Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
Author Message
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,250
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 188
I Root For: UC
Location: Normal, IL & Cincy
Post: #41
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
Since this appears headed to the Spin Room anyway... I get that some people want to spin this as a discrimination issue. If the argument is framed that LGBTQ2010 = Black1950, that frames the argument correctly for you to win.

In some situations, such as the treatment by police prior to the 70s, that's the proper way to look at it. No one should be arrested because of their lifestyle.

But the transgender issue is completely, 100% different. When you choose to go under the knife, that's a choice. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people because of their voluntary actions. If someone consistently makes bad decisions, it's legally and morally ok to treat them differently. People with visible tattoos, outlandish hairstyles, or drinking habits (which has a lot more documented genetic links than homosexuality) are discriminated against all the time. Often by the government itself.

We can have debate over whether that's right or wrong for people to change their bodies, but that doesn't make it a civil rights issue.

So people who disagree with you aren't evil, and don't deserve to lose their jobs. YOUR attitude towards people who disagree with you is what inspires the fear that brought on Trump. Today the "fear" that most people feel of LGBTQ individuals is a fear that I'll lose my job if it is revealed that I disagree with them.

Conservatives don't think that transgenders should be arrested. Or prevented from making a living. It's a strawman argument when you phrase it that way - no one is saying that. Quite frankly, most people who are against transgenders feel pity for them, not fear.
02-09-2017 08:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,441
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #42
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-09-2017 05:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 05:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 04:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Look this isn't the politics board but it's unfair to dismiss the legitimate debate in this country about when it is apropriate to differentiate between the social construct of gender identity and the physical construct of biological sex

Bathrooms are the perfect example of this.

Currently they are separated by biological sex (XX vs XY) which is only problematic for a small element of the population and frankly my position is if you're a different genotype like XYY, then it's your choice (no system meant for the masses can ever cater to everyone, only as many as possible)


However basing them on the artificial social construct of gender identity which is an intangible idea is at best highly problematic because it's totally subjective to the preferences of the individual and impossible to scale for mass use policy because it literally varies from one person to the next.

Just my 2 cents

Carry on

Frankly, I believe the "debate" on this is little more than a smoke screen. I don't believe the issue is really about gender identity. As you point out, only a small fraction of the population is affected by this, and these bills don't address any real concerns.

I think the issue is about power. A segment of our society that has long held power feels it is losing its grip on it. They are afraid, and are taking this opportunity to exercise what power they still have while they can. They are proposing, and in some cases, passing these bills because they can, not because they need to.

I suspect Frank the Tank is right in seeing this as sort of a desperate last stand against the inexorable tide of public opinion. That might sound silly in light of the recent presidential election results. But I think history will view this election as an anomaly. When we are afraid, and as a nation I believe we are, we tend to over-correct. I expect the pendulum to swing back - perhaps not as far as some would like - bringing us closer to the center, and more in line with public opinion. That's a painful process, but probably a useful one.

Agreed.

My other issue is that any reasonable person knows the intent of these laws. It has nothing to do with bathroom safety, biological differences or "religious freedom". If these same people really cared about "religious freedom", we'd be seeing bakers refuse to bake wedding cakes for heterosexual divorced people that are having second marriages (considering that Jesus himself gave his famous Sermon on the Mount where he DIRECTLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that divorce is a mortal sin and remarriage is literally the same as adultery). So, is it about religious freedom... or is it just that they think gay people are icky? I'm sorry - feeling icky doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate.

Regardless, if these states want to exercise "states' rights", then that's their prerogative. However, those states then can't turn around and whine when businesses, millennials and educated people take their dollars and economic growth prospects elsewhere. Those states can't complain about coastal elites and supposed legislation from the bench regarding LGBT rights on the one hand and then complain when the free market loudly proclaims that they don't want anything to do with LGBT discrimination on the other hand. TerryD is right - when big business (normally in the pocket of the GOP) is pulling out of these states, that shows you where this country has gone because those certainly aren't big government liberals.

My apologies for veering into politics (albeit the OP subject is inherently intertwined with politics, so it's difficult to separate the two).

Frank, your apologizing but not only are you clearly getting political, you've taken a side and you've judged the people who feel differently than you. This thread is intertwined with politics, yes, you are right, but you are the first one on this thread to insult those who may disagree with you That's not cool.
P.S.
I didn't vote for Trump and I'm not particularly political. Just calling your post out.
Cheers!
02-09-2017 08:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,799
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 483
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #43
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-09-2017 08:53 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 05:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 05:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 04:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Look this isn't the politics board but it's unfair to dismiss the legitimate debate in this country about when it is apropriate to differentiate between the social construct of gender identity and the physical construct of biological sex

Bathrooms are the perfect example of this.

Currently they are separated by biological sex (XX vs XY) which is only problematic for a small element of the population and frankly my position is if you're a different genotype like XYY, then it's your choice (no system meant for the masses can ever cater to everyone, only as many as possible)


However basing them on the artificial social construct of gender identity which is an intangible idea is at best highly problematic because it's totally subjective to the preferences of the individual and impossible to scale for mass use policy because it literally varies from one person to the next.

