NBA to move All-Star Game over North Carolina law

[KeepTalking]

You accused them of 'withholding their services' from NC. Their 'service' is just the game. Only the game. Anyone in NC that wants can still watch the game and bet on the game and get the results.

What's being withheld is NOT the NBA's 'services.'

Ah, so I guess all the fans will come out to the North Carolina stadium just the same, and the parking attendants at the North Carolina stadium will get paid just the same that day.

Makes me wonder why the NBA did it at all.

They did it so that none of the tax revenue from holding the event will go to the State of North Carolina to support their discriminatory law. They also stated that they would consider holding the game there in 2019 if NC's governing bodies can get their shit together and stop being assholes to their citizens. They wouldn't be considering holding the game in NC that year otherwise.

 

[dismal]

Ah, so I guess all the fans will come out to the North Carolina stadium just the same, and the parking attendants at the North Carolina stadium will get paid just the same that day.

Makes me wonder why the NBA did it at all.

They did it so that none of the tax revenue from holding the event will go to the State of North Carolina to support their discriminatory law. They also stated that they would consider holding the game there in 2019 if NC's governing bodies can get their shit together and stop being assholes to their citizens. They wouldn't be considering holding the game in NC that year otherwise.

Keith's position is they are not denying the game to North Carolina. You need to take this up with him.

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, so I guess all the fans will come out to the North Carolina stadium just the same, and the parking attendants at the North Carolina stadium will get paid just the same that day.

Makes me wonder why the NBA did it at all.

They did it so that none of the tax revenue from holding the event will go to the State of North Carolina to support their discriminatory law. They also stated that they would consider holding the game there in 2019 if NC's governing bodies can get their shit together and stop being assholes to their citizens. They wouldn't be considering holding the game in NC that year otherwise.

You are being dismalized. You'd have a more intelligent discussion with the wall.

 

[KeepTalking]

They did it so that none of the tax revenue from holding the event will go to the State of North Carolina to support their discriminatory law. They also stated that they would consider holding the game there in 2019 if NC's governing bodies can get their shit together and stop being assholes to their citizens. They wouldn't be considering holding the game in NC that year otherwise.

Keith's position is they are not denying the game to North Carolina. You need to take this up with him.

My post in no way contradicts Keith's position. People in North Carolina will still be able to watch the game, they will even be able to go to the game, it will just cost them more to do so (not that going to such a game is cheap to begin with). A small subset of those in NC will be directly impacted, those who make their living from the venue and surrounding support structure (hotels, restaurants, etc.), but this will only be an issue if the venue is unable to schedule another event with the same, or similar, draw on that date. Even if they can't the benefit from the game will just be deferred by two years, as long as the discriminatory law that the NBA does not want their game associated with is dispensed with before then.

- - - Updated - - -

They did it so that none of the tax revenue from holding the event will go to the State of North Carolina to support their discriminatory law. They also stated that they would consider holding the game there in 2019 if NC's governing bodies can get their shit together and stop being assholes to their citizens. They wouldn't be considering holding the game in NC that year otherwise.

You are being dismalized. You'd have a more intelligent discussion with the wall.

Not the first time, and probably won't be the last, but then again it's Friday, and I'm bored, so I don't mind toying with the small minded today.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not even slightly. As long as the game is televised, their demographic in North Carolina can watch the game. Surely you're wrong.

It's progressive logic so it may be a bit confusing.

No, it's your parody of progressive reactionary behavior. Not confusing. Just flat out fucking wrong.

Wow, this is of of the more bizarre forms of denialism I have ever seen.

The NBA has flat out stated it is denying this game to North Carolina.

Said denial is, indeed, what this thread is about.

So again I ask

So they were denying the game to say, Idaho, when they initially chose NC?

 

[dismal]

Not even slightly. As long as the game is televised, their demographic in North Carolina can watch the game. Surely you're wrong.

It's progressive logic so it may be a bit confusing.

