alumni who are upset (and they'd be loud), but its Cal....I think you overstate how important FBS football is to the average Californian or the average Cal student.

Who would take away P5 status for UCLA and Cal? The networks? Do you think the Pac12 would expel them for that? I promise you all hell would break lose at pretty much EVERY Pac12 institution (from significant portions of their own student bodies and alumni) if they tried that.

And the NCAA isn't going impose sanctions on schools for refusing to subject their students and fans to discrimination in other states.

So no, if California wants to do this, and other states want to join them, then there's little that can be done to change it.

If USC makes it to the play off and doesn't go because they would play in a banned state wouldn't that give the networks grounds for a lawsuit? To be honest I don't know but I would think they would.

We are a private school.....

(07-05-2017 01:16 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:35 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Since I am a state's right guy, I have no issue if Ca does this. I hope they just don't complain if there is a backlash if other states or entities attempt to use this against them. Again, the only city that was truly hurt by NC HB2 was Charlotte. NC despite the inaccurate reporting had record years in tourism and industry gain. It was Charlotte that suffered, not NC losing the ACC Championship Games and NBA All-Star game. I will say the NCAA ban probably hurt some other cities but all those events are returning have NC went back to pre-existing law of HB2. Once again, why is NC still on CA ban list? Why would Texas believe if they change the law, CA will re-instate the travel?

Again, Texas doesn't give a rat's behind what CA is doing with official gov't travel. Texas will not cower or succumb to pressure, no matter what. Ultra conservative guys like Ted Cruz are winning big in state wide elections. Texas swagger runs deep and you don't mess with Texas and expect them just to fold. It ain't happening. If anything, I'd expect an even bigger travel ban by TX to CA as reciprocation, rather than changing any laws. You just don't get it. This means less than nothing to Texas politicians.

Tens of thousands of Californians leave their state and head to Texas by choice every year. Wonder why that is?

The non tech/medical workers are cashing their paychecks. Can you blame them?

If you bought a house in California in the late 80s you could have gotten a very affordable house, even in the Bay area. My uncle for example bought 5 houses for less than $200 in the east Bay. He has sold 4 of them for over $600k....

He could move back his original hometown in SW Alabama and literally build a mansion.

(07-05-2017 10:36 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 08:03 AM)westwolf Wrote:  California is a PC swamp.

Lol, OT but man people hate California so much!

But they don't hate their fresh organic fruits, Tesla's, Intel processors, iPhones, MacBooks, Google, Ghirardelli chocolate, and everything else amazing that comes from California....

Sometimes I really wish people could get their wish and California could just succeed for one year. It would be an absolute disaster to the US economy.

California seceeding wouldn't prevent those tech/auto companies from finding ways to sell their products to the other 49 states. Otherwise, that'd be a quick death blow to each one of those companies.

California will find themselves in a bottomless pit by seceeding from the US. The state's Standard & Poor credit rating is already in the bottom 10 among all 50 states. California's total debt is #1 in the country at $156 billion (as of 2014).

California would implode after one year of secession.

(07-05-2017 07:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Tom,

I have learned over the years that people of the preach tolerance crowd such as yourself, are the most intolerant people of all. Also, that law is so hypocritical in that California deals a lot with countries like Saudi Arabia that are more restrictive than any of the states on your list, but people like yourself don't care about that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Spare us the sanctimonious diatribe. California does business with states with laws that it's residents and lawmakers don't agree with too. California, by itself has the 6th largest economy in the world and provides 1/3 of vegetables in the country along 2/3 of fruits and nuts. If you're so consistent make sure nothing you eat or purchase as a consumer comes from California or a company that is based out of CA. After all, you wouldn't want to buy anything from a state that does business with Saudi Arabia would you?

Why does Saudi Arabia keep coming up? The Federal government is in charge of foreign relations.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-05-2017 10:57 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Why does Saudi Arabia keep coming up? The Federal government is in charge of foreign relations.

I guess because even though the Feds are in charge of foreign relations, California could do the same thing vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia as they are doing towards Texas, ban their employees from state-funded travel there.

(07-05-2017 09:26 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 11:00 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 08:21 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 08:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Potentially, the California teams would have to forfeit. It would be the end of either championships in certain states, or the end of the NCAA.

I doubt it's the end of the NCAA and I doubt the California state government is going to risk the backlash they would be sure to receive if one of their state schools were to be forced to forfeit the opportunity to play in a major bowl or national championship game due to it being played in a state on their ban list. If that occurs then hopefully networks have the intestinal fortitude to either sue them or strip them of P5 status. If either occurs then adjustments to the ban would most likely be made.

Sue them? For what? Obeying California state law? The state of California OWNS the Athletic Department at UCLA and SDSU. Its their property and they can do with it what they wish.

Who would really kick up sand if say Cal had to forfeit a bowl game? Sure there'd be some alumni who are upset (and they'd be loud), but its Cal....I think you overstate how important FBS football is to the average Californian or the average Cal student.

Who would take away P5 status for UCLA and Cal? The networks? Do you think the Pac12 would expel them for that? I promise you all hell would break lose at pretty much EVERY Pac12 institution (from significant portions of their own student bodies and alumni) if they tried that.

