• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

As has been pointed out to me by Con posters, not every conservative poster thinks alike.
So, one needs to have a disclaimer if mentioning legitimate rape or Ted Nugent or whatever the latest Akin moment is, as "I" have been told.

Just as we know that CON ads and hit posts have a disclaimer
that not all LIBs feel a certain way about ACA, IRS, Benghazi, VRA, GLBT, and the rest .
that is kinda the problem, even after Aiken babbled on about the legitmate rape thingy, the Tea Party ooops Republicans still spent about a million bucks on his election.
 
Now that the NFL is applying grammar rules next year, how do they think Fans will react to throwing Gay and Racial slurs?
The USA is infamous as the World's leader in just saying yes to any edict that "just says no".
And wait until the NFL draft, when the Gay Black Defensive guy from MIZZOU is drafted.
Fans at the draft are well-known for booing the picks of their own teams .
 
And that is the problem, the NFL is a private organization and people think that private organizations ought to be able to discriminate against gays. That is insane IMHO, private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against gays. If an athlete is good enough to become an NFL player, he should never be refused on the fact that he is gay. That is discrimination and insane. That would make this the NFL and the US the new promoters of gay segregation. What is next, no gays allowed in restaurants? No gays allowed to work at schools, shops, sports, restaurants, etc. etc.

The US stopped segregation a few decades back and it would be immoral to create a new segregation/a new batch of Jim Crow laws but now for gays. Discrimination is immoral and should be fought tooth and nail, and not promoted by political parties.

If they are a private organization than like any other private entity they have the right to decide who they will associate and do business with. It is hardly immoral to uphold the right to association, the right to property, right to ones own labor, right to ones own service, and contract.
 
So ridiculous, isn't it? If football players object to showering with gays, guess what? Their teams will build private showers. Jesus. Problem solved. (That almost stopped my heart it was so complicated.)

One shower for the gay players, the other shower for the heterosexual players and cheerleaders.
 
if this is not a joke, its very troubling as usual, of politicians who believe they have power to control things which are not a delegated power.

He's not a politician but a lobbyist. Until some politician actually picks it up and proposes the bill as legislation it's all just wind from some dude.
 
If people don't want gay people to play in the NFL than vote with your dollars and don't support the NFL. The market won't work when the government imposes on the NFL in either direction here. If they can't hire gays than the market can't function, but if they must, than again, it can't function. The market is where people should fight this battle, but of course, neither side listens to me.

I agree with that, but part of me objects because the NFL is a government pet project. Cut them off from the teat and then I fully agree with you.
 
Hello clownboy.
Are any ex-politicians lobbyists?
How about Politicians who are ex-lobbyists?

How much influence do Lobbyists have on Politicians, such as with all of the "scorecards"?
Don't Lobbyists from all Interests write Legislation for the Politicians who they then pay off to submit said legislation ?
He's not a politician but a lobbyist. Until some politician actually picks it up and proposes the bill as legislation it's all just wind from some dude.
 
Personally, I think this guy and anyone who agrees with him is both a bigot and stupid.

But at the same time, I would bet that "anyone who agrees with him" constitutes a very small percentage of the GOP.

i dont know about "very small" but id agree with "minority" for sure but then again those words are very subjective
 
I agree with that, but part of me objects because the NFL is a government pet project. Cut them off from the teat and then I fully agree with you.

the NFL is a government pet project? how so? and what teat would they need to get off of?
 
Hello clownboy.
Are any ex-politicians lobbyists?
How about Politicians who are ex-lobbyists?

How much influence do Lobbyists have on Politicians, such as with all of the "scorecards"?
Don't Lobbyists from all Interests write Legislation for the Politicians who they then pay off to submit said legislation ?

Indeed, but in all cases whatever a lobbyist writes or wants is just some dude/dudette until a current politician takes it up. That's where we stand with this right now. There's no evidence that any current politician in any party will take this on.

EDIT, looked up Jack Burkman, he's never been a politician, always been a lobbyist and consultant.
 
Last edited:
the NFL is a government pet project? how so? and what teat would they need to get off of?

You know they're non-profit status and ruled and regulated uniquely by Congress, right? Same thing with baseball.
 
You know they're non-profit status and ruled and regulated uniquely by Congress, right? Same thing with baseball.

wait... I don't get it they are non-profit? what does that mean? non taxed? they are obviously making bank so that makes no sense to me. and why would congress regulate it?
 