Just my 2 cents

Carry on

Frankly, I believe the "debate" on this is little more than a smoke screen. I don't believe the issue is really about gender identity. As you point out, only a small fraction of the population is affected by this, and these bills don't address any real concerns.

I think the issue is about power. A segment of our society that has long held power feels it is losing its grip on it. They are afraid, and are taking this opportunity to exercise what power they still have while they can. They are proposing, and in some cases, passing these bills because they can, not because they need to.

I suspect Frank the Tank is right in seeing this as sort of a desperate last stand against the inexorable tide of public opinion. That might sound silly in light of the recent presidential election results. But I think history will view this election as an anomaly. When we are afraid, and as a nation I believe we are, we tend to over-correct. I expect the pendulum to swing back - perhaps not as far as some would like - bringing us closer to the center, and more in line with public opinion. That's a painful process, but probably a useful one.

Agreed.

My other issue is that any reasonable person knows the intent of these laws. It has nothing to do with bathroom safety, biological differences or "religious freedom". If these same people really cared about "religious freedom", we'd be seeing bakers refuse to bake wedding cakes for heterosexual divorced people that are having second marriages (considering that Jesus himself gave his famous Sermon on the Mount where he DIRECTLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that divorce is a mortal sin and remarriage is literally the same as adultery). So, is it about religious freedom... or is it just that they think gay people are icky? I'm sorry - feeling icky doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate.

Regardless, if these states want to exercise "states' rights", then that's their prerogative. However, those states then can't turn around and whine when businesses, millennials and educated people take their dollars and economic growth prospects elsewhere. Those states can't complain about coastal elites and supposed legislation from the bench regarding LGBT rights on the one hand and then complain when the free market loudly proclaims that they don't want anything to do with LGBT discrimination on the other hand. TerryD is right - when big business (normally in the pocket of the GOP) is pulling out of these states, that shows you where this country has gone because those certainly aren't big government liberals.

My apologies for veering into politics (albeit the OP subject is inherently intertwined with politics, so it's difficult to separate the two).

Frank, your apologizing but not only are you clearly getting political, you've taken a side and you've judged the people who feel differently than you. This thread is intertwined with politics, yes, you are right, but you are the first one on this thread to insult those who may disagree with you That's not cool.
P.S.
I didn't vote for Trump and I'm not particularly political. Just calling your post out.
Cheers!

I don't have tolerance for intolerance (and I don't buy the argument, "You need to tolerate my intolerance!").

There are many issues in life where reasonable people disagree. I'm pro-choice, but I completely understand why someone would be pro-life on religious grounds. I'm very much in favor of open markets and free trade, but I completely understand why those whose jobs have been impacted by trade would turn protectionist. I believe that there should be lower taxes for everyone regardless of income with a smaller government, but I completely understand why there are others that want to raise taxes and believe that Keynesian economic theory works. I think my posting history indicates that I'm willing look at any issue from many points of view (whether sports or otherwise), whether or not I agree with them. I have a lot of faults and weaknesses, but tunnel vision generally isn't one of them.

However, discrimination is not a "reasonable people disagree" issue in my mind. Discrimination against a protected class is wrong, regardless of whether there is a religious basis for it. People are using "religious freedom" as a nicer sounding cover for LGBT animus just like people used "states' rights" as a nicer sounding cover for racial animus in the past. I'm not dancing around that anymore. If it's not me saying it, then it will be people way more important in your life saying it, such as your children or grandchildren, because there is effectively zero tolerance for anti-LGBT legislation for anyone under 30 (and that's simply not going to change - that part of the culture war isn't even a debate for young people).

With respect to the thread topic itself, states like California and New York have also made the determination that this is no longer a "reasonable people disagree" issue, which is why they're taking this action against states with bathroom bills and "religious freedom" laws in a way they haven't done against states with, say, partial birth abortion bills that they may disagree with.

Just take it to its natural course. A law such as the Kansas "religious freedom" bill allows for the refusal of service related to relationship if it's based on a religious belief. Therefore, a Kansas restaurant owner can legally refuse to serve a player on a Cal team that is gay or lesbian under this law (and there's a pretty high chance that you're going to find LGBT athletes in any Division I program). Don't people realize that this is the modern day equivalent of teams from the North that had to deal with restaurants and other businesses in the segregated South that refused to serve black players? It was pretty cold comfort that the segregated restaurant would send them to the other restaurant on the other side of the tracks that would serve blacks or allow them to use separate bathrooms (which is why I cringe when I see the argument from "religious freedom" law proponents that LGBT people can go to another place down the street that will serve them).

States like California and New York very justifiably should not be subjecting their employees and students to that type of potential discrimination. (If anyone tries to retort that my hypothetical restaurant situation is unrealistic, then I have a hard time understanding why anyone "needs" a "religious freedom" law in the first place. That hypothetical is *exactly* the discrimination that "religious freedom" laws aim to allow.) Places like Kansas want to exercise "states' rights", then they can suffer the economic and social consequences when California and New York exercise their own states' rights. Let's put aside the Cal sports teams traveling. What Kansas needs to worry about are the Silicon Valley companies that are located near Cal deciding to not locate their jobs with high pay and educated workforces in Kansas (which is what occurred in North Carolina with their bathroom bill). That's the free market speaking.

