Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ
posted at 2/25/2014 3:28 PM EST
In response to PatsLifer's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
[QUOTE] NFL, Cardinals, Super Bowl committee sound off on SB 1062 Posted: Feb 25, 2014 7:18 AM EST Updated: Feb 25, 2014 7:21 AM EST Posted by Steve Stout - email
Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News) PHOENIX (CBS5) -
As the anticipation grows over what Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will do with Senate Bill 1062, the so-called Religious Freedom Bill, the National Football League, the Arizona Cardinals and Arizona's Super Bowl committee are chiming in.
The 2015 Super Bowl is scheduled to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.
The NFL said it was monitoring the progress of the bill, the Cardinals said they are concerned about the negative image the bill could bring the state, and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said it flatly opposes the legislation.
All three released their statements Monday.
The bill would allow Arizona businesses the right to refuse service to anyone based on the business owner's religious beliefs without fear of lawsuits.
Brewer has until Saturday to sign the bill into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.
The NFL's Greg Aiello issued the following statement Monday afternoon:
"Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. 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."
The Arizona Cardinals statement issued Monday:
"What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together. We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home."
The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee's statement reads:
"We share the NFL's core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination. In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. 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. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX."
It's not the first time and Arizona issue and the NFL have collided.
In 1993, Arizona was in line to host the Super Bowl in Tempe, but Arizona voters in November 1992 voted against a referendum recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday, prompting the NFL to give the Super Bowl to Pasadena, CA.
The nfls policy is hogwash First off. They openly discriminate based on a host of reasons.
Let me draw an nfl parallel to the issue at hand and you decide what is right.
this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive.
Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference?
Should those promoting family and self protection be discriminated against? I can't think of one reason why. The commercial as a whole was probably the most wholesome of American values to ever have a chance to run during the SB. Yet, the nfl chose not to run it and instead would rather promote values that are anything but wholesome. Hippocrites they are. Goodell the biggest one.
Another example is that piece of sxxx governor cuomo of NY. Saying that gun owners and people who believe are against abortion have no place in NY. Yet, those values are protected by the 1st and 2nd amendments. he is openly discriminating. Yet, how is this tolerated?
you see, discrimination only works one way. It's ok to apply personal values to discriminate as long as it supports the political agenda.
Refusing to air an ad isn't the same thing as discriminating against individuals based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.