Might the NCAA eventually kick out religious schools (LGBT-related)

[Fido]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... /83299356/

Some appear to be calling for schools to be more "inclusive" or face expulsion from the NCAA athletics programs. A few mentions of BYU happen--and it appears the the crux with BYU is that the Honor Code forbids any homosexual activity--yet allows heterosexual relations under marriage. Its not at a breaking point yet, but who knows what the future will hold.

[hawkwing]

Yes. The answer is yes.

[Commoner]

It would require a simple majority of the 1,281 members of the NCAA.

As a private entity, even though the majority of members are public institutions, the NCAA can do what it wants.

Here another article on the subject, ftom an organization that monitors how the media treat religion:

http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/ ... ncaa-brand

[frdbtr]

The entire gay lobby is an attack on religious freedom. So, the answer to your question is Yes.

[BOID]

I read the article. I disagree strongly with the author's premise that, since the NCAA is a private entity, then it can do what it pleases, irrespective of the 1st Amendment and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

First of all, no alternate sexual orientation people are disenfranchised by a private institution's rules, because they are free to choose from a plurality of state sponsored schools. Meanwhile, there is only one NCAA and therefore, exclusion from it would be a major disenfranchisement. It would essentially be a persecution exerted against a major program to not be able to participate with and compete with their peers.

Second, the gay rights lobby cannot have it both ways. They cannot accept a ruling that a privately owned bakery may not refuse to cater to a gay wedding upon request, and then turn around and say that a privately run NCAA may refuse to allow the participation of a university sports program based on its religious beliefs or expressions there of. This is unbelievable hipocrasy, and for this I say, shame on the article's author, as well as on USA Today for this disappointing display of bigotry. They love and embrace the gays, but to hell with religious institutions and other private entities that only wish to continue practicing their beliefs.

[BOID]

I should clarify: I thought the author of the "Get Religion" piece was OK; he is merely exposing the inconsistencies and contradictions in the USA Today article. It is the USA Today authors/editors that I criticize as above.

[imuakahuku]

I see the gay attack on BYU coming in the form of two gay activists lying thier way into becoming BYU students then running down to LasVegas and getting married and the demanding that the school accept them and force the HCO to expel them so they can further attack the school and church. They will claim that sex in marriage is acceptable at BYU and they are married so they must accept it.

[BoiseBYU]

It is not a question of whether, but when.

[EM_Puma]

It is not a question of whether, but when.

That is my perception of the situation. Things really are spiraling out of control of what used to be morals and now is deemed to be restrictive of other's rights. I see this continuing because those that back this are beginning to exceed those that oppose.

[EM_Puma]

I was kind of hoping this topic would come up on this forum. It's difficult to post my question on CougarBoard because of all of the inconsiderate members of that forum that have to denigrate just about anything said because they are buffoons and do it for sport and for some reason I've never come to understand. Forget discussing anything on FaceBook as the attacks are amped up even greater.

Here is my serious question for those that believe that gay relationships and marriage is okay because they were born with these attractions and therefore they should be allowed. I understand that logic if logic is what ruled our existence. I don't believe it does and that's the linchpin of the argument and why the chasm may just be too wide between the two positions.

Where I can't follow their argument is that a pedophile could have the same premise. I don't believe those with that challenge of attraction to children on a sexual basis could not argue the same that they "feel" that inclination naturally and didn't simply decide to have that attraction. Is my understanding correct that those supporting the LGBT view draw the line with the fact that they promote rights only that do not cause harm to others and isn't part of mutual consent? Clearly then, a child is in no position to ever be able to grant consent with an adult about what the adult wants them to do sexually, and therefore the LGBT would conclude that such an orientation isn't right or should be supported.

Logically I can't make that same connection if the belief that drives LGBT rights rests entirely on the premise of that's the way they were born. Am I understanding their position correctly?