Skip to content

Kentucky Sports Radio

University of Kentucky Basketball, Football, and Recruiting news brought to you in the most ridiculous manner possible.

California travel ban could keep UCLA from playing at Rupp Arena again

Want a rematch with UCLA in Rupp Arena? Due to a California state travel ban, you may have to wait a while. Yesterday, California’s attorney general banned state-funded travel to Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, and South Dakota, citing “discriminatory legislation” enacted in each state.

In Kentucky’s case, the bill in question is the “Charlie Brown law,” which prevents school officials from punishing students for wearing religious messages on their clothes and expressing religious or political beliefs in homework, artwork, and speeches. (The law is named so because a Kentucky school cut a Bible verse from their production of “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”) As with all of the laws singled out by the California attorney general, LGBT advocates argue the law would allow people (in this case, students) to discriminate against LGBT students under the guise of religion.

With Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, and South Dakota, the California travel ban is now at eight. Earlier this year, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee were also placed off limits. As a result, California state agencies, universities, and commissions won’t be allowed to travel to those states, meaning that their sports teams can’t play their either. The law does allow current contracts to be honored, but it’s unclear whether or not California state teams will be allowed to play in the 2017 Final Four, which will take place in San Antonio, Texas. Kentucky’s home-and-home series with UCLA wrapped up with the Bruins’ trip to Rupp last December.

It must suck to be in charge of UCLA’s scheduling right now.


Article written by Mrs. Tyler Thompson

No, I will not make you a sandwich, but you can follow me on Twitter @MrsTylerKSR or email me.

113 Comments for California travel ban could keep UCLA from playing at Rupp Arena again

  1. ukjaybrat
    12:46 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    UCLA is a public university with public funding, but i thought their athletics was a separate private entity where the government can’t restrict where they travel. i guess that’s not the case?

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:18 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      California is banning their employees from being able to visit certain states because they don’t support discrimination…

      Now if that kind of contradiction doesn’t set off your stupid alarm I don’t know what will.

    • catdaddyd
      7:16 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I say build that wall to separate California as well.

  2. W.C.
    12:49 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Without getting into the political correctness of the subject, I was not aware that a state AG had this kind of authority. Can someone educate me ?

    • Luether
      7:52 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Democrats completely control everything in this state. They have 2/3rds + majorities in the State Senate and Assembly. Virtually all CA judges are far Left zealots. Their politicians are completely comfortable imposing their extreme, intolerant, hateful views on the rest of us…

      PS: Guess the state with, by far, the most number of households below the federal poverty line when adjusting for the cost of living?

    • ChrisHamby
      12:59 am June 24, 2017 Permalink

      Also, guess what state has a bigger economy than most countries? I assume your facts are optional?

  3. Lip Man 1
    12:50 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Only California…

    No big loss… won’t have to put up with the goofy father anymore since he’s got two more kids going to UCLA in the near future.

  4. Chacosrule
    12:51 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Let us repeal the first amendment to appease the California crazies’ delicate little eyes and ears. Wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

  5. Mc12
    12:55 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    It’ll be interesting if something similar happens in Florida because Florida’s Attorney General has an offensive acronym. Clearly the title attorney general should be changed now for all states.

  6. runningunnin.454
    12:58 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Not surprising the nuts in California would attempt to suppress freedom of speech. Hilarious they would presume to tell the rest of the country how to live.
    If they don’t like our Bill of Rights, maybe they should secede.

    • LimousineLiberal
      1:25 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Sad that we use this bill, SB 17, to skate around “Separation of State and Church”. And we wonder why Kentucky is near the bottom in education, poverty, ect..

    • Cousins Fake Tooth
      1:58 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      There is nothing in the constitution stating there is a separation of state and church.

    • LimousineLiberal
      2:15 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So basically, keep Religion out of State’s business and vice-versa.

    • runningunnin.454
      2:19 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      This is an example of the government of California violating the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
      Here government is violating the principle of separation of church and state.

    • Blue Jesus
      3:31 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I’m a little confused by the whole situation. The article states:

      “In Kentucky’s case, the bill in question is the “Charlie Brown law,” which prevents school officials from punishing students for wearing religious messages on their clothes and expressing religious or political beliefs in homework, artwork, and speeches.”

