So I wanted to gauge TKP's thoughts on this. For those of you that dont know Pat Haden the AD at USC is refusing to attend any required meeting for the Playoff Committee in Indiana, his stated reason is in solidarity and support of his gay son. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/03/31/pat-haden-indiana-...
Most of /r/CFB seems supportive, while a quick look at some of the USC boards reveals a good deal of hostility.
So, TKP how would you feel if Whit were to make the same choice?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Support him wholeheartedly. He has to do what he thinks is right.
I support Whit until Whit does something to make me feel to the contrary, and personally I like this move by USC's AD.
And what are the USC boards upset about? Do they think they'll get passed over for the playoffs because of this?
A lot of it seems to be that he is choosing to fight over this but to them has not been as willing to fight the NCAA over the McNair case, and the recently released emails, and being compared to the OKC bombing for the strength of their defense.
Don't believe this is tkp appropriate as it delves into politics.
Definitely getting dangerously close to a line here.
I hope everyone knows to avoid discussion of the underlying reason (whether or not they agree with it) and look at a broader question: if Whit were to stand on personal principle about something, even if it may be detrimental to his non-VT obligations, would people still support him?
That is basically why I worded the question the way I did.
I think it certainly is a situation that could happen at any school, and worth at least consideration.
Since the question is so general, I think the answer is, NO, I do not think Whit should do that.
We support Whit because we AGREE with his personally held beliefs. If we look at this in a vacuum, I believe he should continue to do his job, unless what is asked of him is in violation of those beliefs. The location of a meeting is NOT a direct violation of his beliefs. The coach in this instance simply does not like the venue. This is the stance many of us would probably take if we DIDN'T agree with his beliefs.
I WIN OUR BET DBHT! DIDN'T EVEN MAKE IT TO 10 COMMENTS!
While almost everything seems to be politicized by one side or the other these days, social commentary isn't automatically political. I think the wording of the topic posted tried very hard to avoid that step.
It appears that he is refusing to do part of his job (as a public employee) because for him to do so would violate deeply held beliefs. I can support that.
(disclaimer: My only knowledge about this situation comes from this post)
One note: USC is private, so, not a public employ...
Ah, good call. Completely forgot about that.
I would support Whit Babcock in such a situation, and I support Pat Haden in this specific situation.
And with that, I bow out of this thread, ladies and gentlemen.
While I support the guy for sticking to his guns, and supporting his family, I also believe that the committee isn't going to care a whole lot what one member does. One member can be replaced, and should be, lest the whole machine grind to a halt. I would respect Whit doing the same, however, I should think Whit would be graceful enough to resign from the committee rather than hold a whole group hostage to promote his personal views. I expect that Haden will be asked to resign his place should he actually miss any meetings of the committee.
I suspect that the intent is not to affect the committee, but to affect the state by making a public statement and by not spending dollars there.
All he said he wasn't going to travel to the meeting. He may plan to participate remotely or it may be (like many meetings of other committees) not a big deal if he misses one meeting.
I would applaud if Whit made the same decision.
This has nothing to do with football.
That is, when the topic came up on XM radio during College Basketball discussion, and should they move the tournament to Ohio and how should the Commish respond, a well-spoken caller came on in support of the law (with whom they politely disagreed). The most important part of the segment to me was at the end, they said "After the break Gary will be joining us and we'll get back to talking basketball."
Until Pat Haden's son is somehow injured by this law, I think it is nothing more than politics. The question we should (could) be asking is do we similarly support Whit if he chose to ignore the whole situation and go to Indy anyway?
UConn basketball coaches are not travelling to Indiana for the final four.
Of course I don't remember them being invited to the tournament in the first place so this seems like the school is just going out of it's way to make a political statement.
It is worth mentioning that we have a game scheduled in Indiana later this year (@ Purdue) and my hope is that the team just goes out there and plays the football game without bringing any politics into it.
Every college coach goes to the final four. Especially those coaches who are the defending national champions.
The first part of that UConn not being invited was more of a joke though I didn't use sarcastica.
To me, it was more funny that it was being reported as sports news when, outside of the political context, does anyone really care whether or not he's attending. I get they normally do (I believe there is some coaches meeting or convention that normally takes place at this time) so maybe it was just a poor attempt at humor on my part.
The "state spending on travel" seems like a lame excuse by UConn's president, considering athletics budgets are in no way subsidized by public monies.
