This is going to be difficult: the NFL in your restroom

[SkinBasket]

This will be difficult, but I think you savages can handle it, because it is an interesting topic. The NFL has threatened Texas, insomuch that if they pass a law that allows businesses to decide their own restroom policies, they will punish the state by refusing to host future events there. I'm assuming they mean the Superbowl, since no one cares about anything else.

So - this is not a discussion of how you feel about the recent rise in restroom sociopolitical theory.

This is a discussion of whether the NFL has any business inserting itself into any state's political process, no matter what issue might be in the process of legislation in said state. Furthermore, what possible benefit does the NFL expect to derive from taking such a position - or again ANY position on ANY social or political topic?

I would think that the NFL would have learned an important lesson from the treasure troll kneeling fool this season, and the resulting "protests" that became the new cinnamon challenge across the league, which has been cited by many as a major factor in reduced viewership of the NFL this season.

Here's one report on the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas...iminatory-laws

For a bit of background for those of you who have trouble reading things that inform your opinions: The bill would "ban cities from requiring private businesses to allow transgender Texans to use the bathroom of their choice. It would also prohibit trans Texans from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity in public schools and government buildings." In other words, the relevant portion to this discussion states that private businesses can decide their own "restroom policies."

The NFL is claiming this would violate their pledge to inclusiveness, or something. "We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a prepared statement, which was first reported by the Houston Chronicle. "If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events."

So, either the NFL knows that the owners of the Texas franchises would set policies that would disallow transgenders or other mentally disabled people from using the facilities of their choice, or they are trying to make a political statement. Either way, it would seem the proper course would be to have this discussion with the actual owners of those franchises, not to insert your brand into the political process of an entire state. This season illustrated that mixing football and sociopolitical issues is bad business.

[Guiness]

This will be difficult, but I think you savages can handle it, because it is an interesting topic. The NFL has threatened Texas, insomuch that if they pass a law that allows businesses to decide their own restroom policies, they will punish the state by refusing to host future events there. I'm assuming they mean the Superbowl, since no one cares about anything else.

So - this is not a discussion of how you feel about the recent rise in restroom sociopolitical theory.

This is a discussion of whether the NFL has any business inserting itself into any state's political process, no matter what issue might be in the process of legislation in said state. Furthermore, what possible benefit does the NFL expect to derive from taking such a position - or again ANY position on ANY social or political topic?

I would think that the NFL would have learned an important lesson from the treasure troll kneeling fool this season, and the resulting "protests" that became the new cinnamon challenge across the league, which has been cited by many as a major factor in reduced viewership of the NFL this season.

Here's one report on the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas...iminatory-laws

For a bit of background for those of you who have trouble reading things that inform your opinions: The bill would "ban cities from requiring private businesses to allow transgender Texans to use the bathroom of their choice. It would also prohibit trans Texans from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity in public schools and government buildings." In other words, the relevant portion to this discussion states that private businesses can decide their own "restroom policies."

The NFL is claiming this would violate their pledge to inclusiveness, or something. "We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a prepared statement, which was first reported by the Houston Chronicle. "If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events."

So, either the NFL knows that the owners of the Texas franchises would set policies that would disallow transgenders or other mentally disabled people from using the facilities of their choice, or they are trying to make a political statement. Either way, it would seem the proper course would be to have this discussion with the actual owners of those franchises, not to insert your brand into the political process of an entire state. This season illustrated that mixing football and sociopolitical issues is bad business.

So I plowed through your post to uncover the highlighted gem...transgenders and other mentally disabled? Want to clarify that statement?

[pbmax]

This is a discussion of whether the NFL has any business inserting itself into any state's political process, no matter what issue might be in the process of legislation in said state. Furthermore, what possible benefit does the NFL expect to derive from taking such a position - or again ANY position on ANY social or political topic?

You mean like workers compensation policy? http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html

You mean like stadium funding? http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozan.../#a8ead405533b

The answer is money. Money and who controls it, taxes it, collects it, and the people willing to pony it up.

If Texas passes that law, there will be fewer sponsors for the NFL and TV to get to bid on the event. That threatens to reduce the NFL's take on the event. That is bad for a business that wants to increase its bottom line. The press release and political giving will be cheap in comparison.

BTW, that is a lovely edit of the bill's effect, naming it the "Let Businesses Decide" their policy. When the same proposal makes a firm decision for public facilities.

[gbgary]

the nfl will buckle if it passes imo. jerrah will see to it.

[SkinBasket]

So I plowed through your post to uncover the highlighted gem...transgenders and other mentally disabled? Want to clarify that statement?

The transgender "condition," or gender dysphoria, is classified as a mental disorder. You're seeing an attempt to move away from that in recent years, but not as a result of any kind of science or study, but solely due to social and political pressures. Medical professionals are concerned by this move, fearing we are indulging a disorder based on assumption, not reality, which in any other disorder, would be considered not only reckless, but in most cases highly dangerous.

There is also evidence that people experiencing gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk to also suffer from other mental illnesses, suggesting gender dysphoria is the result of the same causes of eating disorders and suicidal tendencies, which is generally considered to be a combination of biological, psychological,and/or environmental abnormalities.

[SkinBasket]

If Texas passes that law, there will be fewer sponsors for the NFL and TV to get to bid on the event.

There is no evidence of this, and I'm not sure I can even devise a correlation between letting private businesses rather than government set their restroom policy and a reduction in available sponsors for a nationally televised NFL event, but if you believe one exists, I'm listening.

