Armageddon or the next Civil War ..

[BiscuitEater]

For the 'Dog Days' of summer discusion ..

California has 'banned' State travel to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Last week, state attorney general Xavier Becerra added Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Texas.

Cal is scheduled to travel to North Carolina to play UNC on 2 Sep. Cal is a 'state school,' and the current thinking is that their 'so called travel ban' does NOT include NCAA sports BUT this is California.

Any thoughts?

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

I believe

they are referring to official state travel, by state officials.

These games are contractual obligations.

 

[TBone.sixpack]

The land of fruits and nuts.

 

[DerHntr]

I wonder if they have banned state travel to China and if they have ended all contracts to purchase goods made in China. The states listed have significantly more rights afforded to the groups CA thinks they are fighting for.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Coaches are state employees

Hope this ends terribly for them

 

[Duke Humphrey]

Cal is scheduled to come to UM in 2018 too

For the 'Dog Days' of summer discusion ..

California has 'banned' State travel to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Last week, state attorney general Xavier Becerra added Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Texas.

Cal is scheduled to travel to North Carolina to play UNC on 2 Sep. Cal is a 'state school,' and the current thinking is that their 'so called travel ban' does NOT include NCAA sports BUT this is California.

Any thoughts?

A bear told me that their contract was signed before the ban so the trip in '18 is "grandfathered" in, but there could be no other contracts signed for teams to play. So I think it's definitely applicable for NCAA teams.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

I'm sure the Tea Sippers are crushed...

Really!

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

 

[RocketDawg]

A bear told me that their contract was signed before the ban so the trip in '18 is "grandfathered" in, but there could be no other contracts signed for teams to play. So I think it's definitely applicable for NCAA teams.

Think they'll allow the Bears to visit this September? **(sort of).

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

It would be so Mississippi for the State to ban TSUN from going

& their would some justice in the TSUN football program being ridiculed for the childish posturing of Mississippi politicians.

 

[Snog]

What the hell did Kansas and South Dakota do? Kansas? Really?

All the rest are par for the course.....and being a native of one and living in the other.....to California I raise a glass and a finger. Chuck you Folly, you ain't so mucking fuch.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

I think, (without looking) has something to do

with who is allowed to use your restrooms.

He = She =He.

 

[Snog]

Yeah, how stupid of me. Gender is a choice............

 

[AlSwearengen]

California is like another planet. All those 17ers do is push each other further and further left.

 

[Chesusdog]

We must make sure that we ask all guests about their preferred pronouns.

 

[L4Dawg]

As long as they still ship wine and beer, let them stay in their own state. There is less chance of contamination that way.

 

[PBRME]

Of all the ridiculous things I've seen lately this might ice the cake. A USA state banning travel to another USA state. The lunatics are truly running the asylum.

 

[Xenomorph]

It's really good to see California being so proactive and taking a hardline stance against injustices. I figure the next step for them will be placing an embargo on all California ports accepting goods shipped from China. Tell all those longshoremen to knock off for the day, boys.. no more unloading ships from places that don't live like we think they should. Probably won't be but a few billion a year in lost revenue.

 

[Xenomorph]

What.. and miss out on that bowl game??

 

[mcdawg22]

Majid Nawaz was on Bill Maher discussing this and it was hilarious. He is pretty hardline against Saudi and Shiite treatment of women. As a result of that he is actually on the Southern poverty's list of dangerous people. That's right a bunch of Southern Christian white men are condemning a Muslim who dare speak about Islamic Extremism and it's human rights atrocities. He was pretty vocal about how hypocritical the left is about this subject. I completely agree.

 

[Snog]

I'm not sure I'd call the southern poverty law center 1) white 2) Christian or 3) southern other than the fact it's located in Montgomery blocks from the capital.

 

[EurekaDog]

Travel agents now have to avoid scheduling connecting flights in each of the ...

"banned" states.

I figure they'll double down and make the CA government avoid purchasing anything from the "banned" states.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

Majid Nawaz was on Bill Maher discussing this and it was hilarious. He is pretty hardline against Saudi and Shiite treatment of women. As a result of that he is actually on the Southern poverty's list of dangerous people. That's right a bunch of Southern Christian white men are condemning a Muslim who dare speak about Islamic Extremism and it's human rights atrocities. He was pretty vocal about how hypocritical the left is about this subject. I completely agree.

That Southern Poverty Law Center is a joke. I was very surprised that Grisham is/was part of it.

 

[57stratdawg]

It's sad that MS legislator, and MS residents, put themselves in this position.

 

[Snog]

That Southern Poverty Law Center is a joke. I was very surprised that Grisham is/was part of it.

I wasnt.