Funny since conneticut has pretty much the same law. Bill Clinton signed this law in 1993. Nancy Pelosi co-sponsored a bill of this type before. This is all just vitriol agianst Mike Pence and the right. $100 says the vast majority of these people have not even read the bill. It's not like he's banning gays or something. Meanwhile, all those that oppose Indiana in this most likely support the White House and their making a deal with a country that stones gays. So there's that.
As Guitarman has already said this crossed the line into politics and has zero place here, hence the downvote.
He has every right to take a political stand, but I wonder if he's also going to refuse to visit the other states (including Virginia) that have nearly identical RFRA laws on the books? Laws based on the federal RFRA act upon which the Hobby Lobby decision was based and put in place largely because the Supreme Court ruled that the federal statute didn't apply to states. So is he going to renounce his US citizenship as well?
Frankly, it makes me wonder if he even took 5 minutes to read up on the genesis and background of the federal law (and state laws), the conditions under which there can be exceptions to the law(s), and how it has and hasn't been employed in the 20+ years since it was passed by the House unanimously and nearly unanimously by Senate.
I just posted above but I wonder if he is going to take a stand against the White House making a deal with a country that stones gays. Or is that ok as long as a conservative isnt' doing it.
...and now we've crossed into inappropriate political discussion...
I disagree with this comment and here is why:
I have read the RFRA laws of the constitution for the US and for each state that has it. Indiana is the only state to include businesses, religious institutions, and corporations in their definition of "persons" and that is where the whole problem is. It protects businesses from discrimination laws by giving them religious justification for their actions. Effectively, a business can declare that it is offended by homosexuality on religious grounds and is protected by the law to discriminate against homosexuals. All other states that have RFRA acts have some kind of discriminatory protection clause or law to protect homosexuals from discrimination. Indiana does not.
So it's subtle, but it makes a huge difference. By defining a business as a person, it gives businesses the legal right to turn away customers on religious grounds. That is why everyone is up-in-arms over it.
So while it is true to say that the US Constitution along with 19/20 other states have nearly identical legislation, the very subtle difference that sets Indiana apart from the Federal and 19/20 State Constitutions affords businesses in Indiana the legal right to discriminate. No other state (or the US) does that (except Arkansas, if the Governor decides to sign that Bill)
Edited to add last paragraph to make it clear what part of the comment I disagreed with
The Court has already recognized a for-profit business' claim of religious beliefs in Hobby Lobby (albeit limited to a closely held private business) based upon interpretation of the RFRA. So the language in the Indiana statute is superfluous as it relates to these types of businesses.
IIRC, the court ruled narrowly on this in part because, Indiana language notwithstanding, a publicly held business, by the very nature of it's broad, diverse ownership, would have a very, very difficult time making a valid claim of any sort based on "religious beliefs".
In the unlikely event of publicly traded business even able to muster agreement on a "religious belief" to make such a claim in Indiana, it is highly doubtful it would pass legal scrutiny.
As for religious institutions, there is enough legal grey area with regard to religious freedom that if an institution were so inclined to discriminate against a particular group they would have already challenged this...the Indiana language for all practical purposes is academic.
I'd be curious to see what business the court recognized claims for as well as the reasons for the suit.
There has already been a business in Indiana that has openly stated they would refuse a certain service to homosexuals based on religious beliefs. I don't care who you are, but refusing any kind of service to any kind of person is discrimination, regardless of what other services they say they will provide.
http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny...
Hobby Lobby is a privately held company that felt it should not have to pay for contraceptives (as mandated in the Affordable Care Act) for it's employees based upon religious beliefs. The Court ruled in its favor based upon the the provisions set out in the RFRA.
I'm going by memory here, but the court ruled that the government did not satisfy the provision in the RFRA that the government's remedy for the issue be the least restrictive option available.
I only brought this up because 1) the RFRA is pertinent to the discussion in general and 2) the prior poster claimed that the Indiana language was unique in allowing a business to be defined as a person for the purpose of being able to claim an exemption for an action based on religious belief.
As for the link to the news story, I recall a couple of other fairly recent, similar stories like this one. The argument was that they weren't denying service to a group of people (homosexuals), but rather an activity (gay weddings). I don't know the resolution of those circumstances or whether they were in states with or without RFRA laws.
But any notion that this could only happen in Indiana is not correct.
