agenda but doesn't want to touch BLM with a 10 foot pole?

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

BLM is hardly mainstream. Their leaders were on Twitter with tin foil hats on re the cop shooters. Not to mention the 'chickens comin home to roost' nature of some of that shit.

---
"People that need positivity around them all the time are weak individuals in my book" - @lilduval

Both are historically oppressed groups seeking treatment that is fair and humane by society (Transgender folks) or law enforcement (BLM).

The law limiting the rights of trans people is an easier sell to the fans of the NBA. Especially so, given how recently gay marriage and other aspects of gay life have started to be normalized.

BLM, like RaFromQueens hinted at, is a tougher sell, given how defensive police forces are to criticism and the dependence the NBA and its franchises are to the police to maintain security during games, not to mention the discomfort race and class bring about, even within the NBA.

The situation with the All-Star game is closer to the sale of the Clippers. There was a clear moral side to fall on. Taking away religion, there's no real moral stance that can be taken on the other side from the trans people of NC.

But BLM touches on aspects of race and class in a way that describe the entrenched bias against Black men and women, young and old, that has seeped into society, both on a personal and institutional level. As progressive as the NBA is, relative to society and the three other major sports leagues, it still hasn't developed a means to ensure balance and harmony throughout the sport. Couple in the likelihood that sponsors and fans would get turned off if the NBA advocated for BLM, and the constant criticism and critiques the NBA'S stance would face and it isn't hard to see that aligning itself with BLM wouldn't be good for business. Silver would have to be faced with a player's strike in order to stand alongside BLM, and maybe not even at that point.

<--- Me when my head hits the pillow

Since the snide, cynically vapid question in the OP likely sums up the entirety of your critical thought on the matter, we'll never find out the answer.

ironically, after a game in Charlotte:

http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/July-2016/This-Isnt-the-First-Time-the-NBAs-Put-Charlotte-on-Notice/

"Lakers forward Elgin Baylor and Celtics center Bill Russell complained to their coaches and to the league. The whole affair prompted Celtics center Russell to say 'No more Dixie,' according to one headline. 'I don’t care if we ever go back,' Celtics owner Walter Brown said at the time. 'I know one thing—I’ll never do anything to embarrass my players.'


Later, the league owners adopted a policy to require nondiscrimination protections from host cities before signing contracts to play games there. (Hat tip here to Lou Moore, a history professor at Grand Valley State University for digging up the archived newspaper stories.)"

I don't think the NBA is particularly progressive. They're a soulless corporation, who's primary function is to attract as many fans as possible by playing basketball games.

I do think they're being a little stronger on gay rights right now but I don't think they're actually sticking their necks out that much. The gay rights movement is old and established and with the recent wins, the movement is nearly mainstream. You're not going to offend quite as many people supporting gay rights now as you would 20 years ago so there really isn't much risk.

The NBA also has a vested interest because of the strong representation of gays in both the fan base and the collection of players in the WNBA. The NBA earns points with their WNBA players and with a large portion of the niche WNBA fan base by being progressive an gay rights.

You'd think the NBA has the same vested interest in black people and their civil rights but the main issue is that the fan base and the players aren't as aligned as the the WNBA. You've got a mostly white fan base watching mostly black players and, often, they're at odds in how they perceive things. The best example of this misalignment would be the NBA dress code, which was created to address the misperception of the players by significant portions of the fan base because the players were dressed casually.

BLM is very young and, even though it addresses an age-old issue, it is still very controversial to many people. The NBA won't endorse BLM because it could alienate a significant portion of the fan base even if it would earn them points with the players.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

... ON LIVE TELEVISION IN A PLAYOFF GAME over Donald Sterling. Let that sink in....

While that's sinking in, stop and realize that this is specific legislation around the same time as an NBA event is held. If specific legislation popped up in one state where the NBA does business the league would have to do something.

they can talk that good talk all they want to but they wouldn't dare boycott the playoffs. Maybe a regular season game.

<--- Big Baller World Order

I've never actually seen those outlined.

>I've never actually seen those outlined.

So far I've only been able to figure:

1. Gay people would like get married.
2. Gay people would like to not be beaten to death.

Is there more that I'm missing?

Are you aware you can get fired from your job for being gay

States have passed legislation to prevent non-discrimination laws

You're in a post about HB2, do you know what that legislation says and allows for?

SMH, ya'll willfully ignorant types kill me in 2016

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

Not sure you grasped the meaning of my reply, but keep on with the passion.

>Are you aware you can get fired from your job for being gay
>
>States have passed legislation to prevent non-discrimination
>laws
>
>You're in a post about HB2, do you know what that legislation
>says and allows for?
>
>SMH, ya'll willfully ignorant types kill me in 2016

1. Equality
2. Designation as a protected class
3. Touch ThaTruth in his butthole

intolerance fucks up your $ in 2016


cry

So it's actually a W for BLM

http://prospect.org/article/north-carolina-backlash-against-anti-lgbt-bill-continues

Also to my knowledge, some of the leaders of BLM are gay

This idea that we can't do more than 1 thing at a time is very insulting

I get the sentiment, the NBA used their financial influence to effect change against a social injustice

But I think BLM deserves to be credited for their efforts in the HB2 actions as well...