      I’m not familiar with the law beyond Mrs. TT’s summary, but isn’t this an example of keeping religion and state separate? If this law weren’t in place, it would seem a school official could choose to punish or restrict a Muslim student’s expression, for example, while letting a Christian student express themself.

      Going off Mrs. TT’s summary above again, the purported purpose of the legislation is to prevent discrimination, and while I suppose it’s true someone might discriminate “under the guise of religion,” isn’t it equally discriminatory to restrict religious self-expression?


      On a more logistical note, what if someone were flying from California to Kentucky but had a layover in Colorado. Does that still fall under the purview of this travel ban? Are there even any direct flights from CA to KY? Definitely not into Lexington but maybe the Louisville or Cincinnati airports have one or two (remember, the Cincy airport is in NKY).

    • Blue Jesus
      3:39 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      As an addendum to the first part of my post above:

      In other words, if Kentucky didn’t have the law in place restricting discrimination of religious expression, what would stop California from placing a travel ban on the state on the grounds that not having such a law would enable the discrimination of Muslim students, or Jewish students, or Christian students, etc.?

  7. mherron
    12:58 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Interesting fact -next year’s NCAA tournament has several sites in CA’s ‘can’t travel’ states including Texas for the finals. I doubt UCLA makes that far .. but.. How about the other schools in that state?

  8. ukfaningatorland
    12:59 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    And people wonder why we ask politics to be left out of sports, it’s kids wanting to participate in athletics being forced to deal with political agendas, regardless of the side you take, who cares, UCLA can stay home, we don’t lose any revenue, just schedule Duke, Indiana, Notre Dame, Syracuse, any number of higher quality higher ranked teams, let UCLA flounder in the WAC with no TV…. Just solidifies the request to keep KSR out of the political posting business its never productive.

  9. bluehappypappy
    1:00 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    You mean Californistand?!!

  10. CatsfaninFL
    1:13 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    **grabs popcorn**

  11. ClutchCargo
    1:16 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    So, it is now discriminatory to pass a state law protecting free speech??? Only in the People’s Republic of California… however, I think it would difficult to enforce this if the school can show that it was paid for by a self-funded athletics association. Not sure if that’s the case with UCLA.

  12. keiths
    1:19 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Good! Last time they came here they humiliated us!

    • runningunnin.454
      1:35 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      AND, three short months later…..

    • rartis1986
      9:40 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      We got our revenge in the tournament. They give us a loss during the season and we just sent them home for the offseason.

  13. macattack
    1:22 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I say good for California. I get really annoyed by all these bills states are passing that allow people to discriminate free from repercussion under the guise of “religious freedom”. I’m glad that big states that help steer the economy and policy like CA or NY are adopting stuff like to put pressure on these smaller states that are perfectly fine allowing discriminatory behavior to take place. It wont effect Texas, because Texas is big enough to not be bothered by it, but they can really economically hurt smaller states and (hopefully) that’ll get them to get rid of some of these laws. Bigotry has no place in America, and if the federal government wont do something about it, the states need to band together and do it.

    • ClutchCargo
      1:31 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      This will hurt those schools in CA more than it will hurt the states that are banned. UK will play somebody in Rupp Arena that day, I can assure you of that. I can’t wait to see this blow up in their faces.

    • Mc12
      1:32 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I think people can interpret anything to fit their narrative, and that is a dangerous thing. Where do you draw the line, and who gets to make decisions based on their own interpretations? I may be discriminated by state laws in California that may not be discriminatory to them. Why so self-righteous? We have Hollywood actors bashing Trump for being discriminatory or hateful, and then they call him orange-face, cheetoh-man and openly fantasize about his assassination while being discriminatory to his supporters. There are examples of violence on campuses rather than having open-debates because of disagreements in opinions. Both sides are not innocent yet each tend to think they know more than the other while being extremely hypocritical.

      Collectively, smaller states could really hurt California economically.

    • runningunnin.454
      1:36 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      LOL, whom do you think bails California out every time they go bankrupt?

    • macattack
      1:43 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I think California is banking on smaller states needing them more than they need the smaller states. This can become especially effective once other blue states join in, which I’m sure they will. States like NY, MA, DE, CT, RI, VT, WA, OR, potentially CO or MD.

