Texas to Require National Anthem Before All Games

[ClydeR]

This doesn't go nearly far enough. They should require all players and audience members to sing along.



The Texas House gave final passage Tuesday to the so-called “Star Spangled Banner Protection Act,” a conservative-backed bill that would require any professional sports teams with contracts with the Texas state government to play the national anthem before the start of a game.

More... (https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/24/texas-house-national-anthem/)


Athletes protesting the national anthem has become a divisive and partisan issue since NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling in 2016 to protest police brutality against Black Americans.

In February, Patrick named the bill one of his legislative priorities after Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, stopped playing the anthem before home games, which went largely unnoticed during the pandemic with no fans in the stands.

That decision quickly drew the ire of conservative lawmakers in the state.

[Gelston]

Overwhelming Bipartisan support in the Texas Senate put it there.

[Tgo01]

Good. If people hate the anthem and ‘Murcia make them prove it every game by kneeling, don’t let them weasel out by not playing the anthem.

[Stanley Burrell]

I have been being unpatriotic for never holding my hand over my heart and/or singing the national anthem prior to a game of Monopoly. *But* it infers a bit of good old fashioned capitalism, so hopefully I'm in the clear.

[Tgo01]

I have been being unpatriotic for never holding my hand over my heart and/or singing the national anthem prior to a game of Monopoly. *But* it infers a bit of good old fashioned capitalism, so hopefully I'm in the clear.

Darn commies.

[Gelston]

I mean, it is just a bill that'll end State funding if they don't do it. I really don't see an issue with it, especially given how much sports can pull in.

If they made it some sort of criminal penalty or attached fines or whatever, then nah.

[Tgo01]

I mean, it is just a bill that'll end State funding if they don't do it. I really don't see an issue with it, especially given how much sports can pull in.

If they made it some sort of criminal penalty or attached fines or whatever, then nah.

Yeah I don't see the problem either, they aren't even forcing people to stand or place their hands over their hearts from what I understand, they simply ask them to play the anthem.

[Orthin]

I don’t know, it’s clearly a targeted bill since it only applies to sports venues. If it applied to all venues receiving state funding (concerts etc) I might be more on board but the fact that they are clearly targeting a specific subset seems shady.

[Archigeek]

I can't imagine it will survive the court challenge on constitutional grounds. Assuming of course that there is one, and in America, there will be gosh darn it! Because unlike forced displayal of fealty to the state, equal access to the courts IS guaranteed by the constitution.

[Kyulen]

I've never understood why we have to play the national anthem before almost every damn sporting event in this country anyway. They should stop trying to force unnecessary patriotism on everyone who just wants to watch a game.

[Tgo01]

I can't imagine it will survive the court challenge on constitutional grounds. Assuming of course that there is one, and in America, there will be gosh darn it! Because unlike forced displayal of fealty to the state, equal access to the courts IS guaranteed by the constitution.

I don’t see why the courts would strike it down. Well okay I see why a far left leaning court would strike it down, but what would be the reasoning a normal court would use? Whose rights are being violated?

[Archigeek]

I don’t see why the courts would strike it down. Well okay I see why a far left leaning court would strike it down, but what would be the reasoning a normal court would use? Whose rights are being violated?

"The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech means that the government can’t prohibit speech, but it also means the government can’t compel speech. And requiring a private business to play the Anthem would be compelled speech."

htthttps://graydon.law/national-anthem-cant-be-force-fed/p:// (https://graydon.law/national-anthem-cant-be-force-fed/p://)

I doubt it survives any court. The government can't compell speech.

[Tgo01]

And requiring a private business to play the Anthem would be compelled speech.

The state is doing nothing of the sort. They are compelling a private business with contracts with the state government to do something. If the sports leagues don't like it they are more than free to cancel any and all contracts they have with the state of Texas or move their sports team to another state and refuse to play any games in Texas.

[Neveragain]

"The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech means that the government can’t prohibit speech, but it also means the government can’t compel speech. And requiring a private business to play the Anthem would be compelled speech."

htthttps://graydon.law/national-anthem-cant-be-force-fed/p:// (https://graydon.law/national-anthem-cant-be-force-fed/p://)

I doubt it survives any court. The government can't compell speech.

All those bonds those pro teams have their hand out for every time they want a new stadium come with strings attached.

[Archigeek]

I suppose we could always bet on it if you guys are so confident.

I personally love the Anthem, and can hit all the notes! That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's legal to force someone to perform it.

[Tgo01]

I suppose we could always bet on it if you guys are so confident.

Like I said if this winds up in the hands of a far left court it's a sure bet they'll shoot it down because of the anthem and nothing more. If it ends up in a regular court the court won't strike it down. I have no idea which courts this will end up in.