$.02

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

...who wore Black shirts instead of team shit by hitting them with fines. Even then they fell back when NBA heads like Carmelo pointed out the hypocrisy since him & few other NBA players showed their support for BLM yet nada from league heads.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

-->

..they've made some serious mistakes over the years, as well as some solid moves toward improvement overall. right now, they appear to be making a few more mistakes that are in contradiction to actions taken within their own organizations over the past few years.

its no secret that you've shown some controversial perspective/views on lgtb community issues, but most people on oksports show a considerable amount of respect (even in disagreement) towards you and your opinion regarding sports.

the nba/wnba (and every other professional sports organization) has bylaws and rules of conduct for every player, coach, team, org, & staff. as such, the people that fall under that umbrella are held to standards higher than what may appear to be average. each of those people willingly signed contracts that confirm this.

while i disagree with the wnba's decision to fine players/teams for wearing tshirts in support of blm, i understand that they are well within their right to do so. i understand the current uniform guidelines/rules, but there's room for exceptions to be made without jeopardizing the integrity of the league. as such, i hope that those players/teams (and their representation) appeal that decision (along with the fines) and push for compromise that allows them to continue to do their jobs while showing support for the causes they deem worthy.

like a few people have already pointed out in this thread, your assessment/assumption here is inaccurate. most professional orgs have been cautious when approaching issues involving blm, and with good reason. while i believe that blm may have started with good intentions, i don't agree with every move they've made. i believe that the org is fairly young, but has potential for the growth & maturity needed to establish a better means of communication and resolution to all matters effecting our community.







*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/17131967/wnba-withdraws-fines-regarding-anti-violence-shirts

they obviously realized it was a bad look. It was really sexist too because there was never any fines discussed when NBA players wore "I can't breathe" shirts because it was the stars of the league involved. Then you had the guys that spoke out at the ESPY's. Obviously the WNBA players don't wield the same kind of power and influence that their male counterparts do but for their league to exploit that was really bad. Adam Silver is a pretty smart guy and I'm sure he had a hand in rectifying the situation.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

>they obviously realized it was a bad look.

i agree. i'd actually like to see the league take it a step further and donate 25k (roughly rounding up from the amount they intended to fine those players/teams) towards helping those players find a suitable compromise that allows them to voice their opinions on matters effecting our communities, while still doing their jobs.

>It was really
>sexist too because there was never any fines discussed when
>NBA players wore "I can't breathe" shirts because it was the
>stars of the league involved. Then you had the guys that spoke
>out at the ESPY's.

its obvious that the nba and wnba execs didn't agree regarding their initial approach to handling situations like this, but i think its a stretch to cite the "players united" intro to the 2016 espys as an example. the espys are not subject to the nba guidelines/bylaws regarding apparel and/or opinions. i do, however, recognize the hypocrisy shown overall.




*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

>
>>they obviously realized it was a bad look.
>
>i agree. i'd actually like to see the league take it a step
>further and donate 25k (roughly rounding up from the amount
>they intended to fine those players/teams) towards helping
>those players find a suitable compromise that allows them to
>voice their opinions on matters effecting our communities,
>while still doing their jobs.
>
>>It was really
>>sexist too because there was never any fines discussed when
>>NBA players wore "I can't breathe" shirts because it was the
>>stars of the league involved. Then you had the guys that
>spoke
>>out at the ESPY's.
>
>its obvious that the nba and wnba execs didn't agree regarding
>their initial approach to handling situations like this, but i
>think its a stretch to cite the "players united" intro to the
>2016 espys as an example. the espys are not subject to the nba
>guidelines/bylaws regarding apparel and/or opinions. i do,
>however, recognize the hypocrisy shown overall.

I hear you but with the NBA and ESPN being such close "partners" I doubt that ESPN would've given Carmelo & co. that kind of platform without the NBA's approval.

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

>I hear you but with the NBA and ESPN being such close
>"partners" I doubt that ESPN would've given Carmelo & co. that
>kind of platform without the NBA's approval.

bron reached out to espn directly and he (along with cp3, melo, & dwade) worked together on that particular presentation.

why do you assume it would play out any other way than that?



*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...

>
>>I hear you but with the NBA and ESPN being such close
>>"partners" I doubt that ESPN would've given Carmelo & co.
>that
>>kind of platform without the NBA's approval.
>
>bron reached out to espn directly and he (along with cp3,
>melo, & dwade) worked together on that particular
>presentation.
>
>why do you assume it would play out any other way than that?

Does that mean nobody from the NBA was involved or at the very least aware of what was going on?

________________________________________
"Take the surprise out your voice Shaq."-The REAL CP3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2H5K-BUMS0

..i don't think anyone would argue that the nba (or any other professional sports org) isn't actively involved and/or aware of any national/international broadcast involving their employees.

the difference here is that you made a statement that would suggest that the players needed permission from the nba to do so. their current contract states otherwise.

if the players & the producers of the show say that it was direct without issue, why question that?


*skatin' the rings of saturn*


..and miles to go before i sleep...