      And as far as it hurting other CA schools, much like someone else will play in Rupp, someone else will play those schools.

      To Mc12 makes about who gets to make the decisions about what is discriminatory, well that would be an elected official. If Californians dont think they are interpreting it correctly they can be voted out of office.

      I see lots of comments about suppressing of free speech, but there can be limits placed on free speech. Discriminatory speech is one of those types of speech.

    • Mc12
      1:51 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I agree that discriminatory speech is an issue, but I have a problem with certain people deciding what is discriminatory and what isn’t?

      People of all races can speak on subject matter that is discriminatory. Do we start policing comments made by comedians during a stand-up routine as discriminatory? My point is where do you draw the line and how can we let an elected official or politician make these decisions rather than allowing freedom of speech to rule.

      I do agree in separation of church and state for the most part, but I think there is a dangerous line with allowing an elected official who could easily be manipulated into making decisions by lobbyist/special interest groups to have this power. Then who is to say they make a terrible decision and have to wait several years for another election to get voted out? Again, who is to say they would get voted out when sadly a large percentage of our population vote based on a letter next to a name rather than the candidate themselves?

    • Macattack, your last paragraph is 180 degrees out of whack. Plus, where domyou see discrimination in quoting a Bible verse? If they can limit my speech, they can limit yours too. Be careful.

    • Do you not domyou…

    • macattack
      2:06 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @ Mc12- I think that people should have the freedom to say whatever they want. The difference, and getting to your issue, is that 1) there are repercussions for free speech, and a law that prohibits those repercussions throws the idea of free speech out of whack and 2) there are methods for removing people from office outside of their specified terms if something is deemed too extreme.

      I’m just trying to stand up for the people who can get hurt by this. I don’t like discriminatory speech, but among individuals, it’s your freedom to do so. My problem is just when it’s the government allowing someone to do it. It would work the same as an atheist kid doing a report or something trashing christians and really running them into the ground, but they wouldnt have to deal with the consequences. This law by saying it is protecting free speech is actually helping to police free speech in a way, which I think hinders free speech.

    • macattack
      2:07 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I forgot to add, to MC12, that totally get and respect your opinion on this.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:23 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      The only entity that is engaging in bigotry in this instance is California. The only true discrimination occurring in this instance is from California. And you claim it is good to use (diminishing) economic muscle to try to shut people up you don’t like and treat them as second class citizens? You leftists advocate for exactly what you claim to be against. I suppose you also supported the blatantly bigoted and unconstitutional religious test that Bernie Sanders recently assigned to a nominee he was voting on whether or not to confirm?

  14. UKAndrew
    1:31 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Discrimination is not protected speech. I like how the GOP calls liberals snowflakes but when a gay person wants to join your group or buy a cake, you lose your goddamn minds.

    • Mc12
      1:36 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Like when gay Trump supporters were denied entry into the Charlotte Pride Parade? Or when pro-life women were banned from the “Women’s March”

      I think this game can be played all day everyday for both parties. Divide and conquer. The goal of identity politics to get people to vote for a candidate based on party affiliation alone is an effective strategy but sad at the same time.

    • macattack
      1:46 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Your argument has a flaw. being denied admission to a private function is not the same as it coming from the government, or being allowed by the government.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      1:52 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Using “LGBT rights” as a flimsy pretext to discriminate against religious people is shameful and hateful. We all know who the real haters are.

    • UKAndrew
      1:54 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @Mc12. Neither of those groups are government funded. It’s still discrimination but they’re private groups.

      @macattack This law allows groups in public schools and universities (government funded institutions) to discriminate against LGBT people because it’s against their religion. These are not private functions.

    • Steady
      1:55 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Keep up the good fight Andrew. Outspoken gays such as yourself have made tremendous progress. I would say pretty soon you will be able to buy a cake almost anywhere.

    • UKAndrew
      1:57 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @Sentient Third Eye – Using religion to discriminate against LGBT is even more flimsy. It’s an excuse that people use so they don’t feel bad.

    • UKAndrew
      1:58 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @Steady Haha. I’m not gay but thank you.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:05 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      There’s only one side hatefully trying to attack and destroy anyone who disagrees with them, and that is the progressives. Progressives are fascists. Any educated person knows this as a historical fact. The only thing that’s changed is the cut of the jackboots.

