Not a politcal post....

[weblow]

Y'all realize there is a very good chance that we should host a regional, maybe even be a national seed if we take care of business the next few week?

You also realize there is a very high likelihood that the recent legislation signed may prevent that from happening? I think there is a good chance the NCAA takes a pretty hard line on this and makes an example out of several states, MS being one of them.

This is not to discuss if the legislation is right or wrong, just interested to see if any of you are hearing the same thing. My understanding is the NCAA has created and anti-discrimination policy for championships today and there will be more to come.

[DCdawg]

HB 1523 does not become effective until July 1, 2016 after regionals and/or super regionals would be taking place. Sankey did, however, say a few weeks back that it could affect hosting in the future.

[msstate7]

Will north Carolina's new law keep them from hosting and NCAA tourney games also?

[BeardoMSU]

HB 1523 does not become effective until July 1, 2016 after regionals and/or super regionals would be taking place. Sankey did, however, say a few weeks back that it could affect hosting in the future.

Yep. Won't impact this year, but could in years to come. That being said, it won't come have to that, since it will get struck down.

[MafiaDawg]

Yep. Won't impact this year, but could in years to come. That being said, it won't come have to that, since it will get struck down.

And you know this how....

[Bothrops]

It needs to be struck down. I'm not a punk ass secular progressive by any stretch, but this Bill is enormously harmful for Mississippi. It would be far less harmful in most others states, though.

[BeardoMSU]

And you know this how....

Hmm....lets call it "intuition"....

[DCdawg]

Will north Carolina's new law keep them from hosting and NCAA tourney games also?

This was posted just minutes ago.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/jon-solomon/25569227/ncaa-takes-stand-with-anti-discrimination-process-for-championship-bids

[Bothrops]

North Carolina wouldn't go for this, but could weather the storm better. Passing this in Mississippi is like giving a chronic disease to person that's already handicapped.

[Apoplectic]

It needs to be struck down. I'm not a punk ass secular progressive by any stretch, but this Bill is enormously harmful for Mississippi. It would be far less harmful in most others states, though.

F the NCAA. Don't roll over now. More states will follow with similar laws until it reaches the SC. The SEC should institute a policy that men are not allowed to piss in the women's room at SEC events!

[BeardoMSU]

F the NCAA. Don't roll over now. More states will follow with similar laws until it reaches the SC. The SEC should institute a policy that men are not allowed to piss in the women's room at SEC events!

I'd prefer they focus their efforts on busting OM. Priorities, ya know.

[TimberBeast]

I'd prefer they focus their efforts on busting OM. Priorities, ya know.

Or they could do both at the same time, hopefully they will.

[BeardoMSU]

Or they could do both at the same time, hopefully they will.

Increased regulations, that's the ticket!**

[AlmostPositive]

In a better world, North Carolina would be punished for egregious academic fraud, not the actions of their duly elected representatives.

[Dolphus Raymond]

By passing and implimenting HB 1523, our leaders in Jackson have have essentially committed legislative assisted suicide on a terminally ill state. "Buy the ticket, take the ride."

[Engine]

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[dawgoneyall]

It needs to be struck down. I'm not a punk ass secular progressive by any stretch, but this Bill is enormously harmful for Mississippi. It would be far less harmful in most others states, though.

I just can't get over the obsession with some men wanting to be able to pee in a woman's restroom.

Forgotten in all this is the opinion of the women in the restroom. All, not some- but all, that I have had any discussion with about this "stuff" would not be comfortable with men using the same pubic restroom as there are using. Maybe we know a different type of women.

[Reason2succeed]

So much for this not turning political. That lasted all of three or four posts.

[Martianlander]

Reverend Freeze-your opinion? *****

[Jack Lambert]

It needs to be struck down. I'm not a punk ass secular progressive by any stretch, but this Bill is enormously harmful for Mississippi. It would be far less harmful in most others states, though.

Have you read the law? Just curious I hear a lot of people with opinions and I wonder have they even read it to know exactly whats in it. So now I ask every time I can.

[State82]

The NCAA restrictions are for predetermined sites for championships. Baseball regionals are selected based on team accomplishments during the season and are not predetermined locations. That being said it could come into play behind closed doors if we were to be on the host bubble. I doubt we would get any benefit of the doubt in that kind of situation.

[mparkerfd20]

Mississippi and North Carolina got it right. I hate this liberal anti-Christian pansy country we are becoming.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Anti-Christian country???????

[BulldogBear]

The NCAA is against discrimination. So, to show how averse they are to discrimination, they demonstrate this by discriminating. Love it. Just about anything can be construed as discrimination. That's why we have representation and vote on things. That's supposed to be the end of it.

