NBA to move All-Star Game over North Carolina law

[KeepTalking]

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.

I would not have a problem with the baker moving his shop to Antarctica, even if he was just doing it because there are not gays (other than the penguins) there. I would, however, have a problem with the NBA refusing to sell tickets to their All Star game to straight white males, just like I have a problem with the baker refusing to sell cakes to gay couples.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I would not have a problem with the baker moving his shop to Antarctica, even if he was just doing it because there are not gays (other than the penguins) there. I would, however, have a problem with the NBA refusing to sell tickets to their All Star game to straight white males, just like I have a problem with the baker refusing to sell cakes to gay couples.

And I have no problem with them having an all white NBA and an all black NBA leagues. Which one would draw a bigger crowd?

 

[KeepTalking]

I would not have a problem with the baker moving his shop to Antarctica, even if he was just doing it because there are not gays (other than the penguins) there. I would, however, have a problem with the NBA refusing to sell tickets to their All Star game to straight white males, just like I have a problem with the baker refusing to sell cakes to gay couples.

And I have no problem with them having an all white NBA and an all black NBA leagues. Which one would draw a bigger crowd?

I would certainly have a problem with that, but I don't see what that has to do with the topic of discussion.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And I have no problem with them having an all white NBA and an all black NBA leagues. Which one would draw a bigger crowd?

I would certainly have a problem with that, but I don't see what that has to do with the topic of discussion.

most b
business wise it would be a very bad decision to have a whites only basketball team or fans, the same way for most bakeries that rejecting a client base is based for business.

 

[funinspace]

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.

If the Oregon cake bakers didn't like Oregon law, they could have shut down their business and moved to NC and set up a hate cake shop there. The NBA will most certainly refund any previously sold tickets, in compliance with the laws of NC. It is not about PC, but following the law... The NBA is within their right to change venues as long as it follows the law.

 

[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.

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.

If the Oregon cake bakers didn't like Oregon law, they could have shut down their business and moved to NC and set up a hate cake shop there. The NBA will most certainly refund any previously sold tickets, in compliance with the laws of NC. It is not about PC, but following the law... The NBA is within their right to change venues as long as it follows the law.

so if the law wasn't there people wouldn't have had a problem? How many people who argued against it knew the law? And I believe the law is wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

so if the law wasn't there people wouldn't have had a problem?

Some would, some would not.

How many people who argued against it knew the law?

Irrelevant.

And I believe the law is wrong.

Your belief does not change the reality that the bakers in both states were found violating state law while the NBA has not been found in violation of any law. So that is a big difference. Moreover, it may also be the case that the transgender law in NC violates the Civil Rights Act.

 

[zorq]

No shirts, no shoes, no service. Also, no discriminatory laws targeting individuals who were born that way. Put on a shirt and trash your ignorant bigoted laws and the NBA will throw a basketball party near you!

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

Wrong. It was based on the legal and regulatory environment in the state of NC. The laws of which state that no individual shall be permitted to use the restroom counter to the gender expressly outlined on their birth certificate. It would be easy to justify exiting business there based on the onerous nature of the law itself. What is the NBA supposed to do? Hire extra 'restroom attendants' responsible for examining birth certificates for everyone who has to pee?

And even if the regulatory burden wasn't considered onerous in and of itself, unfortunately for the religious right there is no 'onerous burden threshold' that needs to be met to exit or limit business within a state. If a business does not 'like' the legal or regulatory environment in a particular geographic area, they are not compelled to do business there. Applies to everyone everywhere. Unfortunately for the Hatecake factory, they were in violation of the federal anti-discrimination laws of the US. They are still free to sell cakes overseas, though.

aa

 

[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?

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.

Not talking about a cake shop, talking about the NBA and the State of NC

 

[beero1000]

Maybe I've missed it, but why hasn't anyone challenged the analogy's most basic point? If we're comparing the NBA refusing to have a game in NC to a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then why would we say that it is the NBA that is performing a service for the state of NC in the same way a baker performs a service to their customers?

Isn't it clearly the other way around? NC is offering to host the game (specifically, the venue), so they would be the baker - the NBA is the customer, and presumably the NBA is the one paying the venue, the state (in taxes), and the vendors etc.This is more comparable to a gay couple cancelling their wedding cake order after hearing the baker go off on a homophobic rant. Who wouldn't take their order and go elsewhere?

 

[fast]

I just wanted to point out an inversal error that keeps popping up in this thread. If I deny a particular service to someone, then I am not providing that particular service to someone, so (in short), deny implies not; however, the inverse doesn't carry the same logical implication. Not providing a particular service to someone doesn't infer that someone is denying a particular service. The distinction is subtle but important.

It's very similar to logically differentiating between not doing something and failing to do something. Not going on a date is not a failure to go on a date, but not stopping at a red light is a failure to stop at a red light. Another example: If parents charge their son with the task of taking out the trash, then although the daughter didn't take out the trash, she has not failed to take out the trash. The son, however did fail to take out the trash, as it was the son (and not the daughter) that was given the task to which one can fail or succeed.