Suddenly governments can't enter into contracts with private businesses if those private businesses have their feelings hurt by the national anthem. I think you would have a fantastic point if Texas were requiring the teams to say something political like "Vote Republican!" or "We love the USA!" But there is absolutely nothing political about the anthem. Let me rephrase: There SHOULDN'T be anything political about the anthem, but the left has somehow made it political because that's what the left does.

"Businesses can demand payment in gold from governments instead of cash because cash has the words 'In God We Trust' on it! ZOMG! Forced speech!"

[Neveragain]

I suppose we could always bet on it if you guys are so confident.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/bb/14/45bb1423b41ee5175ccf910f41265a98.gif

[ClydeR]

Let's talk about the Merikins.

The Star Spangled Banner was written after, or some claim during, a battle in the War of 1812. In that war, the British promised any slaves in the United States that they would be free if they joined the Colonial Marines and fought for Britain. That, of course, infuriated Francis Scott Key (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/francis-scott-key_b_1645878), the author of our national anthem. When not writing patriotic songs, Key was a criminal prosecutor, who treated as criminals those who printed flyers advocating for the abolition of slavery. Until the day of his death, Key was an outspoken opponent of abolition.

The Colonial Marines angered Key so much that he devoted much of the text of the song to the issue. Unlike Certain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAux_lN9rIg) People (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28RAKDIwRyw), I'm sure you have the anthem memorized. I'll repeat part of it here in case some unpatriotic Communists are lurking in this forum who don't already know the words of our national song.



No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

In fairness, they usually don't sing that part at games.

After the British lost the war, the United States demanded the return of its property. The British refused, keeping their word to the Colonial Marines, whom they settled in Trinidad and Tobago, where they are now known as Merikins.

1812 was an unusually important year in the United States. Huge earthquake, which really started late in 1811. The aforementioned war. The fall of the prophet Tecumseh, who had predicted the earthquake with accuracy. The beginning of the rise of Andrew Jackson. And, of course, the writing of the song that became our national anthem more than a century later due to the efforts of a President who called black people "an ignorant and inferior race."

[Methais]

I hope there's language in there that requires it to be performed by Enrico Pallazzo every time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxHnXajIex4

[Hightower]

I hope there's language in there that requires it to be performed by Enrico Pallazzo every time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxHnXajIex4

Hey! It's Enrico Pallazzo! Get him!

[Methais]

Hey! It's Enrico Pallazzo! Get him!

He saved the Queen's life!

https://i.gifer.com/5urC.gif

[Parkbandit]

I've never understood

Truer words have never been posted.

[Parkbandit]

The state is doing nothing of the sort. They are compelling a private business with contracts with the state government to do something. If the sports leagues don't like it they are more than free to cancel any and all contracts they have with the state of Texas or move their sports team to another state and refuse to play any games in Texas.

What contract does any sports team have with the state of Texas that would give up their right to determine what should and shouldn't be played at one of their games?

I'm forced to agree with Archigeek here.. I doubt it survives any real court battle.

[Tgo01]

What contract does any sports team have with the state of Texas that would give up their right to determine what should and shouldn't be played at one of their games?

This new law.

You can stipulate almost anything in a contract, as long as it's not illegal. Like I said I would be right there with the unconstitutional argument if they were compelling political speech or forcing someone to say something they disagreed with. The courts or congress would have to decide that the national anthem now falls under "political speech" or "hate speech" and thus can't be stipulated in a contract with the government, and I can totally see a far left court saying such a thing.

[Stanley Burrell]

Hey! It's Enrico Pallazzo! Get him!

lol. This was on teevee two nights ago. Good stuff.

[ClydeR]

You can stipulate almost anything in a contract, as long as it's not illegal. Like I said I would be right there with the unconstitutional argument if they were compelling political speech or forcing someone to say something they disagreed with. The courts or congress would have to decide that the national anthem now falls under "political speech" or "hate speech" and thus can't be stipulated in a contract with the government, and I can totally see a far left court saying such a thing.

First, if it were that easy for a government to control speech, then every state would be doing it. Use your common sense.

Second, have you even read the words of the national anthem? How can it be viewed as anything other than political speech? Haven't you seen the news about people kneeling during the anthem and the former president criticizing them for kneeling? If it wasn't before, today it is definitely a political issue. It is definitely speech.

Third, you should always have three points in your argument.

[Orthin]

This new law.

You can stipulate almost anything in a contract, as long as it's not illegal. Like I said I would be right there with the unconstitutional argument if they were compelling political speech or forcing someone to say something they disagreed with. The courts or congress would have to decide that the national anthem now falls under "political speech" or "hate speech" and thus can't be stipulated in a contract with the government, and I can totally see a far left court saying such a thing.