[Quaoarsking]

Mississippi and North Carolina got it right. I hate this liberal anti-Christian pansy country we are becoming.

If you hate America (your words, not mine), there are other countries you could move to. Russia and Uganda off the top of my head allow conservative Christian doctrine to become law, especially when it comes to LGBT issues

[jumbo]

Does this only apply to predetermined events like the old rule? If so that only applies to bowl games and the ncaa basketball tourney. Baseball regionals/supers host sites are not considered pre-determined.

[M.Fillmore]

If you hate America (your words, not mine)

mparkerfd20 said he hates what America is becoming. There is a big difference. Please tell me that you did not get a degree from MSU.

[sandwolf]

Have you read the law? Just curious I hear a lot of people with opinions and I wonder have they even read it to know exactly whats in it. So now I ask every time I can.

It doesn't matter what it says, because it looks like it gives Mississippians the ability to legally discriminate against LGTB's.....it plays right into the rest of the country's stereotype of MS. I agree with the law in principle, but this just isn't an issue here and it's not something that the residents of this state would ever allow to become an issue. Our state's 'leaders' spent time and money passing a law that will ultimately be struck down and accomplishes nothing other than bringing negative publicity to a state that has long been viewed in a negative light. It was just stupid, and if the residents of this state had any sense, we would not re-elect a single politician that voted for this mess.

[Duckdog]

If you hate America (your words, not mine), there are other countries you could move to. Russia and Uganda off the top of my head allow conservative Christian doctrine to become law, especially when it comes to LGBT issues

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read on ED. Dude, really???? Y'all do realize that being gay isn't a race?

[Jack Lambert]

It doesn't matter what it says, because it looks like it gives Mississippians the ability to legally discriminate against LGTB's.....it plays right into the rest of the country's stereotype of MS. I agree with the law in principle, but this just isn't an issue here and it's not something that the residents of this state would ever allow to become an issue. Our state's 'leaders' spent time and money passing a law that will ultimately be struck down and accomplishes nothing other than bringing negative publicity to a state that has long been viewed in a negative light. It was just stupid, and if the residents of this state had any sense, we would not re-elect a single politician that voted for this mess.

The law was a good law however I will agree that they should not have done it due to how it was going to be spun by the media. At lest read it so you know what you are talking about. It doesn't take 15 minutes.

It's like a kid saying they don't like a certain food but they have never tasted the food.

[Engine]

it looks like it gives Mississippians the ability to legally discriminate against LGTB's...

Hilarious that these various groups are somehow thrown together. What the **** does the G have in common with the T? One is attracted to the same sex and one wants to become the other sex. Does nobody else see this distinction.

Enough with the freaks dictating to the 99.9% how the culture and society should be. If that means we gotta go play a regional somewhere else then so be it. Civilization trumps regionals.

[Dolphus Raymond]

Our "leaders" passed a law to fix a non-existent problem. In the process, a very big problem has been created. The "to hell with the rest of the country let Mississippi be Mississippi" mantra is a classic "blast from the past" that once again makes us look foolish and short-sighted. "Forever 50th" would be a fitting state motto.

[Frexzell]

I have read it, and it is blatantly unconstitutional. It is so unconstitutional, in fact, that you have to wonder why our leaders would have passed such a law when they know it will get overturned. It almost makes you wonder from what they are trying to divert our attention ...

[mparkerfd20]

mparkerfd20 said he hates what America is becoming. There is a big difference. Please tell me that you did not get a degree from MSU.

I swear no one reads anymore.

[Tbonewannabe]

I have read it, and it is blatantly unconstitutional. It is so unconstitutional, in fact, that you have to wonder why our leaders would have passed such a law when they know it will get overturned. It almost makes you wonder from what they are trying to divert our attention ...

50th in everything positive but top 3 in everything negative. I wish our horrible education system and the fact we actually underfund it got this much publicity.

[BeardoMSU]

"Forever 50th" would be a fitting state motto.

I thought it already was?**

[Political Hack]

In a better world, North Carolina would be punished for egregious academic fraud, not the actions of their duly elected representatives.

I'm almost positive I agree 100% with this guy.

[tireddawg]

I just think when decisions like this are made common sense is not a factor most of the time & should be.
People that don't have kids don't think the same way as those with kids. I know my friends without kids have differing opinions than I do on particular issues.

[War Machine Dawg]

The NCAA is against discrimination. So, to show how averse they are to discrimination, they demonstrate this by discriminating. Love it. Just about anything can be construed as discrimination. That's why we have representation and vote on things. That's supposed to be the end of it.

