Georgia 'anti-gay bill' could prevent Atlanta from hosting a Super Bowl

By John Breech
CBSSports.com
March 19, 2016 2:01 pm ET


The Falcons new stadium might not get to host the NFL's biggest game. (Falcons.com)


A controversial bill in Georgia is one signature away from becoming law and if that happens, there's a good chance the NFL won't allow Atlanta to host any future Super Bowls while the law is in effect.

House Bill 757 was passed by the Georgia Senate on Wednesday and now just needs a signature from Gov. Nathan Deal to become a law.

If Deal signs the bill, the law would allow pastors in the state to not perform same-sex weddings if that makes them uncomfortable. It would also give faith-based organizations in Georgia the option of refusing services to anyone they find "objectionable."

Faith-based organizations could also make the decision to not hire people -- or not retain current employees -- if that person's "religious beliefs or practices ... are not in accord with the faith-based organization's sincerely held religious belief."

The bill is being called an anti-gay law because it would essentially make it legal to for faith-based organization to discriminate against gay people or any other "objectionable group."

The executive director of the Georgia Equality group, Jeff Graham, says that Deal needs to veto the bill that most people in Georgia aren't supporting.

"Conservatives, legal experts, people of faith, businesses and more than 75,000 Georgians expressed their strong opposition to legislation which threatens our state's economy and reputation, and which very clearly singles out LGBT people and others for harm," Graham said, via the Human Rights Campaign. "It's shameful that lawmakers in the House ignored this feedback and, rather than taking steps to mitigate any potential fallout, actually made a bad bill worse."

In a statement to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the NFL said that if the bill passes, Atlanta could lose out on the opportunity to host any future Super Bowls. The city hasn't hosted the NFL's biggest game since 2000.

"NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard," the NFL's statement said. "Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites."

Arizona lost out on hosting a Super Bowl after the 1992 season because the state didn't honor the Martin Luther King Jr. Day.


Arthur Blank spoke out against House Bill 757. (USATSI)

Falcons owner Arthur Blank doesn't want to see something similar happen to his city, especially since he's set to open a $1.4 billion stadium in 2017.

"One of my bedrock values is 'Include Everyone' and it's a principle we embrace and strive to live each and every day with my family and our associates, a vast majority of which live and work in Georgia," Blank said in a statement. "I strongly believe a diverse, inclusive and welcoming Georgia is critical to our citizens and the millions of visitors coming to enjoy all that our great state has to offer. House Bill 757 undermines these principles and would have long-lasting negative impact on our state and the people of Georgia."

If Deal doesn't sign the law, then there's a good chance Atlanta will land a Super Bowl in either 2019 or 2020. The game is set for Houston in February 2017 and Minnesota in February 2018.

Folks are getting sick and tired of the f ags shoving it in their faces, their shoving back.

If straight men would boycott the NFL things like this would change almost over night.
Sadly the brainwashed and retarded have not the gumption to do that

[bleep] Arthur Blank and the NFL. If you are paying for cable every month you are financing those goddam thugs and subsidizing this sort of PC BS.

Whoa! Give up football surely you jest!

That'd be way to much to ask. I msure many would give up their firearms before they'd even consider giving up football.

F@#$ the politically correct NFL.

Wouldn't last two months, probably not two weeks, they would cave to popular demand.
Libitard PC press is what drives this crap in the first place.

NFL's bottom line is money, take away the money, and they will do what's necessary to get it back in a NY minute.

Suppose the city banned black players from a super-bowl?

That's an absolute red herring and has nothing to do with the situation.

The law allows for the freedom of religion FROM governmental interference. It doesn't say "thou shall not", or "thou shall"; it says only that the religious leaders and communities can choose for themselves what they do within the practice of their religion and said ceremonies.

Well, teams' legal fees would decrease....

From the League of the South website:

The NFL and Southerners
Michael Hill Feb 2016

It is inconceivable that the front office of the National Football League (NFL) does not approve of and condone the content of the much-heralded Super Bowl halftime show. That being said, what are we to make of the recent Super Bowl 50 halftime extravaganza, particularly the segment featuring Beyonce’ and the Black Panther theme?

The epidemic of black-on-white violent crime in the street of America, coupled with the dark-skinned “rapefugee” invasion of Europe, needs to be stopped, not encouraged. And glorifying the Black Panthers encourages further violence against whites while celebrating past black radicalism and lawlessness. Can you imagine the reverse: a Super Bowl halftime show with the Ku Klux Klan? No, neither can I. There is a terrible pro-leftist double standard at work here.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and his minions knew exactly what they were doing–playing to the thuggishness that has become black-dominated professional sports these days. I suppose the “It’s cool to be a thug” thing sells in 2016. Otherwise, what else could be the point of it all? If it’s not some mercenary reason such as selling vulgar black street and rap culture for profit, then it must be something much more dark and sinister: the promotion of outright violence against whites, which is, after all, what the Black Panthers stand for.

The NFL has shown its true colors, as it were. We in The League of the South encourage all Southerners to boycott everything about the NFL, from the games to the merchandise. It has become a promoter of everything a Christian Southerner should rightly abhor. And the NFL seems to relish rubbing our collective noses in it.

