Florida and Arizona are not the only states that host the Super Bowl. Historically, Texas, Louisiana, and California are also popular sites for the NFL’s grand event. Since the NFL is now actively engaged in state legislation, they should consider other pertinent laws.

NARAL claims to be America’s most powerful pro-choice organization. According to its website:

Texas, Louisiana, and Florida have “Restrictions on Low-Income Women’s Access to Abortion” and “Restrictions on Young Women’s Access to Abortion” with “Parental Notice/Consent.” In addition, “Louisiana has criminal bans on abortion and has a near-total criminal ban on abortion that would take effect if Roe v. Wade were overturned.”

Are the civil rights of women worth less than gays and lesbians? Will the NFL continue to look in the other direction when women’s abortion rights are threatened by states that are popular Super Bowl sites?

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence “is the only national law center focused on providing comprehensive legal expertise in support of gun violence prevention and the promotion of smart gun laws that save lives.”

According to its website, in 2012, the Center “ranked all fifty states based on 29 policy approaches to regulating firearms and ammunition.” “Based on the strength of each state’s gun laws,” the states of Texas and Louisiana received an “F”, and Florida was graded a D-minus. In addition, Louisiana was among the “Top Ten states with the highest gun death rates” and was ranked number 5 among the “states with the weakest gun laws.”

Are states with the weakest gun laws and the highest gun deaths suitable locations for the NFL’s Super Bowl? Or is local profit more important than our children’s safety?

In a July 20, 2011 blog, The Natural Resources Defense Council named the Toxic 20 states that had the highest levels of toxic air pollution from power plants. Florida ranked third and Texas ranked thirteenth.

Furthermore, according to a Fox Business website article, among the states leading the country in oil production, Texas ranked number one, and California ranks in the top four.

Considering the seriousness of Climate Change, and its predicted global devastation, shouldn’t the NFL consider punishing states that are responsible for pollution and global warming rather than rewarding them? Or does the NFL side with the Climate Change deniers?

The NFL set precedents in Arizona. It publicly stated that it “monitors” legislation with which it does not agree. The NFL punishes states that either pass legislation that violates its standards, or fails to pass legislation that it deems appropriate. Its silence on the preceding matters suggests either it is not monitoring these issues or it sides with the states that enforces or allows them.

However, I believe that there are even larger moral questions. Just how far will the NFL go in using its tremendous leverage to impose its emphasis on, “tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard?”

Should Jewish businesses be required to cater neo-Nazi events? Should black photographers be forced to photograph Klu Klux Klan weddings? And what if they refused? The legal penalty would probably be a large fine. And if they refuse to pay the fine? Would the NFL support prison time for these individuals? For people who chose to stand on their own moral principles?

I wonder what the NFL would do if the U.S. Congress imposed its tremendous legal authority to force the NFL to do something it morally opposed.

But I have two larger questions. Why is the NFL imposing its moral values on our society? And why are we allowing it?

Previous article: The NFL, Tolerance, and Inclusiveness – Part 1

Next Article:  Mothers, Daughters, and Government Assistance