That threatens to reduce the NFL's take on the event. That is bad for a business that wants to increase its bottom line.

Which assumes your first position is true. Whereas we have a direct correlation between the NFL getting involved in a contemporary sociopolitical issue and steep decline in viewership, which is a much greater harm to potential sponsorship and therefore decreased revenue. So if we accept your answer of "money," I would argue that your reasoning runs entirely counter to that answer.

BTW, that is a lovely edit of the bill's effect, naming it the "Let Businesses Decide" their policy. When the same proposal makes a firm decision for public facilities.

Not really an edit. Government is not a private business. Just as private business is not a function of government. A distinction that seems to be lost on some.

[pbmax]

There is no evidence of this, and I'm not sure I can even devise a correlation between letting private businesses rather than government set their restroom policy and a reduction in available sponsors for a nationally televised NFL event, but if you believe one exists, I'm listening.

North Carolina's experience: http://www.businessinsider.com/north...-impact-2016-9

Wired ran the numbers: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/guess-...orth-carolina/

[pbmax]

Not really an edit. Government is not a private business. Just as private business is not a function of government. A distinction that seems to be lost on some.

It is precisely an edit. You have reduced the effect of the law to one particular, when it has multiple effects.

[Guiness]

The transgender "condition," or gender dysphoria, is classified as a mental disorder. You're seeing an attempt to move away from that in recent years, but not as a result of any kind of science or study, but solely due to social and political pressures. Medical professionals are concerned by this move, fearing we are indulging a disorder based on assumption, not reality, which in any other disorder, would be considered not only reckless, but in most cases highly dangerous.

There is also evidence that people experiencing gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk to also suffer from other mental illnesses, suggesting gender dysphoria is the result of the same causes of eating disorders and suicidal tendencies, which is generally considered to be a combination of biological, psychological,and/or environmental abnormalities.

To my knowledge, the diagnosis of this condition is purely psychiatric, and well, that branch of the medical profession has had its share of mis-steps.

A statement like the one in the OP reminds me an awful lot of a statement made to me by the parent of a kid I was coaching about why they were removing their child from a school. They were concerned the (openly gay male) teacher was a pedophile. Why? Well, because they obviously had one mental defect, so good chance they had another.

down the rabbit hole we go...

[bobblehead]

If Texas passes that law, there will be fewer sponsors for the NFL and TV to get to bid on the event. That threatens to reduce the NFL's take on the event. That is bad for a business that wants to increase its bottom line. The press release and political giving will be cheap in comparison.
.

Wouldn't it make more sense to not actually give a presser, and take care of it behind closed doors? If texas passes a law that you believe will reduce revenue of any super bowl venue held there wouldn't it make sense to simply ignore it, don't stick your neck out and don't schedule any superbowls there until you deem it the right business move?

[bobblehead]

North Carolina's experience: http://www.businessinsider.com/north...-impact-2016-9

Wired ran the numbers: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/guess-...orth-carolina/

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/29/pat-mccrory/mccrory-north-carolina-has-had-countrys-fastest-gr/

North carolina is a horrible example. Governor McCrory is a rockstar when it comes to growth. The very few "protests" that pulled their show or basketball game from NC pales in comparison to the BOOM that has occurred under his watch.

NOW....NC ran a very crooked election with a ton of voter fraud and put Roy Cooper in charge. The man is way over his head and I fully expect the state to begin faltering very rapidly. This will no doubt be blamed on not letting grown men pee with little girls, but the actual reason will be economic policy.

Final note...anyone who expects this topic NOT to devolve into politics is a damn fool.

[pbmax]

Wouldn't it make more sense to not actually give a presser, and take care of it behind closed doors? If texas passes a law that you believe will reduce revenue of any super bowl venue held there wouldn't it make sense to simply ignore it, don't stick your neck out and don't schedule any superbowls there until you deem it the right business move?

Competition among Super Bowl cities helps drive revenue. The sites are put up one against the other to add amenities: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ium-commences/

So to eliminate a potential site is putting aside leverage.

As for private negotiations, I have doubts that the NFL has a preferred course of action on legislation. They might favor protections like Houston voted on (and defeated I think), but I suspect not. They would prefer status quo and generic statements of support.

[bobblehead]

To my knowledge, the diagnosis of this condition is purely psychiatric, and well, that branch of the medical profession has had its share of mis-steps.

A statement like the one in the OP reminds me an awful lot of a statement made to me by the parent of a kid I was coaching about why they were removing their child from a school. They were concerned the (openly gay male) teacher was a pedophile. Why? Well, because they obviously had one mental defect, so good chance they had another.

down the rabbit hole we go...

I really hate to paint with a broad brush. Some might not believe that I actually hate to type what I'm about to because its very unfair to all the homosexuals it DOESN'T apply to but....Statistics show that the 3% of the population that is homosexual commits approximately 1/3 of the cases of pedophilia. So, those parents actually have a valid concern.

[pbmax]

http://www.politifact.com/north-caro...ys-fastest-gr/

North carolina is a horrible example. Governor McCrory is a rockstar when it comes to growth. The very few "protests" that pulled their show or basketball game from NC pales in comparison to the BOOM that has occurred under his watch.

I am glad we agree that the legislation caused people to pull out of NC and cost the state some money (Pay Pal for one). As for your contention that the state's GDP still grew, I am not sure how that affects the NFL's sponsors.

[bobblehead]

So to eliminate a potential site is putting aside leverage.

Yes, but to make a broad stand on allowing grown men to pee beside little girls hurts them much more IMO.