Michael Hill


and this

http://leagueofthesouth.com/super/

A one week TV boycott would send the NFL into super panic mode. I'd even go so far as saying a threatened boycott would have them backing off. The money made off ticket and concession sales, let alone TV adds during games is enough to cause anybody to rethink their position, on nearly any issue.
7mm

I can understand this legislation and the ramifications it would have it was soccer or basketball but the NFL? GMAFB

just a lot of bluster by the NFL and others...

they do business with 30 other states who have these laws.

it's always about the $$....always

Odds are The Atlanta Crackers who played in Ponce de Leon Park are rolling over in their graves...

Faith-based organizations could also make the decision to not hire people -- or not retain current employees -- if that person's "religious beliefs or practices ... are not in accord with the faith-based organization's sincerely held religious belief."
------------------------------------------

That's scary. If this law was in Texas instead of Georgia it would mean that the Texas employees of the Saudi owned refinery had to bring their prayer mat and put their wives in burkas if they expect to make next months mortgage and college tuition payments. If they fired everyone they'd have to fill that void with Islamic militants or at least the true followers of sharia law.

A law like that, should it be found Constitutional, which it won't, cuts both ways and I'm not in favor or getting cut anymore. It's more laws that make us less free and a big reason I'm not following radical religious zealots of any stripe in my quest for freedom. If gays are that much trouble to you personally you're either a closet [bleep] or a religious fanatic that wants to dominate and dictate YOUR beliefs on others.

That's it in a nutshell.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights need not apply to folks who don't believe in either to begin with and was never designed to, which is bad for the globalists and morally bankrupt; even the followers of Allah.

Its a bit past midnight for your "quest for freedom" and the forest for the trees....

Maybe the all inclusive NFL should next pimp the poor victimized felons, the KKK or the closet pedophiles or dog [bleep] amongst us.

Give me an "Amen" for Jesus being a bad example...

Both of you fuggers must be drunk. Are both of you ignorant enough to think a refinery passes legal muster as a "faith-based organization"?

I'm sure Lester Maddox would be tickled. He'd give Arthur Blank a wood shampoo with a pick handle.

I wish I were...

Can't get over how many wish the Bill of Rights were something granted by a court order or declared by a Muslim convenience store clerk from Kenya as the foundation of freedom and that such applies to all sundry on a global scale.

The NFL won't even build a stadium without blackmailing a city, even when they could pay for the damn things.

Commie 101...

Ragheads turn down oil production all the time, religious reasons or otherwise. Aces needs to get with the program; instead he's more skeered of the religious zealots than those who are supposedly just zealots....

I'm not following your logic at all.

As for the NFL, they can get away with it because voters are stupid enough to buy the "studies" that state that taxpayer-financed stadiums are "good for the local economy".

You are one of few that knows that they were pick handles and not axe handles..

No self-respecting redneck puts an axe-handle in his easy rider rifle rack.

Lester lived right around the corner from us until he passed a few years ago, used to see him at Publix quite often and he never missed a Confederate memorial day parade. He was a good man.

If it's Saudi owned it'll qualify as a faith based organization

Word.

BS, maybe in Saudi, not even with our screwed up legal system would that happen for a second.

No, it won't.

When it gets right down to it, every company is based in some faith or allegiance set in a basis of order, in some cases disorder. Some have rules, some have few.

There aren't any monopolies either....

Our presidents bow to and kiss the Saudi royalty.

They should just blow the [bleep] up for being pagan goat [bleep], but there I go being a religious zealot.....

I am not certain I am following your logic or reasoning precisely.

Me and Goldwater and Ron Paul and Rand Paul and a whole lot of other folks do not believe in certain aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. That is where all of this sort of bicker goes back to.

If blacks pay taxes and are legal citizens of a state they ought to enjoy equally all the services and opportunities of that state... yes and amen. Including voting, serving in the military and public schools. Blacks whites asians and anyone else who pays the taxes ought to be on equal footing etc.

If a man purchases land, constructs a small diner and opens up to serve breakfast and lunch, then as owner of the property and the business he has a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason because he owns it. The 1964 civil rights bill trod underfoot property rights with high handed hubris and so it is to this day.

In your example... if ragheads buy the refinerery and mandate dancing on one leg then so be it. Either don't work for them or dance on one leg. They own it. It is called property rights and free association and so forth and so on.

If I understand your line of reasoning you are advocating for the entire 1964 civil rights bill and all the tyranny interwoven into certain sections of it.

Please explain if I don't understand your position.

Disney To Boycott Georgia If Gov. Signs Anti-Gay Legislation

No, it wouldn't.

Sometimes a boycott by some small sector can actually attract those supporting the original question.

Hellsfire and Damnation....by the time I get through puttin folks on Ignore....I'm gonna be the only sumbeech here!!

How do you organize such a boycott?

If you had any clue how Aramco operates you would understand how silly your rant is. On their facilities in KSA their western employees (men and women) dress as they please and gasp women drive on the streets.

They are interested in profits, so they hire the best and brightest.