    • macattack
      2:08 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @UKandrew, I was trying to defend your point above. I’m with you. I should’ve made that more clear

    • UKAndrew
      2:19 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @Sentient Third Eye – You mean like the conservatives that boycott movies by actors whenever they say anything bad about the GOP or Trump? Or when they threaten people who support abortion? Or when they say they’ll remove funding from universities that have events that conservatives don’t like?

    • UKAndrew
      2:20 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @macattack. Sorry. Thought you were responding to me.

    • UKAndrew, a student’s freedom of speech doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door.

    • Nor an employee’s for that matter. Freedom of religious expression at work is protected.

    • UKAndrew
      2:39 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @chris gettelfinger – Depends on where you work. There are laws in some states that deal with discriminating against LBGT people. Most major employers like Walmart will probably fire you if you refuse to serve a LBGT customer. Kentucky protects against LBGT discrimination when hiring state employees but not against private employers.

    • I never said I wouldn’t serve anyone. I would, but I would not be forced to bake a cake for a wedding I disagree with.

      Again, freedom of religious expression is protected in the workplace (I’ve taken employment law…I’m not an expert, but not a novice either). I can’t find the link, but there was a lawsuit several years ago where a religious employee sued his employer. They tried to force him (and everyone else) to sign a statement that said every sexual preference is of equal value. He refused, they fired or disciplined him, he sued, and he won. In fact, he had expressly said he would not harass anyone for any reason, but he would not sign this statement.

      There are also other lawsuits where employees were able to keep their religious artifacts on their desks, etc.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:30 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      What the heck are you talking about? “Discrimination is not protected speech” – what on earth kind of nonsense is that? What ‘discrimination’?
      “I like how the GOP calls liberals snowflakes but when a gay person wants to join your group or buy a cake you lose your …. minds” What does this nonsense even mean? Join your group – what group? “Buy a cake” – what cake? There’s no one that has an issue with someone “buying a cake”, but there is an issue with forcing people to participate in a ceremony they don’t want to participate in. That is a basic human right not to be forced to participate in an event you don’t want to have to participate in and that should be respected- anything else is vicious discrimination and bigotry – which you apparently support. Grow up and deal with it – it’s reality. You are indeed being the stereotypical snowflake. There’s nothing logical or intellectual about your argument – you won’t even speak of what you are talking about and try to obfuscate what you are actually talking about because the reality is that you doing precisely what you claim you are against and falsely accusing others of what you yourself are doing.

    • J-Dub421
      11:50 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Squall Leonhart, baking a cake is not “participating” in someone’s wedding. It’s providing services / goods for money. If I am a cashier in a convenience store and I sell you a box of condoms, I’m not participating in your sex life.

  15. playmorezeppelin
    1:35 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I am all about separation of church and state – I’m probably the biggest proponent of secular government. But can someone explain to me how this law is supposed to facilitate religious discrimination? What is the worst case scenario if a kid wants to wear a “Jesus is my homeboy” t-shirt to school?

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:02 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      The reason California is against it is that they want to control people. Think 1984. “Two plus two is four. No, Winston, sometimes it is five.” “Girls and boys are different. No, Winston, sometimes they are the same.” It’s about teaching people to deny reality so that they will recognize their own oppression as a form or freedom. That’s progressivism in a nutshell.

    • UKAndrew
      2:56 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I don’t think it’s so much wearing religious clothing that’s the problem, it’s the other parts of the law that allow discriminating who can join school groups or participate in school activities. Basically stuff like sports teams not allowing gay players or allowing gay students to go to prom.

    • runningunnin.454
      3:42 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      “Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls; It’s a mixed up world”.
      Lola, the Kinks.

  16. Underdog
    1:43 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Got Freedom? California doesn’t.

    The control freaks who think it their divine right to control the behavior of others never ceases to amaze.

    We humans have the right to travel, do, say, preach whatever as long as there is no infringement or violation to another person’s life, liberty or property. We can never be the aggressor towards another, unless it’s self defense. It’s called the non aggression principle. When people are free from coercion that’s when civilization thrives. We had it in America for the first 100-150 years. The assault on Liberty since WW II has been vicious and very successful.

