NFL could pull Super Bowl if Arizona religious rights bill passes

[ChiefsandO'sfan]

Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

Sounds like the opponents — and the NFL — need to take a knee.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/nfl-co...rticle/2544606

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

The NFL doesn't want to be associated with discrimination, it's as simple as that, you dolt.

Yet, they're discriminating, just like you against religious freedom... you dolt.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brock

As an entertainment business, their competing dollars are not limited to pro football, or even sports in general. The consumer has unlimited choices for what they do with their entertainment budget.

This isn't about the consumer. This is about a state versus a league supported by public money and provided government privileges most other business do not have.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's privately owned. Remember it was gay activists that boycotted them first, because the owners private actions through their charitable foundation that gave money to certain groups gay activists didn't like. People responded back by eating there, to counter the boycott. I did call for viewers to boycott the NFL in response.

Keep things in the same category of thing. Then try again.

Who owns the NFL? Who owns the teams?


Did she really go to the "privately owned" argument? Holy shit

[BucEyedPea]

Speaking of other PC crap in the NFL, what's with pink booties and gloves for breast cancer? O.M.G. I would have died if the NFL hadn't alerted me.


The NFL is falling victim to the Cultural Marxists as late bloomers simply because it's been so macho.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This isn't about the consumer. This is about a state versus a league supported by public money and provided government privileges most other business do not have.

Then why did you mention the consumer?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Speaking of other PC crap in the NFL, what's with pink booties and gloves for breast cancer? O.M.G. I would have died if the NFL hadn't alerted me.


The NFL is falling victim to the Cultural Marxists as late bloomers simply because it's been so macho.

That began at grassroot level.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/07/the-wom...fl-think-pink/

[Eleazar]

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Speaking of other PC crap in the NFL, what's with pink booties and gloves for breast cancer? O.M.G. I would have died if the NFL hadn't alerted me.


The NFL is falling victim to the Cultural Marxists as late bloomers simply because it's been so macho.

She's against breast cancer awareness.

Or, even if you want to be cynical, she's against a business trying to appeal to an audience.

You are one ****ed-up person.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's privately owned. Remember it was gay activists that boycotted them first, because the owners private actions through their charitable foundation that gave money to certain groups gay activists didn't like. People responded back by eating there, to counter the boycott. I did call for viewers to boycott the NFL in response.

Keep things in the same category of thing. Then try again.

The Chik-Fil-A CEO ignited the original firestorm by coming out and making anti gay comments. Many people during the controversy said that Chik-Fil-A should stay out of the political arena and keep their political opinions to themselves. Were you one of those people at that time? Like you're doing here with the NFL? I'm just trying verify your consistency here.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brock

Then why did you mention the consumer?

Because you brought them up first to press the free-market point--just on the wrong end. I simply responded to it and then got back on track.

People aren't forced to watch nfl football. Watch cfb if you don't like it.

Think you brought them up in post #61.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

She's against breast cancer awareness.

Or, even if you want to be cynical, she's against a business trying to appeal to an audience.

You are one ****ed-up person.

You guys really shouldn't bother arguing with Magda, just put her on iggy like everyone else does.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Cannibal

The Chik-Fil-A CEO ignited the original firestorm by coming out and making anti gay comments. Many people during the controversy said that Chik-Fil-A should keep their stay out of the political arena and keep their political opinions to themselves. Were you one of those people at that time? Like you're doing here with the NFL? I'm just trying verify your consistency here.

Sorry, but I guess the point is still over your head.

Chik-Fil-A is PRIVATELY owned.

And that's also NOT what happened. It's because the owners charitable foundation gave money to groups opposed to gay marriage etc.


Either way, seems like your against FREE speech too.

[Cannibal]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

She's against breast cancer awareness.

Or, even if you want to be cynical, she's against a business trying to appeal to an audience.

You are one ****ed-up person.

She couldn't be a more abrasive personality.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Because you brought them up first to press the free-market point--just on the wrong end. I simply responded to it and then got back on track.
Think you brought them up in post #61.

No, you did, when you said

If it is an entertainment cartel, then it's not free-market and there is little choice for the consumer to go elsewhere with their money. They would have to boycott.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brock

That began at grassroot level.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/07/the-wom...fl-think-pink/

One person isn't grassroots but I'd say that was more individual based and more free-market than this current issue.

It's still pussifying the league more though. Really, I mean to the players have to wear pink gloves too?