NFL might revoke Arizona of a stupid superbowl. ****UPDATE BILL VETOED (gay people, money)

[Ponderosa]

The NFL has not threatened to take the game to another locale. Their only statement is that they are watching developments. There is now no chance in hell this bill is going anywhere but to the dumpster. It is going to be vetoed with 100% certainty. So the NFL will not be doing anything. In fact, rumors are running wild that the NFL will be moving the 2015 Pro Bowl to Arizona as well!

[middle-aged mom]

NFL " watched" when Arizona voted to not adopt MLK as a holiday and reacted by giving the 1993 game to Pasadena. After realizing the financial consequences, the people quickly adopted the holiday and the NFL awarded them the 1996 Super Bowl.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

NFL " watched" when Arizona voted to not adopt MLK as a holiday and reacted by giving the 1993 game to Pasadena. After realizing the financial consequences, the people quickly adopted the holiday and the NFL awarded them the 1996 Super Bowl.

Your one line does not do justice to what really transpired in the MLK vote, but that is for another thread. It's not the 90s anymore. These things take years of advanced planning. The security concerns alone are staggering now compared to the nineties. So most pundits and commentators think the game would go on, but the pall cast over it because of all the controversy would be a terrible distraction for the NFL and for AZ too. Fortunately, we do not have to worry about that. Brewer will go through the "show" of hearing all sides and the veto pen will come out.

I'm guardedly optimistic that the real fallout from this will be that the 2/3 of Arizonans who are not Republicans will take an interest in the primaries this summer. INDs can vote in state primaries and if enough INDs vote along with moderates for moderate Republican candidates, this circus of a legislature we have may be reined in. We are going to have Republicans because the districts are rigged that way, but they could be a group that focuses on real issues in our state instead of the imaginary threats to religion and such. When Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070 had to face a moderate Republican in his recall election, he got creamed. The trick is to get moderate Pubs on the ballot.

[JoulesMSU]

Using sports to affect political change is nothing new, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. South Africa was not allowed to compete in the Olympics while they held Nelson Mandela in prison. The Olympic Committee's condition of reinstatement was that they had to released him.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by jobber123rd

You're right that the NFL doesn't own the teams; it's nearly the other way around -- the teams (or rather, their owners) control the league, either through their appointed Commissioner or (when necessary) direct voting. The NFL Bylaws allow the League to force the sale or terminate the franchise membership of a club in certain circumstances (it can even re-assign a club's stadium lease to another team).

The NFL can't force a club to leave a city, but if a team wants to move, it has to be approved by 3/4ths of the membership (currently 24 of 32 teams). Thus the league can "force" a team to stay in place by voting down its relocation proposals.

tell that to the late al davis. remember he moved the raiders to LA when the league told him he couldnt. the league sued him, or he sued the league, and that now no longer applies.

Originally Posted by West Coast Republican

I doubt that this is going to really happen. The NFL does have the right to make this decision as it is a business, however I think they are only doing this to pander to pressure from liberal lobbying groups. I dislike how it's being pushed into everything from the Grammies to now the sports world. I am completely fine with gay athletes, but liberals need to stop using that as an agenda. No one should care.

The thing is, Arizona already allowed businesses to not serve gays if they chose, and yet virtually all these businesses did. I doubt this bill will make them start all of a sudden. Yes it's wrong to discriminate against gays, but it's just as equally wrong for gays to discriminate against religious people. If gay activist groups would stop trying to shut down and sue religious business owners these bills would not exist.

well put. the law only refines what is allowed, and actually tightens up when business owners can refuse business, not loosen them up.

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

NFL " watched" when Arizona voted to not adopt MLK as a holiday and reacted by giving the 1993 game to Pasadena. After realizing the financial consequences, the people quickly adopted the holiday and the NFL awarded them the 1996 Super Bowl.

what people forget though is that the MLK holiday at the time in arizona was an illegal holiday. and teh governor at the time said that if the legislature would put together and properly pass a bill creating a proper MLK holiday, that he would sign the bill. read more here;

Evan Mecham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evan Mecham gained national attention several days after inauguration by fulfilling his campaign promise to cancel a paid Martin Luther King, Jr. Day holiday (MLK Day) for state employees. The holiday had been created in May 1986 by executive order from the previous governor, Bruce Babbitt, after the state legislature had voted not to create the holiday. Following the creation of the holiday, the state Attorney General's office issued an opinion that the paid holiday was illegal and threatened to sue the incoming governor over the cost of the paid holiday, as it had not been approved by the legislature.

[EdwardA]

Sorry can't give up the Redskins but I'll stop buying their apparel. How's that?

[weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by FKD19124

Dismissed for what and by whom?

Oh that's right. The American physcological council in the name of politics while providing no proof or reason why.

I guess lib's are still stuck on the "born that way" hoax.


[/b]

Why yes! I'm going to consider the erudite and learned psychological proclamations of someone who can't even spell "psychological".
They must really know what they're talking about. Maybe have a degree in "physcology".

[saltine]

Originally Posted by bobtn

As a private business, the NFL has the freedom to decide its own business. I applaud them for proactively following any issue in any region they were kind enough to consider for this spectacular event.

Does anybody else see the irony (or is it hypocrisy) of this post?..

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Like other luny laws Az passed, they now need to decide between 2 doors:

(a) maintain their luny laws, watch tourism revenue drop like a rock, and see Az poverty increase

or

(b) Act like civilized states do, conform to the century one lives in, and ca-ching..other major events generating megamillions will follow this SB.

AZ is not the only one with luny laws, remember the sodomy laws preventing anal sex (mostly for gay couples)? Arizona repealed theirs before the Supreme Court struck down those same laws in Texas, Florida and Louisiana (all states that include Super Bowl ready facilities) in 2003. However Arizona is always the scapegoat nationally (look at the MLK backlash in the 80's) as many of these other states don't have the facilities to run SuperBowls and other major sports events.

I don't think the NFL are being liberals about this at all. It's about civil rights for all. I am straight but if i wore a gay pride or gay support shirt I could be turned away at a mom and pop restaurant that I didn't know was Christian? You kidding me?

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

NFL " watched" when Arizona voted to not adopt MLK as a holiday and reacted by giving the 1993 game to Pasadena. After realizing the financial consequences, the people quickly adopted the holiday and the NFL awarded them the 1996 Super Bowl.

, Many large conventions were moved in between. This is not the 1st time Az has properly been taken to the economic woodshed.