    Remnants who still believe in and understand Liberty still exist thankfully. The hardcore leftists do not believe in Liberty and thus they can’t understand it, so they fight against it and try to destroy it, and try to infringe on others rights (to freely move in this case, when the travelers have done nothing wrong).

    Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit against that Nazi Attorney General to me.

    I agree with Macattack that certain “sins” have no place in America, but where do you draw the line? No, the principle is and always will be: we are free to act as long as we do not violate the life, liberty, or property of another. If we want to say something bigoted, that’s our right, however stupid and shameful it is. As ridiculous as it sounds, it’s now “hate speech” to say MAGA or to say we should have national borders or to say free health care is not a right or to call out BLM as the actual racists, etc., etc.

    • J-Dub421
      3:57 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Yeah, who needed the civil rights movement??? We should go back to owning other human beings.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:35 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      “Yeah, who needed the civil rights movement??? We should go back to owning other human beings”
      Do you have an intelligent, intellectual response that actually addresses the points that were made in the post? Do you leftists really believe this kind if nonsense actually makes sense as a response?

    • J-Dub421
      12:05 am June 24, 2017 Permalink

      Squall, do you honestly think that people 50 or more years ago had more rights and freedoms than people have today? The OP said freedoms have been assaulted since WWII. That was in the 1940’s. Interracial marriage was illegal until 1967, Loving v. the State of Virginia. Women couldn’t get their own credit cards or open a bank account without their father’s or husband’s permission and co-signing. So, no. I don’t think people have fewer liberties now than they did at the end of WWII. That is a ridiculous notion.

  17. madarchitect
    1:49 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    KENTUCKY – get with the century!!!

    • secrick
      1:58 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Why not get out or maybe you already are. KENTUCKY is just fine .

    • 4everUKblue
      2:14 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      AMEN secrick!

  18. kellywjohnson
    1:51 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    That’s a great way to avoid playing UK, UL, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake, Kansas, and more. I see it as a great way for UCLA to get a good record every year. Maybe they will start selling “No Baller” shoes next year!

  19. DrSayre
    1:54 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    “This is California, Christianity is borderline illegal here” -Erlich Bachman

  20. Sentient Third Eye
    1:59 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    NC gets punished for passing a law against Charlotte’s misogynistic extremism that terrified women, and now this. California wants to punish any state that wants to protect Christians. If California will only allow their teams to play against places as extremist and hateful as they are themselves, then they will only get to play California schools. This is reminiscent of when Mississippi schools could not play against teams with black players. Just substitute blacks for Christians. Way to wear your bigotry on your sleeve, California.

    Historically, the progressive movement was birthed from the fascist movement, and the acorn didn’t fall very far from the tree.

    • madarchitect
      2:07 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Christians being discriminated against… OH THE IRONY!

    • J-Dub421
      2:44 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      There were no terrified women. Right wingers in North Carolina created a problem where there was none so that they could discriminate against LGBTQ people. The HB2 law in North Carolina was NEVER about bathrooms. It gave employers the right to fire people for being gay. That is true discrimination. No one is discriminating against Christians. You are not being told you cannot practice your religion. Christians don’t get to force their religious policies on everyone else.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:48 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      J-Dub, with all due respect, you need to get into the real world and stop listening to lies from sinister left-wing leaders. Their only goal is to oppress us all, and they are clouding people’s minds to accomplish their goals. Open you eyes and you will see the lies on MSNBC and CNN.

    • UKAndrew
      3:09 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      @STE – You’re right. We should all get our news from the totally unbiased Fox News or Breitbart.

    • J-Dub421
      3:14 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Sentient, with all due respect, do you even know any LGBTQ people? I am out in the real world. I am a woman and have been using public restrooms my whole life. Want to know how many times I’ve had an issue with a trans person in a public bathroom. Zero. We do not live in a theocracy. Stop trying to use your religion to beat others into submission.

    • madarchitect
      3:18 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      AMEN to that, J-Dub!!!