P.S. I voted Republican in every Presidential election in my lifetime since I've been eligible until 2016 came along. I'm hardly a big government liberal. I just have no sympathy or tolerance for justifying discrimination.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2017 09:26 AM by Frank the Tank.)
02-10-2017 09:20 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stxrunner Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,423
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Chicago, IL
Post: #44
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-09-2017 08:06 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Since this appears headed to the Spin Room anyway... I get that some people want to spin this as a discrimination issue. If the argument is framed that LGBTQ2010 = Black1950, that frames the argument correctly for you to win.

In some situations, such as the treatment by police prior to the 70s, that's the proper way to look at it. No one should be arrested because of their lifestyle.

But the transgender issue is completely, 100% different. When you choose to go under the knife, that's a choice. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people because of their voluntary actions. If someone consistently makes bad decisions, it's legally and morally ok to treat them differently. People with visible tattoos, outlandish hairstyles, or drinking habits (which has a lot more documented genetic links than homosexuality) are discriminated against all the time. Often by the government itself.

We can have debate over whether that's right or wrong for people to change their bodies, but that doesn't make it a civil rights issue.

So people who disagree with you aren't evil, and don't deserve to lose their jobs. YOUR attitude towards people who disagree with you is what inspires the fear that brought on Trump. Today the "fear" that most people feel of LGBTQ individuals is a fear that I'll lose my job if it is revealed that I disagree with them.

Conservatives don't think that transgenders should be arrested. Or prevented from making a living. It's a strawman argument when you phrase it that way - no one is saying that. Quite frankly, most people who are against transgenders feel pity for them, not fear.

It's only legal to discriminate based on those examples as it could feasibly affect job performance. I think that the fight to include LGBTQ rights as a protected class of individuals is more of a common sense measure as that would typically not fall under a situation that would affect job performance, and therefore should not discriminated against. I know these measures go beyond employment protection, but typically, this is the most important as employment determines a lot in our society.

But relating back to sports, I think this could certainly have a minor affect on college athletics. You could certainly see difficulties with conference matters, as well as non-conference scheduling being affected. But, in my opinion, I think that those issues would be minor. You won't see significant effects on colleges and conference composition, as there is too much at stake for reasonable parties not to find a solution that works within their state mandates.
02-10-2017 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,799
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 483
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #45
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-10-2017 03:22 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  
(02-09-2017 08:06 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Since this appears headed to the Spin Room anyway... I get that some people want to spin this as a discrimination issue. If the argument is framed that LGBTQ2010 = Black1950, that frames the argument correctly for you to win.

In some situations, such as the treatment by police prior to the 70s, that's the proper way to look at it. No one should be arrested because of their lifestyle.

But the transgender issue is completely, 100% different. When you choose to go under the knife, that's a choice. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people because of their voluntary actions. If someone consistently makes bad decisions, it's legally and morally ok to treat them differently. People with visible tattoos, outlandish hairstyles, or drinking habits (which has a lot more documented genetic links than homosexuality) are discriminated against all the time. Often by the government itself.

We can have debate over whether that's right or wrong for people to change their bodies, but that doesn't make it a civil rights issue.

So people who disagree with you aren't evil, and don't deserve to lose their jobs. YOUR attitude towards people who disagree with you is what inspires the fear that brought on Trump. Today the "fear" that most people feel of LGBTQ individuals is a fear that I'll lose my job if it is revealed that I disagree with them.

Conservatives don't think that transgenders should be arrested. Or prevented from making a living. It's a strawman argument when you phrase it that way - no one is saying that. Quite frankly, most people who are against transgenders feel pity for them, not fear.

It's only legal to discriminate based on those examples as it could feasibly affect job performance. I think that the fight to include LGBTQ rights as a protected class of individuals is more of a common sense measure as that would typically not fall under a situation that would affect job performance, and therefore should not discriminated against. I know these measures go beyond employment protection, but typically, this is the most important as employment determines a lot in our society.

Further to this, the baseline definition of a protected class is that there is discrimination because of what you *are* as opposed to what you *do*. There have been characterizations that going through transgender surgery is a "choice", but that's akin to discriminating against someone that has an illness that their surgery was a choice, too (which is also happens to be illegal). It's an outmoded and outdated idea that you *choose* to be LGBT. Sure, once upon a time when I was an ignorant high school kid, I thought that people "chose" to be gay. However, when I ended up living next door to a gay man and a transgender female (who was going through taking hormones in preparation for transgender surgery) in my freshman year dorms back in 1996 (when this certainly was not "cool" with society at large), I learned pretty quickly that they had no choice in the matter at all. They had known it since they were born and tried to deny, fight and/or repress it all of the way until college because of how the rest of the society was so discriminatory. (Note that I saw some of the most vile and awful bigoted graffiti and attacks on them and other LGBT members on campus... and this was at a LIBERAL northern university. I have little sympathy for those discriminators that now think they're the ones being "bullied by PC culture".)

