forfeit because of religious beliefs

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

They made their choices. They were not penalized or punished, they chose.

They probably got more of a positive life lesson from this situation than if they had played the game. After all, basketball is only a game. Pretty classy showing up to shake hands with the other team. Look at the smiles on their faces in the photo. The smiles really look sincere, not forced. Hopefully the other team didn't think this was, in any way, unsporting.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

The WIAA has been VERY clear over the last 20 or so years that game times are set in advance and will not be changed to cater to one group or another. If they make the change for this group, they have to be willing to postpone Friday night semi-final games until Saturday night and then move the Championship games to Sunday - thus affecting everyone else involved in a negative way. That makes no sense.

I admire these kids, their coaches, their Rabbi's and their parents for sticking to their beliefs. But they knew what the situation was going in - this did not take them by surprise. They made their choices. They were not penalized or punished - they chose.

The big question is whether they regularly schedule games on Sunday or not? If not, why? Of course they, and most states, don't in order to not infringe on the beliefs of the majority of religious schools.

Oregon has had the same issue with an Adventist school. It went all the way to the State Supreme Court and they, perhaps based on an Oregon-specific law, ruled that the OSAA must make reasonable accomodations. (All of the intermediate courts had ruled the same way but the OSAA pursued appeals all the way to the top.) Reasonable was not spelled out but moving the time to before sundown on Friday or after sundown on Saturday was ruled to be reasonable. Neither type of change really affects anyone negatively so the only argument against it is really just an anti-religion argument (or anti-Adventist, or other similar less common groups).

[Mark Padgett]

Without commenting on what the state should or should not have done, I have to say I really admire those girls for adhering to their beliefs. They should be proud of themselves and I wish them the best in the future.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Everyone has their own cross to bear.

Seriously? You are going to use that line with regards to a Jewish school? Judging by your tag line at the bottom (Jn 3:16) you should probably know the ramifications and the meaning of that.
The law does allow for reasonable accomodation. I would have like to heard more of the reasons why they would not play the game at a later time.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

The law does allow for reasonable accomodation. I would have like to heard more of the reasons why they would not play the game at a later time.

Can you give a reference to the law in question. Just doesn't sound like a legal matter to me.

[Judtech]

Title 7 of the '64 Civil Rights Act. (not the more 'popular' Title IX) Religious beleifes must be reasonably accomodated. (not causing 'undue hardship') Flexible schedules being one of them.
However, I applaud the decsion to not make a "mountain out of a mole hill" in this situation. I agree that the players will learn more in the long run. It would have benefitted no one, and fostered IMO an 'us v them' mentality that helps no one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Seriously? You are going to use that line with regards to a Jewish school? Judging by your tag line at the bottom (Jn 3:16) you should probably know the ramifications and the meaning of that.

Good grief. Knowing Billy as I do, I'm willing to stipulate that the phrase was not accidental. So?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Everyone has their own cross to bear.

Originally Posted by Judtech

Seriously? You are going to use that line with regards to a Jewish school? Judging by your tag line at the bottom (Jn 3:16) you should probably know the ramifications and the meaning of that.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good grief. Knowing Billy as I do, I'm willing to stipulate that the phrase was not accidental. So?

Thus the title, "Mixed Up Metaphor ???".

If I, or Winston Churchill, have offended any members of the Jewish faith, I sincerely apologize. Just say the word and I will delete my post.

Remember, many of us on the Forum, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, are all sons of Abraham. And, Jesus was a Jew.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Title 7 of the '64 Civil Rights Act. (not the more 'popular' Title IX) Religious beliefs must be reasonably accommodated. (not causing 'undue hardship') Flexible schedules being one of them.

And has it been definitively stated by anyone in authority that this law would ever apply in this situation? Reasonably accommodated. One of the mothers of all broad terms. And is missing a consolation game undue hardship? To ask to change the schedule of a tournament, which was made probably a year in advance, to accommodate any one group for any reason sounds like a lot to ask to me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And has it been definitively stated by anyone in authority that this law would ever apply in this situation?

Yes, as I mentioned previously, every level of Oregon court. Not necessarily binding in other states but certainly an authoritative body.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Reasonably accommodated. One of the mothers of all broad terms. And is missing a consolation game undue hardship?

The hardship it is talking about is not the hardship of missing something due to the lack of an accomodation but the effect on others. It wouldn't be reasonable for ask the others for a change that would cause substantially more expense (extra night's hotel, additional travel, etc. or requiring the tournament host to extend to event additional days) but swapping times of two games between 3pm to 7pm, for example, likely has no material impact on anyone. It is a neutral swap. I can't see why there is even any resistance.

Originally Posted by just another ref

To ask to change the schedule of a tournament, which was made probably a year in advance, to accommodate any one group for any reason sounds like a lot to ask to me.

I just don't see that is much of anything to ask at all. Most these tournaments have several games per day and all it amounts to is swapping times with another pair of teams.

It is nothing new that religious schools have limits in what they can do based on thier beliefs. The state organizations are usually chartered to server ALL schools. Even if the schedule was made in advance, they knew they had such a school...if not, they know for the next year. They should plan for the possibility...its not that hard. It sounds more like someone just don't want to spend the 5 extra minutes to think about how to accomodate them.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And has it been definitively stated by anyone in authority that this law would ever apply in this situation? Reasonably accommodated. One of the mothers of all broad terms. And is missing a consolation game undue hardship? To ask to change the schedule of a tournament, which was made probably a year in advance, to accommodate any one group for any reason sounds like a lot to ask to me.

Thus the reason for lawyers. If by switching times with the game immediately after their game who would be harmed? For instance, would playing at 5 instead of 7 harm those players? There would be no additional burden for those two teams. No extra travel expense etc. For those playing at 5 to play at 7 the benefits would outway any additional "burden". While those teams may return home a few hours later, they would still have the opportunity to participate in the state tournament and reap any rewards that would entail.
Of course by the time you filed all the injunctions, temporary retraining orders etc, the tournament would be over and it would all be a big distraction.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Thus the reason for lawyers. If by switching times with the game immediately after their game who would be harmed?

Quite likely, nobody, unless this new schedule created some other kind of conflict for some other group. "We just barely had time to make it to the game after _________ gets over as it was. What are we gonna do now?"

And so on.......