Conservatives, why are you so afraid of gay people? Can't have them with clubs in schools, can't have them parading at Mardi Gras, can't have them playing football... What is so frightening about gays that you want to cut them out of society?
 
wait... I don't get it they are non-profit? what does that mean? non taxed? they are obviously making bank so that makes no sense to me. and why would congress regulate it?

Good questions, I dunno what they're doing being involved with football, baseball or basketball, but they certainly are. Maybe because they are considered national sports?
 
Conservatives, why are you so afraid of gay people? Can't have them with clubs in schools, can't have them parading at Mardi Gras, can't have them playing football... What is so frightening about gays that you want to cut them out of society?

Without supporting this one dude's call for a bill I can answer that. The fear isn't of individuals but of the normalization of the behavior. For some it's even further and has to do with saying the behavior is okay. They do not believe the behavior is either normal, healthy or okay and should not be promoted as such. Tolerance of individuals is an entirely different issue than accepting the behavior as okay society wide.

I don't care either way and accept that others have their own behaviors.
 
Conservatives, why are you so afraid of gay people? Can't have them with clubs in schools, can't have them parading at Mardi Gras, can't have them playing football... What is so frightening about gays that you want to cut them out of society?

well millions are not

but some are and thier reasons cant be logically justified in this country by anything, whether its fear, bigotry, concern over traditions, normalization acceptance whatever they come up with. Its all a crock and can be easily, quickly and factually debunked as nonsense

also for the record there are others that have this same mentally inept misguided issues not just just some conservatives not saying YOU said otherwise i was just making a general note and pointing that out
 
If they are a private organization than like any other private entity they have the right to decide who they will associate and do business with. It is hardly immoral to uphold the right to association, the right to property, right to ones own labor, right to ones own service, and contract.

You might have that opinion, I think discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual preference or color is not only totally and utterly immoral but also reprehensible and should not be allowed to take place. And I could care less that it is a private organization, private organization should not be allowed to discriminate.
 
He's not a politician but a lobbyist. Until some politician actually picks it up and proposes the bill as legislation it's all just wind from some dude.

your correct i got that wrong, and could not change it after i caught my own mistake, i was actually waiting for someone to point this out to me..........thanks for being sharp...;)
 
You might have that opinion, I think discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual preference or color is not only totally and utterly immoral but also reprehensible and should not be allowed to take place. And I could care less that it is a private organization, private organization should not be allowed to discriminate.

You opinion is noted and probably consistent with your fellow countrymen and governmental system. Different story here.
 
Yes but the Republicans managed to turn off a large number of women voters in the last election for Romney...by few truly substantial threats but lots of stupid **** like 'legitimate rape.'

They won the majority of white women's votes. So if women, as a category, were fooled by the Democratic claims of Republicans engaging in a War on Women™ then were the majority of white women smarter than the rest and not fooled by the Democrats or were they duped and their smarter sisters saw the reality?
 
Well, too late for that stuff. You voted for it and now have to pay the consequences. Hopefully those are electoral consequences and the idiots are voted out and replaced by more normal representatives (even republicans who are not that insane, this is not a pro-democratic or anti-republican thing for me).

Fighting for human rights makes someone an idiot? That's a weird value system that you were raised in.
 
Conservatives, why are you so afraid of gay people? Can't have them with clubs in schools, can't have them parading at Mardi Gras, can't have them playing football... What is so frightening about gays that you want to cut them out of society?

No one wants to cut them out of society, we just don't want to be forced to love them.
 
You might have that opinion, I think discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual preference or color is not only totally and utterly immoral but also reprehensible and should not be allowed to take place. And I could care less that it is a private organization, private organization should not be allowed to discriminate.

People will do things that we find personally detestable, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do those actions, nor does it mean the government should act towards those actions.
 
Well, too late for that stuff. You voted for it and now have to pay the consequences. Hopefully those are electoral consequences and the idiots are voted out and replaced by more normal representatives (even republicans who are not that insane, this is not a pro-democratic or anti-republican thing for me).

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about here. We didn't vote for anything. This is a bill legislators in Arizona passed and has yet to be signed into law (the Governor does that in our system).
 
Back
Top Bottom