And the NCAA isn't going impose sanctions on schools for refusing to subject their students and fans to discrimination in other states.

So no, if California wants to do this, and other states want to join them, then there's little that can be done to change it.

If USC makes it to the play off and doesn't go because they would play in a banned state wouldn't that give the networks grounds for a lawsuit? To be honest I don't know but I would think they would.

We are a private school.....

Thank you. I should have used UCLA even though it's far more unlikely they make the play off anytime soon.

(07-05-2017 10:00 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:36 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 08:03 AM)westwolf Wrote:  California is a PC swamp.

Lol, OT but man people hate California so much!

But they don't hate their fresh organic fruits, Tesla's, Intel processors, iPhones, MacBooks, Google, Ghirardelli chocolate, and everything else amazing that comes from California....

Sometimes I really wish people could get their wish and California could just succeed for one year. It would be an absolute disaster to the US economy.

California seceeding wouldn't prevent those tech/auto companies from finding ways to sell their products to the other 49 states. Otherwise, that'd be a quick death blow to each one of those companies.

California will find themselves in a bottomless pit by seceeding from the US. The state's Standard & Poor credit rating is already in the bottom 10 among all 50 states. California's total debt is #1 in the country at $156 billion (as of 2014).

California would implode after one year of secession.

I can only speak for myself but I personally think a lot of that comes from the ridiculous federal taxes. When I was living in Silicon Valley I was making $170,000 as Security Engineer. And I was paying like 38,000 in federal taxes...Imagine what all those Intel, Google, Apple, WellsFargo, big heads are paying in taxes....Or all those Billionaire company owners.

In 2016, California paid 369 Billion yes BILLION in federal taxes. And in that same year California got 356 billion in federal funds for salaries and wages, grants, contracts, retirement benefits and other benefits.

I will be the first to admit I'm a tech guy not an economist. But I think California would be just fine....

(07-05-2017 10:57 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:56 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:47 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Y'all still researching organic fruit and chocolate out there?

This is fun!

Actually going to go along with the sarcasm here lol. There is a lot of research being done on organic fruits.......

I am of course just ******* with you.

Lmao, I know. I'm not even a real Californian anymore. I live in Huntsville....

Well, that's about as close as it gets to being a Californian other than being from Florence.

Lmao, true that.

Huntsville is up and coming though! We may actually have some stuff to do in 3 years.

For the record, here's the Kentucky Law that California deemed "discriminatory". Not trying to make this political....just adding to the discussion.

KENTUCKY SENATE BILL 17

Quote:AN ACT relating to the expression of religious or political viewpoints in public schools and public postsecondary institutions.
     Amend KRS 158.183 to permit students to voluntarily express religious or political viewpoints in school assignments free from discrimination; require local boards of education to ensure that the selection of student speakers is made in a viewpoint-neutral manner, the student's prepared remarks are not altered before delivery without student's consent, religious and political organizations are allowed equal access to public forums on the same basis as nonreligious and nonpolitical organizations, and no recognized religious or political student organization is discriminated against in the ordering of its internal affairs; allow students to display religious messages on items of clothing, access public school facilities during noninstructional time as a religious student organization, use school media to announce student religious meetings, and meet as a religious student group during noninstructional time and before and after school to the same extent as students undertaking such actions in a nonreligious manner; permit public schools to sponsor artistic or theatrical programs that advance students' knowledge of society's cultural and religious heritage; create a new section of KRS Chapter 158 to allow a teacher to teach about religion with the use of the Bible or other scripture without providing religious instruction, and to teach about religious holidays in a secular manner; amend KRS 158.186 to require annual notification to local school boards, school-based decision making councils, and certified employees of statutes pertaining to religious freedom and expression in schools; create a new section of KRS Chapter 164 to require public postsecondary education institution governing boards to ensure that students are permitted to voluntarily express religious or political viewpoints in assignments free from discrimination, the selection of student speakers is made in a viewpoint-neutral manner, the student's prepared remarks are not altered before delivery without the student's consent, religious and political organizations are allowed equal access to public forums on the same basis as nonreligious and nonpolitical organizations, no recognized religious or political student organization is discriminated against in the ordering of its internal affairs, and there are no restrictions on speech that occurs outdoors on campus and is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, except for restrictions that are reasonable, justified without reference to speech content, narrowly tailored to serve governmental interest, and limited to provide alternative options for the communication of the information.

Figures that California law against discrimination, discriminates.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-06-2017 05:29 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Figures that California law against discrimination, discriminates.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol, did some California girl dump you bro? You have a lot of animosity....

I never really thought this old joke would become a reality, but it seems like we're gravitating towards that point, doesn't it?



Some of this is on the NCAA for their economic armtwisting of North Carolina. It's not a good precedent to set and it could cut both ways. Do we really want a red state NCAA and a blue state NCAA? It'd be a fun realignment exercise, I guess.

(07-06-2017 05:55 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 05:29 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Figures that California law against discrimination, discriminates.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol, did some California girl dump you bro? You have a lot of animosity....

You got that he has "a lot of animosity" based on that^?? Hahaha...I didn't get that from his 7 word post.

As we say in the Spin Room, some people are more equal than others . . .