That is the threshold to me: I firmly believe that LGBT people do NOT choose their status, unlike people that get tattoos or engage in substance abuse. As a result, there's no justification to discriminate against them on basis within the context of the public realm. If people want to discriminate against them in their own homes or churches want to refuse to perform gay marriages, then all of that is certainly protected by the First Amendment. However, if you have an open invite public business (like a restaurant or store or bakery), then you DON'T have the right to engage in discrimination against customers on what they *are*, whether it's based on race, sex or sexual orientation. The customer right to be free from discrimination trumps (for lack of a better term) the business owner's First Amendment rights in that scenario. If the business owner wants to not serve someone because he has tattoos or have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule, then that's perfectly legal because it has nothing to do with discrimination based on a protected class.

Quote:But relating back to sports, I think this could certainly have a minor affect on college athletics. You could certainly see difficulties with conference matters, as well as non-conference scheduling being affected. But, in my opinion, I think that those issues would be minor. You won't see significant effects on colleges and conference composition, as there is too much at stake for reasonable parties not to find a solution that works within their state mandates.

I agree that I don't think that there will be any effect on conference compositions. What will be telling is how the awarding of neutral site events (like the NCAA Tournament or CFP games) will be done by the NCAA and conferences in the future. Those entities already set the precedent to pull events from North Carolina for their bathroom bill. If Texas enacts their version of a religious freedom bill, then that's going to really put pressure on virtually all pro and college sports organizations (which have been using Dallas and Houston frequently for neutral site events of all kinds over the past several years) to follow the precedent that they had in North Carolina. Jerry Jones and Bob McNair might be the biggest Trumpers in the world for all that I know, but I sure as heck believe that they aren't going to want some religious freedom bill cause them to lose Super Bowls, National Championship Games and Final Fours.
02-10-2017 04:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,435
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 192
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #46
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
^^^The NFL just came out and warned Texas that a Bathroom Bill would kill chances for another Super Bowl in the state...

This past Sunday, the state of Texas played host to the Super Bowl for the fourth time in the game’s 51-year history. But on Friday, the NFL warned that if a new proposed bill passes and is signed into law, the game may not return.

In an email, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told the Houston Chronicle that the passage of Senate Bill 6 (Texas’s so-called “bathroom bill,” which would require individuals to use the bathroom of the gender specified on their birth certificate), could keep the league from awarding future Super Bowls to the state.

“The NFL embraces inclusiveness,” McCarthy said. “We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events, and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.

“If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events.”

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/online/nfl-threa...ll-passes/
02-10-2017 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SubGod22 Offline
Average Joe

Posts: 1,887
Joined: Nov 2009
I Root For: Wichita
Location: Outside the Dub
Post: #47
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
The Kansas bill is mostly about protecting religious affiliated groups from being forced to accept into their membership people who don't share the groups beliefs. It's sad that these bills are even needed, but there are people out there that will demand to be accepted into groups that they don't agree with. It's been a while, and I don't want to research it right now, but I know there was a campus somewhere that forced a religious group on campus to accept anyone that wanted in. Didn't matter if they were atheist or whatever and it caused some problems. Nobody is talking about refusing basic services to the LGBTKJSLKFJEW community.

And personally, I think any business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they want. If they choose not to serve someone that will be made public and the public will decide if they want to do business with them any longer. Government forcing private business with others is ridiculous and unnecessary. The market will take care of itself. We've seen a number of businesses go out of business or reverse course because of public actions.

With all that said, I don't think anyone in KS is crying because CA state schools can no longer travel to KS to play. Our baseball team loses one series that's gone on forever but oh well.
02-10-2017 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
The Peoples' P6 Champion
*

Posts: 13,737
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 637
I Root For: UCONN
Location: 4 > 1
Post: #48
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-10-2017 06:09 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  The Kansas bill is mostly about protecting religious affiliated groups from being forced to accept into their membership people who don't share the groups beliefs. It's sad that these bills are even needed, but there are people out there that will demand to be accepted into groups that they don't agree with. It's been a while, and I don't want to research it right now, but I know there was a campus somewhere that forced a religious group on campus to accept anyone that wanted in. Didn't matter if they were atheist or whatever and it caused some problems. Nobody is talking about refusing basic services to the LGBTKJSLKFJEW community.

And personally, I think any business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they want. If they choose not to serve someone that will be made public and the public will decide if they want to do business with them any longer. Government forcing private business with others is ridiculous and unnecessary. The market will take care of itself. We've seen a number of businesses go out of business or reverse course because of public actions.

With all that said, I don't think anyone in KS is crying because CA state schools can no longer travel to KS to play. Our baseball team loses one series that's gone on forever but oh well.

So if I'm a member of the Christian Identity, I should be able to deny service to anyone who isn't a straight, white, Christian male? I didn't realize it was still 1910...
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2017 06:41 PM by HuskyU.)
02-10-2017 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
58-56 Offline
Blazer Revolutionary
*

Posts: 11,691
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 507
I Root For: Fire Ray Watts
Location: CathedraloftheDragon

BlazerTalk Award
Post: #49
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-10-2017 06:09 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  And personally, I think any business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they want.

Then they can do so without the police protection that gay taxes pay for. They can do so without the fire protection that black taxes pay for. They can do so without the streets that Latino taxes pay for.