 

[TrueMaroonGrind]

It's sad that MS legislator, and MS residents, put themselves in this position.

Agreed. The law is just a way to make discriminating against homosexuals legal, veiled as a defense of Christianity.

I don't agree with homosexuality, but I definitely don't want them discriminated against in the name of defending Christianity.

 

[512taylor]

It's sad that MS legislator, and MS residents, put themselves in this position.

Can you explain that statement?

 

[OrrDawg]

In the long run, the San Andreas fault may be America's greatest asset.

 

[aTotal360]

Does this mean that Californian state officials must use private money to travel to those states?

 

[aTotal360]

It gives businesses legal protection to run the way they want. All of this stems from the lesbian cake case in Oregon. That couple got fined $135,000 for not serving a cake. $135,000 for "emotional damage". If a Muslim, Buddhist, Baptist, or Scientologist bakery doesn't want to serve me...oh well. I'll take my business elsewhere. They certainly don't owe me anything. Nor do I have the right to force them into a contract. I love how the Left has now branding "religious freedom" (or any other sort of freedom) as racism and intolerance.

 

[HD6]

I think Clay Travis brought that up, how does that affect recruiting? Can a UCLA or USC coach not recruit those states any more?

 

[aTotal360]

And as soon as private money does help make us that difference, the "investor" would be labeled a racist. You gotta love the games they play.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

If you offer a service to the community, but choose to not offer that service to a portion of that community... well, you don't have a leg to stand on. Now, if you branded yourself as a Christian (or any religion) business I could understand not providing a service that goes against your beliefs (and therefore your businesses brand).

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

USC is a private school, so they're probably hoping your point is correct...

 

[HD6]

Yeah I forgot about that.

 

[aTotal360]

If you don't want to serve people with blonde hair, or left handed people, or people that wear braided belts...you shouldn't have to. Let the free market work itself out. Don't start layering on regulations until things work the way YOU want. Again, you should not be forced into a contract with anyone.

 

[57stratdawg]

If you offer a service to the community, but choose to not offer that service to a portion of that community... well, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Right. I remember the poster on here saying his Mississippi company took "Mississippi" off all their publications because of the law.

Thats so sad to me.

 

[engie]

You are killing it in this thread, IMO...

Let's just go hypothetical here.

Say I own a MS small business that doesn't and wouldn't discriminate on any of the stuff that's commonly under scrutiny. The very idea of denying services to someone on such grounds seems ridiculous to me. But maybe I would "discriminate" against someone I perceived as a bullshitter. Should I not have that right? Let's say that a lot of what I do involves direct communication with no defined office/business hours. If someone sends me texts inquiring about a potential purchase at 2AM on a Tuesday -- should I be forced to attempt to provide that product/service to them going forward? Common circumstantial sense tells me they aren't serious potential buyers in the first place. Even if he/she came across my products at that point in time which normal people do all the time -- common sense would dictate to wait to a normal hour to inquire or at least make an explanation/well thought out inquiry. Not a "hey bra, u got dis for sale still?" type of inquiry. At least, that's common sense for people that have been on both sides of the selling equation and had to sift through the endless bs that seems to get more and more oblivious as we get further into the facebook generation.

Should I be forced to continue dealing with those "bs'ers" on every inquiry potentially at time/expense to myself on the front end -- when I have some reason to believe they aren't going to fulfill their end of the bargain going forward? I realize the religious freedoms act isn't the same thing here -- but if we are going down the rabbit hole of forcing a clientele base on private businesses without giving them the discernment to choose their own clientele -- why is it then fair to discriminate against dumb and socially unaware people? Is that not where all of this is headed?

 

[Hump4Hoops]

What groups, in your opinion, are okay to discriminate against?

Why is race not okay to discriminate against, but, in your opinion, sexual orientation is?

I love how the Left has now branding "religious freedom" (or any other sort of freedom) as racism and intolerance.

Interesting perspective. All I see is the right branding bigotry as "religious freedom."

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Very interesting thought, but I don't believe "slippery slope" applies here.

There are already laws in place that you can't discriminate based on gender, race, religion, or disability. These are (mostly) lifelong, unchanging parts of who you are, that people have been unfairly discriminated against for in the past. Sexual orientation fits in perfectly among those traits. Being a dumbass is a hard way to live, but isn't in the "protected class" conversation.

The problem with the "religious liberty" laws is that they are simply a preemptive "Yes, you can discriminate against someone specifically based on sexual orientation." The fact that there are people that won't deal with homosexuals because they think that's what their god wants is still incredibly hard for me to fathom.

It's sad that:

• People still discriminate against homosexuals to the point that things like the cake lawsuit occur
• There's enough people that dislike homosexuals so strongly that they want to make this discrimination specifically legal.