If I apply for a loan and the loan is not approved, then I am denied the loan, but if I do not apply for a loan, then arguing that I was denied a loan because I was not approved for a loan is not a good argument. If I choose to open up a business in Florida instead of North Carolina, then it's not necessarily true on those facts alone that I am denying North Carolinians my services even if it's true that I am not providing North Carolinians my services. "Deny" implies "not," but "not" doesn't imply "deny."

 

[Toni]

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.

Obviously, the NBA are free to associate with whomever they want.

The NBA don't want to associate with homophobes so they are moving the game from NC.

You object to that.

Obviously, you do not truly believe that the NBA should be free to associate with whomever they want.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here's how it was decided.:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...d-nbas-2017-charlotte-all-star-game/87458518/

n a poignant address, Golden State Warriors president and chief operating officer Rick Welts, 63, who is openly gay, explained his meaningful and lifelong affiliation with the NBA and told league owners he didn’t feel comfortable attending the All-Star Game in Charlotte if the law remained as is.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

No they should not protest the NBA because the protests are about basic human decency and ethics moreso than the law. Protesting the bakers is refusing do business with proven bigots who have engaged in specific acts that promote hatred of people for their personal tastes and promote ideologies that have caused such people serious harm and death in the past. Protesting the NBA for their decision is refusing to do business with someone because they refused to business with proven bigots who have engaged in specific acts that promote hatred of people for their personal tastes and promote ideologies that have caused such people serious harm and death in the past.
There is nothing inherently immoral about chosing not to do bussiness with someone. The morality (as it always does) lies entirely in the motives and intended consequences behind the actions. Thus, the response of others should not be similar due to similarity of the overt action by itself, but differ due to the radically different motives and intended consequences. `

It is very similar to the ethical difference between Hitler killing Jews and someone killing Hitler to stop him from killing more Jews. Your false equivocation between the baker and the NBA is the (amusingly) equivalent to equivocating those two acts of killing and claiming people should view and react to both killers the same way.

That is all independent from the legal question itself. As for the law, it doesn't and for obvious reasons shouldn't be about restricting who a customer refuses to buy from, but about who a seller refuses to sell to. There are good historical and economic reasons for this non-symmetry in the law (mostly because their is typically huge non-symmetry in economic power between sellers and buyers). Regardless of the justifications, that is the reality of the law and as some has pointed out, the NBA is actually the customer and not the seller in this situation. They are not refusing to sell anything to anyone. They are refusing to buy a product from North Carolina. The fact that as a logical result they won't have tickets to a NC based game to sell, no more means they are refusing any customers than it would mean that because the Oregon baker does not have a bakery in Florida it means they refusing to sell cakes made in Florida to customers in Florida.

 

[funinspace]

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.

If the Oregon cake bakers didn't like Oregon law, they could have shut down their business and moved to NC and set up a hate cake shop there. The NBA will most certainly refund any previously sold tickets, in compliance with the laws of NC. It is not about PC, but following the law... The NBA is within their right to change venues as long as it follows the law.

so if the law wasn't there people wouldn't have had a problem? How many people who argued against it knew the law? And I believe the law is wrong.

I should have been clearer...my point about the law, was that comparing the bakery, which illegally discriminated, to the NBA move of venue is a red herring. The NBA will follow the law in its change.

Which people, which law? People are free to protest whatever. Most people on this board think that discriminating against people for race, sex, or sexual orientation is wrong, and should be against the law for a for-profit business. Ergo, most people here have little issue with the law coming down on the hate bakery; and find the boycott of NC with their new stupid bathroom law to be appropriate.

No state has the right to the NBA game hosting, otherwise all 49 could whine, when they aren't the one that is picked. The change in venue is late, but as long as they don't violate any contracts, it shouldn't be a big deal...except to those that support stupid bathroom laws.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And let's remember that the NBA has considered the cost it will incur for moving the game and has decided it is one they are willing to pay.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think another sad wrinkle to this was that the city government in Charlotte had already passed ordinances allowing for LGBT restroom preference (basically saying that the city was going to ignore HB2), and then the State government added an amendment to HB2 at the last minute saying that the state law would supersede any local ordinances.

Its not clear what the NBA would have done had Charlotte been exempt, but the state shot that city in the face to bring it into the fold.

aa

 

[Keith&Co.]

Its not clear what the NBA would have done had Charlotte been exempt, but the state shot that city in the face to bring it into the fold.

If Chick Fillet structured their finances such that the profits from beverages, and only beverages, were not ever going to end up donated to anti-gay activist groups, but the rest of the menu was not so protected, would you buy a Coke from them and get the rest of your lunch from McD's?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Just to clarify for my own knowledge. The team and and another group paid the NBA $750K to host the game so they are the buyers.