This isn't Galt's Gulch. This is reality. And reality is that a civil society includes elements that we may not like, but we don't get to pick and choose them. We grow up and put on our long pants and learn to deal with people who don't look, talk or act like us. It's called adulthood.
02-10-2017 09:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,312
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #50
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-10-2017 09:54 PM)58-56 Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 06:09 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  And personally, I think any business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they want.

Then they can do so without the police protection that gay taxes pay for. They can do so without the fire protection that black taxes pay for. They can do so without the streets that Latino taxes pay for.

This isn't Galt's Gulch. This is reality. And reality is that a civil society includes elements that we may not like, but we don't get to pick and choose them. We grow up and put on our long pants and learn to deal with people who don't look, talk or act like us. It's called adulthood.

Holy Hell, great post. Bravo. + 3 rep points for this one.
02-11-2017 12:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
*

Posts: 26,611
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1042
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #51
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.


California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.

As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.

If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?

I hope everyone keeps it civil.

No problem, it will end with a "Clean Wipe". 07-coffee3
02-11-2017 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #52
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-09-2017 08:06 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Since this appears headed to the Spin Room anyway... I get that some people want to spin this as a discrimination issue. If the argument is framed that LGBTQ2010 = Black1950, that frames the argument correctly for you to win.

In some situations, such as the treatment by police prior to the 70s, that's the proper way to look at it. No one should be arrested because of their lifestyle.

But the transgender issue is completely, 100% different. When you choose to go under the knife, that's a choice. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people because of their voluntary actions. If someone consistently makes bad decisions, it's legally and morally ok to treat them differently. People with visible tattoos, outlandish hairstyles, or drinking habits (which has a lot more documented genetic links than homosexuality) are discriminated against all the time. Often by the government itself.

We can have debate over whether that's right or wrong for people to change their bodies, but that doesn't make it a civil rights issue.

So people who disagree with you aren't evil, and don't deserve to lose their jobs. YOUR attitude towards people who disagree with you is what inspires the fear that brought on Trump. Today the "fear" that most people feel of LGBTQ individuals is a fear that I'll lose my job if it is revealed that I disagree with them.

Conservatives don't think that transgenders should be arrested. Or prevented from making a living. It's a strawman argument when you phrase it that way - no one is saying that. Quite frankly, most people who are against transgenders feel pity for them, not fear.

I doubt that UCLA/Cal would leave the PAC over Washington and Washington State games. I think that the schools themselves have a good relationship. My guess is that they'd just start playing neutral site games w/ the cali schools. They might even agree to unequal revenue sharing to compensate the Washington schools.

Also, conference schedules would also probably be modified to minimize Cali vs Wash games.
02-11-2017 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #53
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
Everybody seems to have their own take or understanding.
This is an interpretation of what HB2 says:

House Bill 2, or HB2 as it's usually identified, has generated national controversy for allegedly creating or fostering discrimination against transgender-identified and gay-identified citizens in North Carolina. Much of the criticism though, comes from media, LGBT activists and their allies, as well as large corporations that either haven't read the bill, or are counting on the public's lack of knowledge of the law's language, in order to discredit the religious freedom legislation.

The North Carolina Legislature convened an emergency session in March 2016 to respond to the passage of a local non-discrimination ordinance by the city council of Charlotte, which granted special rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ordinance went beyond existing state law and posed problems in the areas of privacy and public safety, as well as religious freedom. The problems with the type of ordinance passed by Charlotte, called a "SOGI" law, are detailed here.

HB2 Explained

So what does HB2 actually say?

The following three parts correspond to the bill's three primary sections, and you can follow along and verify this explanation at the link highlighted above.

Part I: Statewide Standards For Public (e.g., Government-Owned) Bathrooms And Changing Facilities

Multiple-Occupancy Facilities Restricted On The Basis Of Biological Sex.

HB2 requires citizens using government-owned, multiple occupancy restrooms/changing rooms (including public schools) to use the facility in keeping with their biological sex, defined as the condition of being male or female, as stated on their birth certificate:

"Public agencies [and local boards of education] shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex."

Single-Occupancy Facilities Are Permitted.

The law does not prohibit the provision of single-occupancy facilities as an accommodation for anyone requesting it:

"Nothing in this section shall prohibit public agencies [or local boards of education] from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities upon a person's request due to special circumstances …"

Why Does North Carolina Need A "Statewide" Policy?

Statewide policies such as HB2 allow North Carolina citizens to travel freely within the state with a common understanding of what to expect when they enter a government-owned restroom or locker room. There should be no unwelcome surprises based on different laws created by different cities and counties.

Private Businesses.

HB2 does not impact private businesses in the area of bathroom or changing facility requirements. Companies and businesses are free to establish whatever policies they wish in their facilities for their employees and customers.

Part II: Creates Statewide Standards For Government Contractors, Including Non-Discrimination

Like Part I, Part 2, dealing with government contractors ― those who bid on and perform government contracts for both the state and local governments ― establishes statewide standards pertaining to what contractors may be required to do with regard to their own employment policies ― including non-discrimination requirements ― for the duration of, and pertaining to, government contracts awarded in North Carolina, and preempts local ordinances related to the subject.