No, it's your parody of progressive reactionary behavior. Not confusing. Just flat out fucking wrong.

Wow, this is of of the more bizarre forms of denialism I have ever seen.

The NBA has flat out stated it is denying this game to North Carolina.

Said denial is, indeed, what this thread is about.

So again I ask

So they were denying the game to say, Idaho, when they initially chose NC?

If you want to look at it that way, sure. When they committed the game to North Carolina they denied it to everywhere else.

Now they've denied it to North Carolina.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow. You have SUCH a great track record of showing you understand the position of progressives. They're not withholding their services. They're still going to play the game. They just feel it's in the interest of their bottom line to NOT be associated with such laws. So they'll 'provide their services' someplace where they can't be accused of supporting Neanderthalic discrimination.

They are withholding their All Star game from North Carolina, surely.

Obviously since they are in the business of holding games they can't do that based on their beliefs.

They are not. They are not preventing north Carolinians from seeing OR attending the games. They are not stopping them from cheering or enjoying the existence of the game. They are merely holding the game elsewhere. A business owner does not have a right to have people in the community pick his establishment over that of a competitor except by providing a superior service. In this case, the bathrooms in North Carolina are dirty, and the customer is going elsewhere to do business.

Maybe if North Carolina stops being a bad state-citizen and starts playing ball, people will want to, well, play ball there.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I know some of us have been consistent supporters of free association, but I think the progressive position here would be that the NBA has held itself out as being in the business of holding basket ball games and can't now withhold its services based on its beliefs.

I think the progressive position is that it's withholding its services based on restrictions and regulations in the state of NC. Something even conservatives would agree it's OK to do.

aa

 

[Malintent]

please stop arguing trivial semantics. it seems trollish, on the surface. The revenue that was expected to be received by the state, will not be received by the sate. the NBA's stated reasons were that they did not want the revenue to go to a state that implemented divisive laws (in their words, not mine). Therefore, the NBA consciously, intentionally, and with specific agenda, DENIED the revenue to the state. This talk about semantics around "denying the game" is just stupid (offense intended). Anyone can watch the fucking game on TV. and that is OBVIOUSLY not the point (unless you are a troll - then obviously not the point IS the point).

If the NBA sated that they have far too many "gender questionable" fans and staff to be able to prevent issues, then that would be one thing. But no, they DENIED the REVENUE to the state for political reasons.

Either way, I don't really care.. I think commercialized sports need to die out already. I just would like this conversation to be, you know, something slightly better than totally pointless.

 

[dismal]

I know some of us have been consistent supporters of free association, but I think the progressive position here would be that the NBA has held itself out as being in the business of holding basket ball games and can't now withhold its services based on its beliefs.

I think the progressive position is that it's withholding its services based on restrictions and regulations in the state of NC. Something even conservatives would agree it's OK to do.

aa

I thought the progressive position was that once you hold yourself out as being in the business of providing certain services, you may not deny people those services based on your beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ah, so I guess all the fans will come out to the North Carolina stadium just the same, and the parking attendants at the North Carolina stadium will get paid just the same that day.

Makes me wonder why the NBA did it at all.

You're the one who tried to frame is as progressives being disappointed that the NBA is not doing their job.
They are doing their job. They're having the game. It's not the NBA's job to fill seats in a particular state, on a particular day.

There's certainly nothing preventing a whole lot of conservatives spending their day, and their money, in NC in protest against the NBA's choice. Call it 'Tailgate for Taliban Jesus' or something like that. Jumbo-trons showing the game played in, PA or NYC or wherever. Or maybe showing something else as they all gang up to boycott the NBA.

See where the money really goes, to the NBA making the progressive choice or the conservatives making the discriminatory one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the progressive position is that it's withholding its services based on restrictions and regulations in the state of NC. Something even conservatives would agree it's OK to do.

aa

I thought the progressive position was that once you hold yourself out as being in the business of providing certain services, you may not deny people those services based on your beliefs.