#LeftistLogic

[Johnson85]

HB 1523 does not become effective until July 1, 2016 after regionals and/or super regionals would be taking place. Sankey did, however, say a few weeks back that it could affect hosting in the future.

The NCAA would have to rule out hosting in roughly half the states in the U.S. if they don't want to host in a state where it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals. I don't think they've thought that through.

[Johnson85]

I have read it, and it is blatantly unconstitutional. It is so unconstitutional, in fact, that you have to wonder why our leaders would have passed such a law when they know it will get overturned. It almost makes you wonder from what they are trying to divert our attention ...

^^^Hasn't read the law or doesn't know the definition of "blatantly"^^^

[Dolphus Raymond]

It is not a matter of "liberal logic" or conservative dogma. It is a matter of the Constitution of the United States. Primarily, the equal protection clause contained in the 14th Amendment. It is beyond pathetic that Mississippi again finds it necessary to thumb its nose at the Constitution.
Oh and by the way, f--k Ole Miss

[TimberBeast]

I just think when decisions like this are made common sense is not a factor most of the time & should be.
People that don't have kids don't think the same way as those with kids. I know my friends without kids have differing opinions than I do on particular issues.

I agree with this, and I would throw jobs in there as well.

[Frexzell]

^^^Hasn't read the law or doesn't know the definition of "blatantly"^^^

It will get overturned for violating, on its face, the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[ckDOG]

Our "leaders" passed a law to fix a non-existent problem. In the process, a very big problem has been created. The "to hell with the rest of the country let Mississippi be Mississippi" mantra is a classic "blast from the past" that once again makes us look foolish and short-sighted. "Forever 50th" would be a fitting state motto.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

This law makes no one more or less safe, takes up more government time and resources, and makes us look bad in the process. Where is the benefit that outweigh the costs?

[starkvegasdawg]

Our "leaders" passed a law to fix a non-existent problem. In the process, a very big problem has been created. The "to hell with the rest of the country let Mississippi be Mississippi" mantra is a classic "blast from the past" that once again makes us look foolish and short-sighted. "Forever 50th" would be a fitting state motto.

Not a non-existent problem. I have a friend here in MS that is being sued right now for supposed discrimination. Whether you like the law or not you can't say it isn't something that has never happened in MS. It already has.

[Jack Lambert]

Not a non-existent problem. I have a friend here in MS that is being sued right now for supposed discrimination. Whether you like the law or not you can't say it isn't something that has never happened in MS. It already has.

What people don't understand is the law protect everyone. This keeps a T-shirt printing shop owner who is gay from having to print T-Shirts that say Gay People are stupid. It keeps a Print shop owned by a black person from having to print letter head for the KKK.

[Johnson85]

It will get overturned for violating, on its face, the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Possibly, but it's not blatantly unconstitutional. There's a decent argument that it passes the lemon test because it takes the government out of the business of weighing in on views regarding marriage, premarital sex, and extramarital sex and therefore reduces government entanglement. For the same reason, it has a secular purpose, and it doesn't primarily advance or inhibit religion because the beliefs protected are held by a number of people across different religions and some without any religion at all. I wouldn't bet that it will come out that way (you'd basically have to look at Kennedy's establishment clause votes and his generally favorable view of religious liberty versus Romer and his dislike of law he views as driven by animus). If Kennedy puts the S.Ct. vote at 4-4, then you have to look to the 5th circuit, which is more work than I'd be willing to put into it. But regardless, it's not blatantly unconstitutional under existing case law.

[Johnson85]

Not a non-existent problem. I have a friend here in MS that is being sued right now for supposed discrimination. Whether you like the law or not you can't say it isn't something that has never happened in MS. It already has.

This law isn't going to help your friend. It's not going to come into play unless a city or county passes a local antidiscrimination ordinance. It's either a frivelous suit or not about discrimination against gay people (or maybe a federal suit under the 5th circuit's precednet regarding discriminating against somebody because they dont' match traditional gender stereotypes, which still wouldn't be affected by a state law).

[Johnson85]

What people don't understand is the law protect everyone. This keeps a T-shirt printing shop owner who is gay from having to print T-Shirts that say Gay People are stupid. It keeps a Print shop owned by a black person from having to print letter head for the KKK.

No, people are already free to do that under Mississippi law, just like they're already free to discriminate against gay people even without HB 1523 being in effect.

[Interpolation_Dawg_EX]

No, people are already free to do that under Mississippi law, just like they're already free to discriminate against gay people even without HB 1523 being in effect.