Beyond What The State Requirements Impose, However, Private Company Policies Remain Unaffected.

While working on government projects in North Carolina, contractors are free to create any internal employee policies for those projects that do not conflict with state law. If they desire, they can adopt non-discrimination policies that protect various classes of persons beyond what the state of North Carolina requires for them on government projects. But local governments are precluded from requiring them to do so.

Part III: State Non-Discrimination Law In Employment And Public Accommodations Is A Matter Of Statewide Concern, And State Law Preempts Local Nondiscrimination Ordinances

Employment Law.

The relevant portion of HB2 concerning employment non-discrimination requirements for business in North Carolina states:

"The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government…"

The purpose behind statewide uniformity in non-discrimination law is to make it easy for businesses operating in the state to comply with the law without having to learn and deal with competing provisions in various cities and counties within the state. A business with offices in Raleigh and Charlotte, for example, would need to learn and comply with only one set of rules, making the business climate more encouraging, thus helping to improve the North Carolina economy.

Private Business Employment Policies Are Unaffected.

Nothing in HB2 prevents a private business from creating its own internal policies of non-discrimination that includes any groups it wants, LGBT or otherwise. Most of the major corporations that have publicly complained about HB2 already have internal policies that cover LGBT issues, so HB2 would presumably not affect them.

Public Accommodations.

Public accommodations are private businesses open to the public and/or doing business with the public, as well as government-owned public facilities. HB2 once again, as it did in Parts I and II of the bill, creates a statewide law that preempts local ordinances:

"The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance…adopted or imposed by a unit of local government…"

Private Business Practices Are Unaffected.

HB2 sets a baseline for non-discrimination. Private businesses can set any standard above HB2's baseline that they desire for their employees and customers.

The Bottom Line

North Carolina Law Has Not Changed.

Prior to HB2, North Carolina public bathrooms and changing facilities were always restricted to male or female based on biology, and state law protected against discrimination in employment and public accommodations and government contracting on the basis of "race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap…" This is in keeping with federal civil rights law. The state's non-discrimination law is the same now, after HB2, as it was before HB2, except that HB2 amends the word "sex" to mean "biological sex."

HB2 Does Not Target Anyone For Discrimination.

It does not mention sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not limit private businesses from establishing their own policies in these matters. It merely re-states previous state law in a few key areas, and by reserving such law-making to the state legislature, it preempts local governments from creating a patchwork of inconsistent laws across the state. Such uniformity across the state prevents local governments from infringing the religious conscience of its citizens, and improves the overall economic climate for business growth.
02-11-2017 09:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sparty84 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 202
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Michigan State
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #54
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-06-2017 08:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(02-06-2017 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.


California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.

As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.

If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?

I hope everyone keeps it civil.

According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!

The link you're referring to is the list of the states that are considering bathroom bills. Texas hasn't passed a bathroom bill yet. The full list:

Already Passed a Bathroom Bill
Kansas
Mississippi
North Carolina
Tennessee

Has a Bathroom Bill Introduced to the Legislature, but hasn't passed it yet:
Alabama
Illinois
Kansas (I don't know why they're on this list too)
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Wyoming

It also says, "Legislation in 10 states is pending (as of 2/1/17). Legislation in South Dakota and Virginia failed to pass."

I live in TN. There is not a bathroom bill passed in this state yet. It was introduced and tabled last year. It has been re-introduced in the legislature again this year.

I think that TN is on the list because they passed a law last year that allows mental health professionals to discriminate against patients based on the religious beliefs of the provider. This is in direct contradiction to the national ethics of these providers.

That being said. I think that this could cause huge entanglements with college sports. I wonder if the conferences are required to abide by NCAA rules. Especially since the NCAA has taken issue with NC Bathroom Bill.

For the record i am gay but will not comment on the politics of this matter out of respect for the poster.
02-11-2017 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sparty84 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 202
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Michigan State
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #55
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-07-2017 09:06 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The bathroom bill not so much

The larger question of social construct gender vs biological/genetic sex though has huge implications for women's collegiate sports. For example, if men who identify as women are allowed to play on women's teams, how long before few if any biological females are playing college basketball?

Interesting thought. I have some male to female transexual friends. The ones that i know are not transing to female to be butch masculine women. It may become and issue as you suggest, but i dont think so for male to female.

I could absolutely see female to male transgender people playing in male sports though. I am not sure how that is an issue though since most of them take testosterone so they would be competing on the same level except for maybe height. Trust me there are some beefy muscled up transgender women out there.

I have looked at a few before and thought "damn he is built like a **** brick house" before i realized that he didn't have all of the equipment to make my interest in him worthwhile.
02-11-2017 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #56
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-11-2017 10:12 AM)Sparty84 Wrote:  
(02-06-2017 08:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(02-06-2017 07:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-06-2017 07:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  First, please don't debate whether so-called "bathroom bills" are right or wrong, or if California is right/wrong on prohibiting travel to these states. I don't want this thread to end up in the Spin Room. I want to discuss how this affects college sports.


California has banned any "STATE-FUNDED AND STATE-SPONSORED TRAVEL" to states with transgender bathroom bills. I have confirmed that this includes any travel by any university representative that will be reimbursed by any source affiliated with the university (including the endowment or other private donors arranged through the school). To my knowledge, this includes the sports team of any state-sponsored university.

