NBA to move All-Star Game over North Carolina law

[coloradoatheist]

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.

The website for it is up and had a section for ticket sales so I believe some had already been sold.

Watching a game on TV compared to watching it in person is not the same, otherwise you would never go to a game.

I'm not saying fans should be protesting it, they will. People who believed that the wedding cake sellers couldn't sell to who they wanted, should be protesting the NBA, but they won't. So business changing its position because of PC items, it's okay, but if it's not PC then it's not okay.

 

[jonatha]

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.

She holds herself out as being in the business of holding concerts. I concur with dismal that geographic restrictions are irrelevant.

 

[dismal]

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.

She holds herself out as being in the business of holding concerts. I concur with dismal that geographic restrictions are irrelevant.

You mean like how Bruce Springsteen holds himself out as being in the business of holding concerts and cancelled his concerts in North Carolina because of his personal beliefs?

I remember when progressives were all mad about that.

 

[jonatha]

She holds herself out as being in the business of holding concerts. I concur with dismal that geographic restrictions are irrelevant.

You mean like how Bruce Springsteen holds himself out as being in the business of holding concerts and cancelled his concerts in North Carolina because of his personal beliefs?

I remember when progressives were all mad about that.

I'd settle for Springsteen. But I've already seen him.

 

[laughing dog]

The wedding cake bakers in Colorado and Oregon were found to violate state law by refusing to sell a cake to someone based on their sexual orientation. The NBA is not refusing to play its NBA all star game because of NC's sexual orientation. So, there really is no equivalence between the situations.

 

[Juma]

For fucks sake dismal! This has nothing to do with wedding cakes. This is a protest against suppression and bigotery! There is nothing in common with not baking cakes because someone is born gay!

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

Not quite.

You may not discriminate by denying people of a  Protected Class services based on your beliefs. To wit, the residents of NC as a whole do not constitute a protected class.

Of course, progressives hold opinions and rationale on civil rights that might have far more depth than what the law allows, but the level of your specific reasoning and rationale seldom arrives at such depths. You usually seem more pre-occupied with legal/illegal, can/can't, allowed/disallowed. But to recap:

NBA moves All Star Game out of NC - 1) perfectly legal business decision, 2) progressives laud the movement as a step in the right direction for civil rights

Refuse to sell cake to gay couple - 1) illegal as it violates federal anti - discrimination law, 2) progressives outraged at bigotry and discriminatory business practice

Refuse to tow a car with a Bernie bumper sticker - 1) legal business decision (as Bernie supporter is not a protected class), 2) progressives (at least me) consider tow truck guy an asshole bc instead of conducting the business and arguing politics in the tow truck - like normal people - tow truck guy leaves another human on the side of a highway.

aa

 

[coloradoatheist]

The wedding cake bakers in Colorado and Oregon were found to violate state law by refusing to sell a cake to someone based on their sexual orientation. The NBA is not refusing to play its NBA all star game because of NC's sexual orientation. So, there really is no equivalence between the situations.

The difference is that the cake store made their decision based on un PC belief and the NBA made their decision on a PC belief, so one is okay, and one is not.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

The website for it is up and had a section for ticket sales so I believe some had already been sold.

The site is still there, and so is the section for ticket sales, but you can't buy tickets there currently. This is not unusual, as a hockey fan I notice that the ticket section on the Blues website is up year round, but there are several months when you can't actually buy tickets there.

Watching a game on TV compared to watching it in person is not the same, otherwise you would never go to a game.

No one is saying fans from North Carolina can't go to the game, wherever it ends up being played.

I'm not saying fans should be protesting it, they will.

I am already on record saying I am fine with fans protesting, and would even agree with them if they have already been sold tickets.

People who believed that the wedding cake sellers couldn't sell to who they wanted, should be protesting the NBA, but they won't.

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I wouldn't care enough to protest the NBA even if I agree with the potential protesters. This is an entirely different issue from the wedding cake issue. This would be like someone suing the bakery because they moved to a new location, and it is now inconvenient for the customer to go to that location to buy a cake.

So business changing its position because of PC items, it's okay, but if it's not PC then it's not okay.

I am okay with businesses changing the location where they do business for whatever reason they come up with. My favorite BBQ restaurant moved from a convenient location for me, to another location several years ago. I simply stopped patronizing them because of the inconvenience.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

The website for it is up and had a section for ticket sales so I believe some had already been sold.