I am going to guess as part of their current contract there is no such verbiage to force the sports hands which has spurred this law maybe?

[Tgo01]

I am going to guess as part of their current contract there is no such verbiage to force the sports hands which has spurred this law maybe?

It’s probably not gonna be specifically mentioned in contracts and I’m all for having Texas not enforce this law for a year to give the sports teams time to back out of contracts if they want to.

[Archigeek]

This new law.

You can stipulate almost anything in a contract, as long as it's not illegal. Like I said I would be right there with the unconstitutional argument if they were compelling political speech or forcing someone to say something they disagreed with. The courts or congress would have to decide that the national anthem now falls under "political speech" or "hate speech" and thus can't be stipulated in a contract with the government, and I can totally see a far left court saying such a thing.

Unconstitutional = illegal ultimately. You don't get to separate the two.

The right to free speech doesn't just apply to political speech. That's nonsense. I'm not sure how you ever got that idea. Go watch The People Vs Larry Flint and come back with your report on just how far the right to free speech goes. The government cannot compel speech, political or otherwise.

[Gelston]

The state is doing nothing of the sort. They are compelling a private business with contracts with the state government to do something. If the sports leagues don't like it they are more than free to cancel any and all contracts they have with the state of Texas or move their sports team to another state and refuse to play any games in Texas.

That isn't even what it says. They just have to refuse State funding. They don't have to move anywhere.

Accepting state funding means you have to do a few things the state wants. The Anthem is one of them.

[Tgo01]

That isn't even what it says. They just have to refuse State funding. They don't have to move anywhere.

True. I just meant they could be like the MLB and cry and whine and move the games to another state in a form of protest.

[Tgo01]

The right to free speech doesn't just apply to political speech.

No one is being forced to do anything. No one is being forced to sing the national anthem, no one is being forced to stand, they are merely playing the national anthem.

That's like saying schools doing a morning pledge of allegiance (which California mostly got rid of because they are commies) is unconstitutional because it is forcing speech, but it's not, forcing the students to do the pledge is forcing speech.

[Tgo01]

Let me put it this way: would you consider it “forcing speech” if they required sports team who have contracts with the state to display the US flag? If so why? The flag isn’t a political statement and isn’t forcing speech.

[Archigeek]

Let me put it this way: would you consider it “forcing speech” if they required sports team who have contracts with the state to display the US flag? If so why? The flag isn’t a political statement and isn’t forcing speech.

Just when I thought you couldn't make a dumber argument, you've gone and outdone yourself.

[Taernath]

The flag isn’t a political statement

hahaha

[ClydeR]

Let me put it this way: would you consider it “forcing speech” if they required sports team who have contracts with the state to display the US flag? If so why? The flag isn’t a political statement and isn’t forcing speech.

I agree with you 100%, except for your first three sentences. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, flag burning, nude dancing at a strip club, and using profanity are some examples of what the Supreme Court has said are speech under the Constitution. The government can't force somebody to engage in speech. What if, instead of singing the national anthem, Texas made all of the players do nude dances? They're both speech, and they're both things the government can't make somebody do.

[Tgo01]

Just when I thought you couldn't make a dumber argument, you've gone and outdone yourself.

Ah yes, so you have subscribed to the far left theory that the US flag is political and divisive. This is why I say a far left court will eat this shit up and strike it down before even hearing any arguments, not because it makes sound legal sense, but because the left has gone out of their way to make every damn thing political, even the fucking US flag for fuck's sake.

So I assume our national motto "In God We Trust" is also a political statement and therefore all government buildings have to remove it and we have to remove it from money, because after all we are forcing people to engage in speech they don't agree with.

Look I understand you have to defend this constant hatred of America because that's where your party is at the moment because they can't govern effectively, but you don't have to go all in on this shit.

https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/04/nancy-pelosi-in-god-we-trust.jpg

Someone better tell Pelosi she is forcing speech on everyone in the House and have her remove those god awful words.

https://i2.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RTS1SLTE.jpg?fit=2057%2C1200&ssl=1

Nancy Pelosi really should stop foisting her political beliefs onto innocent Americans. Doesn't she know by merely holding the US flag she is making a political statement that she hates minorities? What a bitch.

[Tgo01]

It's funny because Obamacare actually forced people to do something and you all couldn't defend that shit fast enough, here the sports leagues have so many options to avoid this "awful" law but y'all are bending logic into a pretzel to try and claim it's "forcing" anyone to engage in speech.

And oh yeah, just because a bunch of idiots say the American flag is a political statement and divisive does not make it so, no more than them saying the moon landing was fake makes it a fact. You're welcome for this brief lesson in simple logic.