    • runningunnin.454
      3:19 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Everybody is so respectful……cool.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:39 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Oh really, J-Dub, did you not just see two prominent US Senator just recently delcare a nominee for government office to be unqualified because he was a Christian? Have you not noticed the numerous Christian business owners harassed out of business for being Chrsitians in recent years? Could go on and on – you have your head in the sand to make such a declaration – or even worse, you don’t consider such obvious discrimination and bigotry as being such because it is being applied against people you don’t like and feel they deserve it because they are different than you.

      (as far as that NC law, I would agree it needed to go…it was entirely too broad in scope).

  21. Aar
    2:02 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I suspect the argument is that this law could also protect the kid who wears a “Jesus hates gays” t-shirt to school. IMHO, the first amendment provides all Americans all of the protection of free speech we need. Every attempt made at “improving upon” the first amendment has wound up discriminating against some population – or was the discrimination intentional?

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:09 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Typically what happens is that laws supposedly aimed at protecting 1% minorities end up instead removing rights and freedoms from 100% of people INCLUDING the very groups the laws were supposed to protect in the first place! And ignorant sycophants cheer their own oppression. No wonder Democrats famously mock their constituents in private.

  22. sincitycat
    2:05 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    A question for those of you who believe the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”…who was here to record the beginning?

    • madarchitect
      2:08 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Why are you trying to inject logic into this discussion? You must be one of those academic elites!

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:11 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      If you actually bothered to read it, you would see that it doesn’t even remotely claim to be an eyewitness account.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:16 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Actually, one of the things unusual about Genesis versus other origin myths is that it accurately reflects scientific principles that were only discovered in the past century, including being the first place where the Big Bang was conceived as a theory, an accurate earth’s eye view of the parting of primordial clouds so sunlight could reach earth for the first time, the fact that earth was covered with water before land developed, and so forth. It’s actually uncanny to think about the amount of scientifically-accurate information in Genesis 1:1-11.

    • 4everUKblue
      2:17 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Yeah what STE said!

    • LimousineLiberal
      2:29 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3) and the sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      2:53 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Limosine, read Genesis more carefully and pay attention to the state Point-of-View. Earth is not created before light. At that point an earth-level POV has been established by the text. From a Earth-based observer (if one had existed), the Earth would have been created “formless” (all of water) before the clouds first parted to allow in sunlight.

      “1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

      And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.”

    • madarchitect
      3:00 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      The Bible is FAKE NEWS.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      3:12 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      That’s GOOD NEWS.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:44 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Of course, you know your post makes no sense – the narrative does not state nor imply that it is an eyewitness account – but be logical wasn’t your point. Your point is to mock and ridicule people of faith. In posting this, you just exposed the obvious – we do indeed have bigotry, hate and discrimiantion – flowing from those who claimed in other sections to be against it.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:45 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      Of course, you know your post makes no sense – the narrative does not state nor imply that it is an eyewitness account – but being logical wasn’t your point. Your point is to mock and ridicule people of faith. In posting this, you just exposed the obvious – we do indeed have bigotry, hate and discrimination – flowing from those who claimed in other sections to be against it.

  23. Sentient Third Eye
    2:10 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I’m kind of glad this happened today. I needed to blow off some steam.

  24. LimousineLiberal
    2:25 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

  25. 8xchamp
    2:46 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    You’re free to believe what ever you want, but so am I. You can wear cloths that show you’re an idiot, my religious freedom isn’t negotiable. I’ll wear a cross, a shirt with Jesus name on it or whatever else I want. Where ever I want.

  26. Sentient Third Eye
    3:03 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I just realized something UCLA began basketball in 1919, and in the subsequent 98 years, they came to UK to play exactly once.

    So why should this worry anyone? If UCLA never comes back to Kentucky between now and the year 2115, it will mean only one less appearance than in the past 98 years. Big deal.

    • runningunnin.454
      3:17 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      I would rather play Gonzaga anyway….consistently a better program.

    • Sentient Third Eye
      3:29 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      That’s a very good point. Post-Wooden, UCLA is good for a few years every other decade. If we played them regularly, they would be mostly lopsided games where UCLA could not compete. Is it worth putting up with that just to get the few good years every now and then? We went through that with Indiana already.

  27. Underdog
    3:40 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I have a perfectly polite and relevant comment above, but it’s been “awaiting moderation” for hours. Please release it.