The site is still there, and so is the section for ticket sales, but you can't buy tickets there currently. This is not unusual, as a hockey fan I notice that the ticket section on the Blues website is up year round, but there are several months when you can't actually buy tickets there.

Watching a game on TV compared to watching it in person is not the same, otherwise you would never go to a game.

No one is saying fans from North Carolina can't go to the game, wherever it ends up being played.

I'm not saying fans should be protesting it, they will.

I am already on record saying I am fine with fans protesting, and would even agree with them if they have already been sold tickets.

People who believed that the wedding cake sellers couldn't sell to who they wanted, should be protesting the NBA, but they won't.

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I wouldn't care enough to protest the NBA even if I agree with the potential protesters. This is an entirely different issue from the wedding cake issue. This would be like someone suing the bakery because they moved to a new location, and it is now inconvenient for the customer to go to that location to buy a cake.

So business changing its position because of PC items, it's okay, but if it's not PC then it's not okay.

I am okay with businesses changing the location where they do business for whatever reason they come up with. My favorite BBQ restaurant moved from a convenient location for me, to another location several years ago. I simply stopped patronizing them because of the inconvenience.

And with the cakes that couple could have gone to probably 50 other cake stores in the Denver area alone and got a cake, and they could have gone to another state and gotten cakes too, but no. But if it's a basketball game then going all the way up to NYC or New Orleans is okay.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

The website for it is up and had a section for ticket sales so I believe some had already been sold.

The site is still there, and so is the section for ticket sales, but you can't buy tickets there currently. This is not unusual, as a hockey fan I notice that the ticket section on the Blues website is up year round, but there are several months when you can't actually buy tickets there.

Watching a game on TV compared to watching it in person is not the same, otherwise you would never go to a game.

No one is saying fans from North Carolina can't go to the game, wherever it ends up being played.

I'm not saying fans should be protesting it, they will.

I am already on record saying I am fine with fans protesting, and would even agree with them if they have already been sold tickets.

People who believed that the wedding cake sellers couldn't sell to who they wanted, should be protesting the NBA, but they won't.

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I wouldn't care enough to protest the NBA even if I agree with the potential protesters. This is an entirely different issue from the wedding cake issue. This would be like someone suing the bakery because they moved to a new location, and it is now inconvenient for the customer to go to that location to buy a cake.

So business changing its position because of PC items, it's okay, but if it's not PC then it's not okay.

I am okay with businesses changing the location where they do business for whatever reason they come up with. My favorite BBQ restaurant moved from a convenient location for me, to another location several years ago. I simply stopped patronizing them because of the inconvenience.

And with the cakes that couple could have gone to probably 50 other cake stores in the Denver area alone and got a cake, and they could have gone to another state and gotten cakes too, but no. But if it's a basketball game then going all the way up to NYC or New Orleans is okay.

Was the cake issue one of the bakery moving to a new location? If not, why do you keep bringing it up? The fact that the couple was denied having a cake baked for them had nothing to do with the location, or relocation, of the service.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Was the cake issue one of the bakery moving to a new location? If not, why do you keep bringing it up? The fact that the couple was denied having a cake baked for them had nothing to do with the location, or relocation, of the service.

and for the fans, the vendors, the city, and all the services in that City is was taken away from them. the vending company that does the sales at the stadium also lose it. I am not sure what the NBA All Star game brings in but it may be $100s of millions of dollars to the city. Both decisions were based on the political/religious belief of the owners decided who they wanted to sell their services too.

 

[laughing dog]

The wedding cake bakers in Colorado and Oregon were found to violate state law by refusing to sell a cake to someone based on their sexual orientation. The NBA is not refusing to play its NBA all star game because of NC's sexual orientation. So, there really is no equivalence between the situations.

The difference is that the cake store made their decision based on un PC belief and the NBA made their decision on a PC belief, so one is okay, and one is not.

The difference is that the bakers violated state law and the NBA is not violating any law.

 

[KeepTalking]

Was the cake issue one of the bakery moving to a new location? If not, why do you keep bringing it up? The fact that the couple was denied having a cake baked for them had nothing to do with the location, or relocation, of the service.

and for the fans, the vendors, the city, and all the services in that City is was taken away from them. the vending company that does the sales at the stadium also lose it. I am not sure what the NBA All Star game brings in but it may be $100s of millions of dollars to the city. Both decisions were based on the political/religious belief of the owners decided who they wanted to sell their services too.