Without the possibility of being sued?

[Liverpooldawg]

Delete

[Duckdog]

50th in everything positive but top 3 in everything negative. I wish our horrible education system and the fact we actually underfund it got this much publicity.

Im so tired of hearing how horrible Ms education system is. Do you know where they get those numbers??? How many private schools are there in Ms? Guess what private schools aren't tested and aren't thrown into count. No one will ever point this out or say it because it falls along racial lines. Before you say that other states don't count private schools, thats right they don't. But the number of private schools in Ms to other states (per capita) is staggering .

[Duckdog]

GOD FORBID SOMEONES FEELINGS ARE HURT

[Frexzell]

Possibly, but it's not blatantly unconstitutional. There's a decent argument that it passes the lemon test because it takes the government out of the business of weighing in on views regarding marriage, premarital sex, and extramarital sex and therefore reduces government entanglement. For the same reason, it has a secular purpose, and it doesn't primarily advance or inhibit religion because the beliefs protected are held by a number of people across different religions and some without any religion at all. I wouldn't bet that it will come out that way (you'd basically have to look at Kennedy's establishment clause votes and his generally favorable view of religious liberty versus Romer and his dislike of law he views as driven by animus). If Kennedy puts the S.Ct. vote at 4-4, then you have to look to the 5th circuit, which is more work than I'd be willing to put into it. But regardless, it's not blatantly unconstitutional under existing case law.

I understand your argument, and I respectfully disagree based on the language in the statute constantly referring to "religious" freedom and "religious beliefs" (Section 3 in particular sticks out to me as the goverment favoring one specific religious belief over others). I also think it is unconstitutional based on the language regarding clerks' issuing marriage licenses (section 4(8)(a)) based on the Obergefell decision. Both seem pretty blatant to me. That said, if we are going to get into case law, I believe you would have to go beyond Kennedy's rulings (not sure I have ever seen where he favors religious liberty over the Establishment Clause -- but I will trust you on that) because of the current makeup of the Court -- the case law I have seen in the circuit courts (even those in the Fifth Circuit) interpreting like language show a trend towards not having the goverment intrude. Based on Judge Jordan's recent ruling on gay adoptions, I would hesitate not to put the Mississippi federal courts in that camp either.

[Johnson85]

Without the possibility of being sued?

There's always the possibility of being sued, but as far as a legitimate suit under existing law, they are free to discriminate against homosexuals. They are not a protected class, even under the well known federal laws dealing with religion, national origin, race, color, or sex.

The only exception, as I noted in an earlier post, is that there was I think a 5th circuit case where a plaintiff was harassed by his co-workers, who did things like call him slurs for homosexuals, and the court ruled something to the effect that he was being discriminated against not because he was gay, but because he didn't match traditional stereotypes of masculinity, and therefore it was because of his sex and prohibited by law, so not sure how discriminating against anybody for being gay doesn't fall under that, but again, that's federal law that wouldnt' be impacted by HB 1523 regardless.

[Johnson85]

I understand your argument, and I respectfully disagree based on the language in the statute constantly referring to "religious" freedom and "religious beliefs" (Section 3 in particular sticks out to me as the goverment favoring one specific religious belief over others). It deals with one specific groups of religious beliefs. The defense would be that it's facially neutral with respect to which position somebody takes and also recognizing that even though it is facially neutral, it's obvious what they are trying to protect, the reason they are trying to protect specific beliefs is because there is a growing trend of government actors attacking people for holding just those specific beliefs. And again, I think the strongest argument is that the law primarily takes the government out of disputes involving beliefs regarding marriage and sex. The mandated position of the government is neutrality, and specifically with respect to wedding services provided by private persons and with employment decisions in general regarding religious organizations.



I also think it is unconstitutional based on the language regarding clerks' issuing marriage licenses (section 4(8)(a)) based on the Obergefell decision. I think that's the most [Edited to correct] likely unconstitutional provision. I think there is a solid argument that who in the clerk's office issues a marriage license doesn't raise an equal protection issue, all that matters is that they receive a valid license, which is the real gov't benefit (not which individual issues it). That's probably the more solid legal argument, but I think Kennedy would be very likely to get the feelz over the idea of gay people having a different person issue their license, even if there was no functional difference.



Both seem pretty blatant to me. I wouldn't bet on either of them being upheld as constitutional, but I don't think either qualify as blatant.