First point. Hobby Lobby is a case with a completely different scope because the family owned company used their religious freedoms to circumvent insurance costs associated with contraceptives. The family owned company is not discriminating against people who wish to use contraceptives, they are just arguing that they shouldn't have to pay for contraceptives because it goes against their religious beliefs. That doesn't match the Indiana legislation, or the issue that people are having with it, which is that businesses that serve the public can refuse to provide services to individuals based on religious beliefs. Paying insurance premiums to cover contraceptives is not a service that businesses provide to the public, and therefore they cannot turn any individuals of the public away.
Second Point. The Indiana language is unique. If the language had been used in the US Constitution there wouldn't have been a lawsuit in the first place. Laws are not perfect, and they are often times up for interpretation. Hobby Lobby winning their case is not an indicator that businesses are legally allowed to use religious freedom as a legal defense to discriminate. The US Constitution, along with many State Constitutions have anti-discrimination laws that include discrimination for sexuality. Virginia, which has an RFRA law in it's Constitution also protects against discrimination of homosexuals. Indiana, does NOT have any laws in place that protect homosexuals from discrimination. This new legislation, which in some ways is good (I'm all for freedom of religion) goes a step further and affords businesses the opportunity to discriminate(which I don't think is good) without legal penalty based on religious freedom.
If Indiana had anti-discrimination legislation that protected homosexuals this would be a non-issue. Nobody would be talking about it. Just like the other 19 states that have RFRA laws that nobody is talking about.
I'm not saying that this can only happen in Indiana. I'm not even trying to imply that. What I am saying is that Indiana is the only state with RFRA legislation that explicitly gives businesses religious freedoms on par with individuals. This is a problem, particularly in Indiana, because it allows businesses to discriminate against a group of people that don't have any legal protection from discrimination based on religious freedom.
Extremely well said.
Hobby Lobby clearly stated that a privately held business can claim a religious belief under the RFRA. That the case wasn't about making a religious claim for the purposes of choosing who or what it does it doesn't do business with is irrelevant.
Just because the Indiana law also states this and others don't (which were written and passed before the Hobby Lobby decision including the Fed statute) is now a moot point.
The real question is whether the wording of the Indiana law makes any practical difference in the ability of an individual or business to opt not to do business with an entity based on their religious beliefs AND whether it makes any practical difference in the ability of the govt to show that it is not substantially burdening the individual/business in compelling them to do so (or, if not, whether it can show a compelling govt interest in doing so AND the remedy is the least restrictive available option).
I'm of the opinion that it doesn't and both the insertion of the language and the protest against it are largely political plays to feed the respective political bases some red meat.
In the end, the language will likely be removed or heavily revised, both sides will get their bases fired up, yet nothing particularly noteworthy will have occurred.
I don't believe the wording would have given businesses the ability to fire individuals on religious grounds, like some said it would, but I do believe the language was such that certain businesses (like a flower shop, for instance) could refuse to cater the wedding of two individuals of the same gender on religious grounds. To me, that is refusing service to a specific group of people, which is the definition of discrimination. (although, some people don't see it that way)
Again, the scope of this is not the same as Hobby Lobby.
First off, I'm not sure how you can say this if you believe the language doesn't afford businesses the legal right to refuse business to the public based on religious beliefs. Why should they change the language if it clearly doesn't give businesses protection to discriminate? The fact that they changed the language undermines your entire argument, in my opinion.
That being said, you were correct about the outcome. They did change the language and I believe that this is quickly becoming a non-issue.
Indiana's legislature finalized amending the law to address the concerns today.
Here's the rationale for the change from the speaker of Indiana's House of Representatives:
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/indiana-republicans-relig...
and for reference the text of the amendments made to the law:
http://iga.in.gov/documents/92b34f58
My summary of the amendment would be that it clarifies that their RFRA:
1. Cannot be used to deny services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment or housing to someone based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or military service
2. non-profit religious organizations including affiliated schools aren't considered providers under the law except for activities that generate unrelated taxable business income.
3. A rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, pastor, or designee of a non-profit religious organization isn't considered a provider when they are engaged in religious or affiliated educational functions of the church or non-profit.
This will be my last comment on the topic. I am not going to share my religious or political opinions on TKP. I'm simply providing my understanding of the facts of the situation.
I will not speculate whether the bill was designed to be inclusive, exclusive, both, or neither. Regardless of the intent of the bill, the outcry was a result of a loophole in the system in Indiana. The loophole, which was pointed out very early on, was that a business could legally refuse to provide a service to a specific group and defend such an action through religious beliefs. By the letter of the law, IMO, the outcry was justified in that sense. I think Mike Pence and his team did the correct thing to adjust the bill to ensure that the loophole was not exploited to discriminate, particularly against the LGBT community.