I have already addressed this. The venue only needs to schedule another event of that scale on that day to recoup the potential losses. Such a bastion of conservative thought like NC should have no problem getting HB2 supporters to schedule an event there in response. Maybe Ted Nugent can step up and throw a concert instead, he should be just as much of a draw as the NBA, right?

 

[coloradoatheist]

and for the fans, the vendors, the city, and all the services in that City is was taken away from them. the vending company that does the sales at the stadium also lose it. I am not sure what the NBA All Star game brings in but it may be $100s of millions of dollars to the city. Both decisions were based on the political/religious belief of the owners decided who they wanted to sell their services too.

I have already addressed this. The venue only needs to schedule another event of that scale on that day to recoup the potential losses. Such a bastion of conservative thought like NC should have no problem getting HB2 supporters to schedule an event there in response. Maybe Ted Nugent can step up and throw a concert instead, he should be just as much of a draw as the NBA, right?

We'll see if there is backlash against the NBA for their move. If not, that shows you how far gay, lesbian, transgender rights have advanced. And yes the city can hold another venue, and those the couple trying to get a cake could go to another bakery or all the millions of people upset could have made them a free wedding cake.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have already addressed this. The venue only needs to schedule another event of that scale on that day to recoup the potential losses. Such a bastion of conservative thought like NC should have no problem getting HB2 supporters to schedule an event there in response. Maybe Ted Nugent can step up and throw a concert instead, he should be just as much of a draw as the NBA, right?

We'll see if there is backlash against the NBA for their move. If not, that shows you how far gay, lesbian, transgender rights have advanced. And yes the city can hold another venue, and those the couple trying to get a cake could go to another bakery or all the millions of people upset could have made them a free wedding cake.

As laughing dog pointed out already, the baker ran afoul of the law, whereas the NBA has not. Had the baker moved his shop to another location that was inconvenient for the gay couple, they would have gone elsewhere, and he would not have been sued. It wouldn't even have mattered if the baker had moved his shop because there were too many gay couples in the community.

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem I keep seeing here is a conflation. It is much along the lines of a gay wedding, though not so much about the cake: a gay couple can be rejected by certain churches as to whether they may marry there. But a gay couple is NOT bound to get married in a particular church, even if that church has said they may. Sure, the couple loses their deposit, but that's it

The problem here is that north Carolina has no particular right to be picked as the venue for the event, and while they may step on toes changing venues, it is ultimately the fault of whoever put in such a low burden for backing out. At any rate, the NBA is apparently willing and ready to pay those costs, if there are any.

North Carolina lost the business of an organization because their administrators decided it was more prudent to put out a 'no trans folks allowed' sign and the NBA decided to shop elsewhere. Period. If anything, it could in fact be the case that if there was no other venue to hold the game in the country, we could argue that North Carolina ought repeal the law to allow a trans-affirming organization to have equal access.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Both decisions were based on the political/religious belief of the owners decided who they wanted to sell their services too.

I really doubt that the NBA owners collectively believe in the rights of the transgendered.
I believe the owners of most professional sports teams believe in profits, however. I think they were motivated by a fear that their own personal profit margins might dip since the nation seems to be heading in a progressive direction. Or at least, they're acting as if it's a safe bet that it is. That there's more profit to be made by appearing to be progressive than by appearing to be discriminatory.

I really believe it's a purely bu$$ine$$ decision on the NBA's part, just like censuring an owner who gets caught making racist remarks.

 

[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?

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.

So what's the big deal? That would be the nature of the business would it not? choosing one place denies all other places. The NBA found NC desirable. NC did something the NBA found not desirable and re assessed their decision and will now go some place else more desirable than NC. Businesses make such decisions all the time.

So how is this move out of the ordinary course of business?

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

So what's the big deal? That would be the nature of the business would it not? choosing one place denies all other places. The NBA found NC desirable. NC did something the NBA found not desirable and re assessed their decision and will now go some place else more desirable than NC. Businesses make such decisions all the time.

So how is this move out of the ordinary course of business?

I won't speak for dismal, but we have no problem with the NBA deciding to do this. It's their business. They could move the game to antarctica if they want to. But we had no problem with the cake shop deciding who they wanted to sell their cake too based on either their person or business decisions.