That said, if we are going to get into case law, I believe you would have to go beyond Kennedy's rulings (not sure I have ever seen where he favors religious liberty over the Establishment Clause -- but I will trust you on that) I wasn't making a representation that he does, I was saying you'd have to look to see. He is pretty good on religious liberty. Not sure where he has fallen on the major establishment clause cases.


because of the current makeup of the Court -- the case law I have seen in the circuit courts (even those in the Fifth Circuit) interpreting like language show a trend towards not having the government intrude. Based on Judge Jordan's recent ruling on gay adoptions, I would hesitate not to put the Mississippi federal courts in that camp either. Again, not making a prediction, just pointing out it matters. Without looking, the 5th circuit would be my first choice of where to be defending the law knowing that 4-4 was the best case scenario at the S.Ct.

[ckDOG]

Im so tired of hearing how horrible Ms education system is. Do you know where they get those numbers??? How many private schools are there in Ms? Guess what private schools aren't tested and aren't thrown into count. No one will ever point this out or say it because it falls along racial lines. Before you say that other states don't count private schools, thats right they don't. But the number of private schools in Ms to other states (per capita) is staggering .

You want to include privately funded schools in metrics that are intended to compare the quality of state funded education?

Yep. 50th sounds about right.

[Frexzell]

I think our points have been made, but to me, again, while respecting your well reasoned arguments, it is unconstitutional on its face and will get overturned.

[Virgil Caine]

Here's a decent memo about the legal issues: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/memo_regarding_ms_hb1523.pdf

[Bothrops]

Just think, at the rate we're going, the human race will become bred out of existence eventually.

[Johnson85]

Here's a decent memo about the legal issues: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/files/memo_regarding_ms_hb1523.pdf

It's really not, considering that law professors wrote it, or at least signed off on it. Obviously they were trying to argue their position and not address it even handedly, which is fine, but they didn't even do a good job of making their arguments about why it's unconstitutional.

[archdog]

You mean, people that associate as men shouldn't piss in the women's room at SEC events. Then you are correct with the law and without it.

[MadDawg]

people that associate as men

Unbelievable. What a completely 17ed up world we live in.

[Virgil Caine]

It's really not, considering that law professors wrote it, or at least signed off on it. Obviously they were trying to argue their position and not address it even handedly, which is fine, but they didn't even do a good job of making their arguments about why it's unconstitutional.
Yeah, I think it is obvious that they went into the analysis with the idea that the law was normatively wrong, so we have to find a way for it to be unconstitutional. They conveniently screwed up cites in the funding section of the memo that would've shown that it was district courts, not SCOTUS, that they were referring to.

I think they identified the areas where there could be as applied Establishment Clause challenges to the law as well as the possibly facially unconstitutional 3(8) section.

Ultimately when it comes to the undeveloped third-party harm doctrine of the particularly squishy con law stuff, the Justices are going to do what they think is normatively right. When it comes to LGBT rights, 5 of the remaining Justices have already established they want to be on the right side of this historically -- obviously we can disagree about whether there will be a historically right side but the 5 Obergefell majority justices plus + CJ Roberts have been very conscious about their place in history in this fight.

[Frexzell]

Yeah, I think it is obvious that they went into the analysis with the idea that the law was normatively wrong, so we have to find a way for it to be unconstitutional. They conveniently screwed up cites in the funding section of the memo that would've shown that it was district courts, not SCOTUS, that they were referring to.

I think they identified the areas where there could be as applied Establishment Clause challenges to the law as well as the possibly facially unconstitutional 3(8) section.

Ultimately when it comes to the undeveloped third-party harm doctrine of the particularly squishy con law stuff, the Justices are going to do what they think is normatively right. When it comes to LGBT rights, 5 of the remaining Justices have already established they want to be on the right side of this historically -- obviously we can disagree about whether there will be a historically right side but the 5 Obergefell majority justices plus + CJ Roberts have been very conscious about their place in history in this fight.

Wasn't Roberts part of the majority? I'm pretty sure, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Virgil Caine]

Wasn't Roberts part of the majority? I'm pretty sure, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
No. He had a dissent saying that the Constitution doesn't provide a right to same-sex marriage, but he strongly suggested that the outcome was the right outcome. He just thought that it should've been passed through the legislatures.

[Frexzell]

No. He had a dissent saying that the Constitution doesn't provide a right to same-sex marriage, but he strongly suggested that the outcome was the right outcome. He just thought that it should've been passed through the legislatures.

Gotcha.

[dawgoneyall]

It will get overturned for violating, on its face, the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

But where in the constitution does it give the right for perverts the right to watch women pee?

[Frexzell]

But where in the constitution does it give the right for perverts the right to watch women pee?

We are not discussing the North Carolina law, but I understand your point.