Indiana was unique because it was the only state with RFRA legislation that did not have all-encompassing complementary anti-discrimination legislation and it was also the only state that included businesses in it's definition of "persons". Marcb2 pointed out that the language may have been added as a result of the Hobby Lobby case and I will not refute that. However, the presence of the language provided the loophole that other state constitutions did not, and thus there was fairly severe backlash.
At the end of the day, the language was changed and everyone goes home happy. Religious freedoms are protected in the state of Indiana (yay!) and discrimination against all groups, LGBT included, is also clearly outlawed (yay!)
All Political and Religious opinions aside, I think this whole fiasco ended about as well as it could have. Do you agree?
You keep missing that the burden would be extraordinarily high in Indiana (as in other states) for a business to discriminate as you describe - regardless of the language contained in the RFRA statute.
As predicted, the language would be changed...and the practical result will be unchanged. This has been much ado about little, but it has certainly generated a lot of fodder for the right and left. And a lot of message board clicks...
I would support Whit in anything that he does in the best interest of VT athletics. If he acts on his personal beliefs that are not related in anyway to doing his job and it effects his ability to complete his responsibilities and duties to the school, I would not support it.
His beliefs on personal or political issues are his and I support everyone's right to have their own opinion and if he wants to boycott a business, product, or location, good for him as long as it does not impact the university or the department.
I think this thread should get shut down. I get that the premise question tried to skirt talking about politics and focus on Whit (who I support fully),, but unfortunately it's a very politicized issue and we live in the politically correct world of 21st century America. I think the whole argument about the law is off anyways, as the law doesn't necessarily let people discriminate, but rather gives people/businesses a legal defense in court by invoking religion against participating in something that would "substantially burden" someone's exercise of religion. Refusing service would not be covered, however, participating in a ceremony might give someone a legal defense, but if that business couldn't show how it substantially burdened their exercise of religion then a judge could still rule against them. (ie. a baker would still serve a homosexual couple like anyone else, however if that couple wanted that baker to cater their wedding and that baker refused, the baker would have a legal defense. Although the judge could still rule against the baker if the baker couldn't establish how it "substantially burdened" his free exercise of religion) It's a potential legal defense law that I don't think would ever be used for discrimination because those people would probably lose in court. Anyways, just my two cents. I don't think this is an issue for TKP though as all I can see is just the potential for arguments and stuff. We all have different opinions and beliefs which is great about TKP, just not about conversations regarding politics, religion, etc.
I will say hats off to the TKP community for not letting this devolve into the type of nonsense that we all see on every major "news" station, political site, dinner at home with your grandparents, etc but agree this type of stuff is best left for other avenues on the internet.
Me every time a new comment pops up:
Certainly hats off to the community and moderation for approaching this maturely.
I certainly think this is at least something worthwhile to at least be thought about, as beyond just it being possible to happen at any school, but Tech is slated to play a game @Purdue next year so if this trend of similar statements and positions continues we could theoretically be directly impacted as a school.
That may be, but I think this frenzy is going to come to an end soon. There is a ton of pressure on Mike Pence to adjust the law in such a way that it removes any potential for businesses to discriminate. I think (hope) this will all blow over quickly and it will be a none issue by the time the VT-Purdue football game is scheduled to be played.
Amen to this. I'm staying out of the discussion, but it's been very mild. Kudos to all.
As far as politics and sports go, this is a straight up political topic that overflows its boundaries and it spilled over into sports. I don't like when we get derailed in a thread with politics, but I think this one is a WYSIWYG discussion, so no one is being surprised by the discussion given the topic.
On a lighter and OT note, Horse, did you see that Andy Bitter sorta gave you a shout out during his live chat today?
I didn't, I'll have to go check it. I haven't been able to keep up with TKP or Bitter recently.
Heh. So a live horse on a treadmill in Lane during the game?
If they set up the treadmill and need someone on it, I'm in.
EDIT: I'd even take donations for the distance I go during the game to benefit a charity to be chosen by the people who ran TBTN
Now you're cooking on gas and all 8 cylinders. I'll support you all the way.
The Indiana governor today signed an amendment to the law that prevents it from discriminating against "anyone anywhere at anytime."
For anyone interested, here's an article from USA Today on it: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/02/indiana-religious-f...
Yep, seems like what little story there was is gone. Though it appears some groups like Angies List are stil pulling out of the state, but the NCAA appears to be appeased, will be interesting to see what Haden does.
Family first, always.