As of now, the list of banned states is Tennessee, Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Also, a dozen more states (including Washington and Wyoming) have introduced "bathroom bills" to their legislatures this year.

If Washington or Wyoming pass their bathroom bills, this means that conference games will have to be canceled for Cal & UCLA or for San Diego State, Fresno State, and San Jose State. Could this cause more conference reallignment? Or will the state schools in Washington/Wyoming (or whoever else passes a bathroom bill) abandon their right to home conference games?

I hope everyone keeps it civil.

According to your link, Texas is in that list. Houston is a state school, so I guess San Diego St can't play Houston on the road if they ever join the AAC's western wing. They can't play us (ECU) or Memphis either if that link means what you are saying.
Cheers!

The link you're referring to is the list of the states that are considering bathroom bills. Texas hasn't passed a bathroom bill yet. The full list:

Already Passed a Bathroom Bill
Kansas
Mississippi
North Carolina
Tennessee

Has a Bathroom Bill Introduced to the Legislature, but hasn't passed it yet:
Alabama
Illinois
Kansas (I don't know why they're on this list too)
Kentucky
Minnesota
Missouri
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Wyoming

It also says, "Legislation in 10 states is pending (as of 2/1/17). Legislation in South Dakota and Virginia failed to pass."

I live in TN. There is not a bathroom bill passed in this state yet. It was introduced and tabled last year. It has been re-introduced in the legislature again this year.

I think that TN is on the list because they passed a law last year that allows mental health professionals to discriminate against patients based on the religious beliefs of the provider. This is in direct contradiction to the national ethics of these providers.

That being said. I think that this could cause huge entanglements with college sports. I wonder if the conferences are required to abide by NCAA rules. Especially since the NCAA has taken issue with NC Bathroom Bill.

For the record i am gay but will not comment on the politics of this matter out of respect for the poster.

Does being a homosexual alter the bathrooms that you use?
02-11-2017 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,312
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #57
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(02-11-2017 09:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  Everybody seems to have their own take or understanding.
This is an interpretation of what HB2 says:

House Bill 2, or HB2 as it's usually identified, has generated national controversy for allegedly creating or fostering discrimination against transgender-identified and gay-identified citizens in North Carolina. Much of the criticism though, comes from media, LGBT activists and their allies, as well as large corporations that either haven't read the bill, or are counting on the public's lack of knowledge of the law's language, in order to discredit the religious freedom legislation.

The North Carolina Legislature convened an emergency session in March 2016 to respond to the passage of a local non-discrimination ordinance by the city council of Charlotte, which granted special rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ordinance went beyond existing state law and posed problems in the areas of privacy and public safety, as well as religious freedom. The problems with the type of ordinance passed by Charlotte, called a "SOGI" law, are detailed here.

HB2 Explained

So what does HB2 actually say?

The following three parts correspond to the bill's three primary sections, and you can follow along and verify this explanation at the link highlighted above.

Part I: Statewide Standards For Public (e.g., Government-Owned) Bathrooms And Changing Facilities

Multiple-Occupancy Facilities Restricted On The Basis Of Biological Sex.

HB2 requires citizens using government-owned, multiple occupancy restrooms/changing rooms (including public schools) to use the facility in keeping with their biological sex, defined as the condition of being male or female, as stated on their birth certificate:

"Public agencies [and local boards of education] shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex."

Single-Occupancy Facilities Are Permitted.

The law does not prohibit the provision of single-occupancy facilities as an accommodation for anyone requesting it:

"Nothing in this section shall prohibit public agencies [or local boards of education] from providing accommodations such as single occupancy bathroom or changing facilities upon a person's request due to special circumstances …"

Why Does North Carolina Need A "Statewide" Policy?

Statewide policies such as HB2 allow North Carolina citizens to travel freely within the state with a common understanding of what to expect when they enter a government-owned restroom or locker room. There should be no unwelcome surprises based on different laws created by different cities and counties.

Private Businesses.

HB2 does not impact private businesses in the area of bathroom or changing facility requirements. Companies and businesses are free to establish whatever policies they wish in their facilities for their employees and customers.

Part II: Creates Statewide Standards For Government Contractors, Including Non-Discrimination

Like Part I, Part 2, dealing with government contractors ― those who bid on and perform government contracts for both the state and local governments ― establishes statewide standards pertaining to what contractors may be required to do with regard to their own employment policies ― including non-discrimination requirements ― for the duration of, and pertaining to, government contracts awarded in North Carolina, and preempts local ordinances related to the subject.


Beyond What The State Requirements Impose, However, Private Company Policies Remain Unaffected.

While working on government projects in North Carolina, contractors are free to create any internal employee policies for those projects that do not conflict with state law. If they desire, they can adopt non-discrimination policies that protect various classes of persons beyond what the state of North Carolina requires for them on government projects. But local governments are precluded from requiring them to do so.

Part III: State Non-Discrimination Law In Employment And Public Accommodations Is A Matter Of Statewide Concern, And State Law Preempts Local Nondiscrimination Ordinances

Employment Law.