Oooooooooooh, you're thinking this is comparable to baking gay wedding cakes.

Not at all.

They're still providing their services to the public. It would be different if they rewrote contracts so that no one in NC could watch an NBA game on cable TV. If everyone in the nation EXCEPT NC citizens could enjoy the game, that would be comparable to making wedding cakes for everyone but gay couples.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think the progressive position is that it's withholding its services based on restrictions and regulations in the state of NC. Something even conservatives would agree it's OK to do.

aa

I thought the progressive position was that once you hold yourself out as being in the business of providing certain services, you may not deny people those services based on your beliefs.

You thought wrong. Again.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think the progressive position is that it's withholding its services based on restrictions and regulations in the state of NC. Something even conservatives would agree it's OK to do.

aa

I thought the progressive position was that once you hold yourself out as being in the business of providing certain services, you may not deny people those services based on your beliefs.

They won't be turning anyone away from the game based on their beliefs, they are just not having the game at a specific location. So, to bring this back to the example of providing wedding cakes to gay couples, no one is saying that the baker has to locate his business in a gay neighborhood, just that he must treat gay customers the same way he treats everyone else.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I thought the progressive position was that once you hold yourself out as being in the business of providing certain services, you may not deny people those services based on your beliefs.

They won't be turning anyone away from the game based on their beliefs, they are just not having the game at a specific location. So, to bring this back to the example of providing wedding cakes to gay couples, no one is saying that the baker has to locate his business in a gay neighborhood, just that he must treat gay customers the same way he treats everyone else.

So if you had bought the ticket to the game and watched it at home you would consider that the same experience?

So in the case of the wedding cake, if they had asked for a cake but they gave them a small cupcake you would consider it okay then?

I agree with dismal. People should be protesting the NBA for moving it.

 

[dismal]

They won't be turning anyone away from the game based on their beliefs, they are just not having the game at a specific location. So, to bring this back to the example of providing wedding cakes to gay couples, no one is saying that the baker has to locate his business in a gay neighborhood, just that he must treat gay customers the same way he treats everyone else.

So if you had bought the ticket to the game and watched it at home you would consider that the same experience?

So in the case of the wedding cake, if they had asked for a cake but they gave them a small cupcake you would consider it okay then?

I agree with dismal. People should be protesting the NBA for moving it.

Well, Progressives should.

I have always taken the position that people businesses like the NBA should be free to associate with whomever they want.

 

[KeepTalking]

They won't be turning anyone away from the game based on their beliefs, they are just not having the game at a specific location. So, to bring this back to the example of providing wedding cakes to gay couples, no one is saying that the baker has to locate his business in a gay neighborhood, just that he must treat gay customers the same way he treats everyone else.

So if you had bought the ticket to the game and watched it at home you would consider that the same experience?

Have they sold tickets to the game yet? If so, I think ticket holders might have a beef with it, but this seems a bit far out for tickets to have been sold. The season hasn't even started yet.

So in the case of the wedding cake, if they had asked for a cake but they gave them a small cupcake you would consider it okay then?

I don't see how this is relevant. Fans will be seeing the same game, of the same length, with the same players, regardless of the location.

I agree with dismal. People should be protesting the NBA for moving it.

Sure, they can protest it all they want, I'm not saying they shouldn't. I would even agree with the protesting fans if tickets have already been sold.

 

[jonatha]

Dismal is absolutely correct.

As a progressive, it's my position that Beyonce should be required to hold a concert in my bedroom.

 

[KeepTalking]

Dismal is absolutely correct.

As a progressive, it's my position that Beyonce should be required to hold a concert in my bedroom.

Dibs on Gwen Stefani.

 

[dismal]

Dismal is absolutely correct.

As a progressive, it's my position that Beyonce should be required to hold a concert in my bedroom.

Well, yeah, assuming she holds herself out as being in the business of holding concerts in people's bedrooms. And you pay the asking price.