  28. Sentient Third Eye
    4:19 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I understand several counties on the California/Nevada border are attempting to secede from California and join Nevada. This kind of authoritarian mindset is exactly why. It’s also why a lot of people are wanting to split California in two so the crazies can be isolated into half.

  29. wildcatdude
    5:12 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    California sounds like a petulant little kid. Play by my rules or I am taking my ball home and noone can play. nananana boo boo

  30. LooseGreyGoose
    5:51 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    California fights potential discrimination with actual discrimination. Fabulous.

    • Squall Leonhart
      6:47 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      That’s exactly it what it is – they are engaging in actual discrimination in the name of being against discrimination. It’s typical leftist logic – accuse others of what you yourself are doing.

  31. wesmorgan1
    6:54 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    The writer skipped over the part of SB 17 that opens the door to direct discrimination…here’s the quote from the legislation itself…

    “require local boards of education to ensure that…no recognized religious or political student organization is discriminated against in the ordering of its internal affairs”

    That basically means that a school cannot prevent a student organization from discriminating in its membership requirements, selection of officers, etc. because those are “internal affairs.”

    Imagine an FCA chapter (a student religious organization) that decides they believe in the “curse of Ham” theology that renders blacks inferior to whites, and prohibits black membership accordingly. (Before you say, “that isn’t likely to happen”, turn on your radio; I’ve heard the ‘curse of Ham’ preached in Kentucky.) Under SB 17, that’s an “internal affair” that the school cannot address.

    Imagine a Young Republicans or Young Democrats student club that decides to ban all but heterosexual students from membership. Yup, that’s an “internal affair” that the school cannot address.

    The impact of SB 17 is FAR more significant than just wearing t-shirts or using Bible verses in homework assignments…

  32. ukflyguy
    7:27 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    This will end the day the Big 12 disintegrates and Texas is in play. The Pac 12 wants Texas in the worst way and Cal and UCLA won’t be able to stop it. USC won’t care because it is a private institution and this won’t apply to them. Once Cal and UCLA are facing a forfeit for every time they play at Texas a solution will be found.

  33. TBW3011
    7:49 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    Who gives a shit. We will play someone from another state.

  34. jhnny
    7:51 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    I don’t know much about this law and whether it discriminates against LGBT individuals or not. For the record, I’m against such discrimination. And those of you who won’t bake a cake for someone who is LGBT, can I just say you won’t catch it? I mean, its a cake, what’s the big deal? Someone above actually said he would never discriminate against LGBT but would never bake them a cake. Really?

    But honestly, why the drama? I mean this governor came to Louisville a few months ago and said the answer to crime is roving groups of people praying. Really? Maybe California is in the wrong here, but it embarrasses me to no end that a state won’t travel here because they say we discriminate. Lets stop that. Let’s please vote this drama high governor out next time. I don’t care if the next governor is republican or democrat, but lets please replace this clown for someone who will govern with much less drama.

    • Luether
      7:59 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

      You must be a Democrat…

    • Wakecrash
      12:29 am June 24, 2017 Permalink

      I never heard of issues with the selling of a cake, I have heard issues with wedding cakes. Through decorations and words wedding cakes express support for a lifestyle many find morally objectionable. So for many it is not acceptable to passively resist, the religious folks must be forced to comply and decorate and write what society and the government says.
      It’s basically the same thing as the NCAA and ACC bashing NC based on laws these disconnected organizations don’t fully understand.
      The comfort level of the thought police is growing, when will it be your turn for your ideals not to comply? When there is no one else to turn to?
      It is best to keep ideals in the daylight.

  35. ukflyguy
    8:05 pm June 23, 2017 Permalink

    The issue is the state should not be fining an old lady $100,000 because she doesn’t want to bake a cake for somebody. Its simple, go buy your cake someplace else, its a free country. Nor should the state be legislating whether a dude in a dress can go pee in a women’s rest room. Also no one should lose a job or be persecuted for their lifestyle. The extremists on both sides are driving this debate and everyone else gets caught in the middle. Trump won because of crap like this. Politicians are more worried about where someone pees or buys a cake than whether or not I have a decent job. Maybe if the pols in California were more worried about that then businesses and residents would not be fleeing the state. I’m sure the office Texas set up in California to recruit businesses to move from California to Texas is really sweating this.