The relevant portion of HB2 concerning employment non-discrimination requirements for business in North Carolina states:

"The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in employment is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government…"

The purpose behind statewide uniformity in non-discrimination law is to make it easy for businesses operating in the state to comply with the law without having to learn and deal with competing provisions in various cities and counties within the state. A business with offices in Raleigh and Charlotte, for example, would need to learn and comply with only one set of rules, making the business climate more encouraging, thus helping to improve the North Carolina economy.

Private Business Employment Policies Are Unaffected.

Nothing in HB2 prevents a private business from creating its own internal policies of non-discrimination that includes any groups it wants, LGBT or otherwise. Most of the major corporations that have publicly complained about HB2 already have internal policies that cover LGBT issues, so HB2 would presumably not affect them.

Public Accommodations.

Public accommodations are private businesses open to the public and/or doing business with the public, as well as government-owned public facilities. HB2 once again, as it did in Parts I and II of the bill, creates a statewide law that preempts local ordinances:

"The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance…adopted or imposed by a unit of local government…"

Private Business Practices Are Unaffected.

HB2 sets a baseline for non-discrimination. Private businesses can set any standard above HB2's baseline that they desire for their employees and customers.

The Bottom Line

North Carolina Law Has Not Changed.

Prior to HB2, North Carolina public bathrooms and changing facilities were always restricted to male or female based on biology, and state law protected against discrimination in employment and public accommodations and government contracting on the basis of "race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap…" This is in keeping with federal civil rights law. The state's non-discrimination law is the same now, after HB2, as it was before HB2, except that HB2 amends the word "sex" to mean "biological sex."

HB2 Does Not Target Anyone For Discrimination.

It does not mention sexual orientation or gender identity. It does not limit private businesses from establishing their own policies in these matters. It merely re-states previous state law in a few key areas, and by reserving such law-making to the state legislature, it preempts local governments from creating a patchwork of inconsistent laws across the state. Such uniformity across the state prevents local governments from infringing the religious conscience of its citizens, and improves the overall economic climate for business growth.



1) Here is the "poison pill" that prohibits cities from enacting LGBT protections if they want to (I thought the GOP was big on local governing?), and

2) It sure has "improved(s) the overall economic climate for business growth" with all of the corporations boycotting. Well done, NC Legislature!!!!
02-11-2017 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,949
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #58
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
03-13-2018 12:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,722
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 92
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #59
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
CSUB looked into it, and it doesn't apply to existing contracts. They can continue to travel to El Paso to get to NMSU and to Texas to get to UTRGV. Wyoming is an existing contract with the MWC, which means with SDSU, SJSU, and Fresno State.

There is also the accounting trick to get around it, where California teams can travel to the states, provided it is funded by non-State funds. So you create a pool of travel money from donations and use that to travel to Texas or North Carolina. It can be gotten around if the school and athletic department do their prep work.

While I understand the motivations behind the ban, I think it is an unwise practice. It gets us into the 50+1 majoritarianism mindset. It's not like California had this super liberal bathroom approach even 10 years ago. It's a super new thing, just passed, and with no public input, no statewide initiative (it would most likely fail in a statewide vote ... but as there is no GOP to speak of in 2/3rds of California, there is no danger to any Democrat who supported the bill). And this type of measure attempts to club the states who disagree like nothing we have seen since the Civil War with the various state slave acts. The politics of California are such that it will not be adjusted until a major Democratic Party pressure group demands a softening. And I don't see one that cares enough to bother.

This does not effect private schools, only Cal State and UCs.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2018 05:04 AM by Stugray2.)
03-13-2018 04:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,147
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 438
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #60
RE: How will "Bathroom Bills" impact college sports?
(03-13-2018 04:57 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  CSUB looked into it, and it doesn't apply to existing contracts. They can continue to travel to El Paso to get to NMSU and to Texas to get to UTRGV. Wyoming is an existing contract with the MWC, which means with SDSU, SJSU, and Fresno State.

There is also the accounting trick to get around it, where California teams can travel to the states, provided it is funded by non-State funds. So you create a pool of travel money from donations and use that to travel to Texas or North Carolina. It can be gotten around if the school and athletic department do their prep work.

While I understand the motivations behind the ban, I think it is an unwise practice. It gets us into the 50+1 majoritarianism mindset. It's not like California had this super liberal bathroom approach even 10 years ago. It's a super new thing, just passed, and with no public input, no statewide initiative (it would most likely fail in a statewide vote ... but as there is no GOP to speak of in 2/3rds of California, there is no danger to any Democrat who supported the bill). And this type of measure attempts to club the states who disagree like nothing we have seen since the Civil War with the various state slave acts. The politics of California are such that it will not be adjusted until a major Democratic Party pressure group demands a softening. And I don't see one that cares enough to bother.

This does not effect private schools, only Cal State and UCs.

Its entirely possible that more states will join NY and California after the midterms on this. Remember, there are a lot of liberals that have absolutely no stake in sports and have nothing to lose by using this particular lever on this issue. They could care less if Cal Berkley's or SUNY Albany's athletic departments get some splatter on this.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2018 12:10 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-13-2018 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.