Colorado fined for fans’ bad behaviour at game against BYU

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think most students care about discrimination against LGBT students.  They might think that there is no discrimination and not even realize BYU's policies.  I would bet most of the people doing the chanting were not even thinking about LGBT discrimination but just joining in with a football chant.  For example - https://onwardstate.com/2015/09/16/rutgers-fans-have-chanted-f-k-penn-state-at-every-football-game-for-a-year/.  For an entire year, the Rutgers fans chanted "F Penn State" at every single game.  They only played Penn State once that entire year but kept doing it for all the remaining games.  It is ok to swear at the college.

Perhaps you are right.  I don't really know.  But I do think that those that are LGBT are probably aware of how BYU treats LGBT students.  Is all it takes is bringing up the issue at other LGBT events.  The LGBT community is pretty sensitive about discrimination and for good reason given their history.  

I would not be surprised if that group started the chant for those reasons and the rest of the students joined in because it is more a football chant that is becoming more common???

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

there were no pro-LGBTQ+ rights signs, no rainbow flags nor any other sort of anti-discrimination symbols on display.  

This is important to show mindset, imo.  Having that type of display for the cameras throughout the game would make more sense than just yelling a vulgarity without any mention of LGBT rights.

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think most students do care, at least theoretically and if you specifically asked them. 

But we are talking about a sporting event, not a protest. I don't think that most students are into activism at sporting events, but they are into being vulgar and rude to the opposing team if they can get away with it.  In 2019 the Michigan State alumni got very bent out of shape when their student body started chanting "FU UT" at the University of Tulsa.  In 2016 it was all over the papers when the student fans at a Catholic high school basketball game started chanting “You killed Jesus!” at Newton North High School fans, who I guess were Jewish. 

Do you think those fans were making a social or political statement?  Or were they just being young and dumb? I would be very surprised if the majority of the colorado students did anything else that could even remotely be described as 'activism' (for any cause) during their daily lives.  Precedent says this wasn't anything deeper this time either.

 

I think they were making both a political statement because there are definitely political reasons involved, and they are young and dumb.  Like I said in the previous post, I would not be surprised if a LGBT group started the chant for those reasons and the rest of the students joined in because it is more a football chant that is becoming more common

[Okrahomer]

Just now, Calm said:

This is important to show mindset, imo.  Having that type of display for the cameras throughout the game would make more sense than just yelling a vulgarity without any mention of LGBT rights.

Agreed.  I think Deion Sanders (i.e., Coach Prime) pegged the entire episode correctly:  These chants came right out of a mostly inebriated, young and dumb student section who thought it would be funny to use the "mother-of-all curse words".

I love California Boy's point of view though.  I appreciate when he shows us that there is usually another way to see a situation.

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

But not only did Catholics invite the LDS Church into a collaboration to fight gay marriage (not the first time) for Prop 8, Catholic organizations contributed significantly financially in California and later nationally.  I would have thought there would be a similar response from LGBT groups, if not as strong.

Really Calm?  You know the numbers and how much each group contributed.  Mormons over $20 million Catholics $3 million.  

During the campaign for California's Proposition 8 in 2008, an estimated 80% to 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon Church

. While this is a very high percentage, it doesn't represent the 40% of overall manpower for the entire campaign. 

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/catholic-church-and-nom-responsible-for-60-of-anti-equality-funding-in-four#:~:text=The hefty financial investments from,And in Minneapolis-St.

Having said that, the difference in treatment of LGBT students at Notre Dame is massive and I can see that making enough of a difference.

If you are asking me personally, assuming the only thing changing would be my LGBT status based on political activity in the past and present, some would depend on if I was still a member or family was.  Assuming I wasn’t as is probably the scenario you are thinking about,  I would likely be angered, I would sign any petitions to get the administration to change their mind, I might join peaceful protests (never had the opportunity to do this, protests happened at my high school the year before and the year after I left and BYU had nothing like that though the ERA was receiving a lot of attention; I doubt I would have joined anything that risked me getting kicked out given my terminal shyness and desire to please my parents at that time; I had decided I would participate in this way in a cause that I supported, but no issue that was being discussed close enough to me to participate if a protest had popped up would have risked my standing with the Church…anti war, anti busing, rights for migrant workers, black civil rights).  

No way if I continued to be who I fundamentally am would I ever harass anyone including student athletes who I see as relatively powerless to influence church positions.  Perhaps some athletes might transfer to other schools or made a public stand by refusing to play and getting kicked out, more likely they would just never come to BYU in the first place and some are even making it clear to BYU, if not publicizing their reasons (I don’t remember seeing this in the news at all, has anyone when interviewed said if they got an offer to go to BYU, they would refuse unless LGBT were allowed to date, etc), but I see that as unlikely to change what is seen as a religious, moral standard by church leaders.

Thanks for your answer.  I don't know the answer to your question.  I do know that there are people who refused to go to BYU because of the way they treat LGBT students.  Remember the very public events that happened when students thought that the honor code rules were changed?

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Scapegoat or honest observation?  If you had watched the pre-game TV broadcast, you would have seen coverage of CU-Boulder students who were already quite inebriated prior to kick-off.  These kids were having a "great" time outside the stadium and were planning to continue having a great time inside the stadium -- there were no pro-LGBTQ+ rights signs, no rainbow flags nor any other sort of anti-discrimination symbols on display.  

Is that unusual in college football stadiums?

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

Really Calm?  You know the numbers and how much each group contributed.  Mormons over $20 million Catholics $3 million.  

I didn’t say they matched.  I said it was significant and the article indicates that funding came from Catholic leaders, so what I identify as “the organization” or at least the decision makers.  People’s behaviour matters, not just dollar amounts.  They were spending that money even though other long time important to the faith projects were lacking in funding.  That shows what level of importance standing against gay marriage was for the leaders. That $3 million plus the invitation plus the 70% of high attendance Catholics voting against gay marriage would be enough for me to take strong notice. 

 If you are talking numbers, lots more Catholic voters in California than LDS back then (37% vs 2%).  If money and not personal beliefs were the key factor, why didn’t the pro gay marriage side win?  I tried to find polling on attitudes prior to the Prop 8 campaign to see the possible influence, to see if minds were really changed, but besides the detail the majority of Californians were against gay marriage at that time my brain is locking up and not processing stuff.  My memory is that analysis of deciding factors for votes were age and church attendance, something not dependent on the campaign (this does not mean the campaign had no effect, it does mean imo we need to be cautious assuming how much difference it actually made, it could have made a big difference if those then against gay marriage didn’t care to vote until the campaign; this is why I would like to see studies on what influenced the result before assuming it was what LDS spent and therefore it makes sense to assume LDS were primarily responsible and not the higher number of Catholic and Evangelical in the states who might have voted it down even if the LDS Church had done nothing).

I recognize that just because that’s what is more important to me, that might not be what is most pertinent to others, but that recognition doesn’t stop me from questioning ‘why wouldn’t it matter most who voted for Prop 8?’

Me being me which means paying attention to connections and not forgetting them, the Catholics being the ones who got LDS first involved would be seen as significantly responsible for the over $20 million even if I thought LDS would have gotten involved anyway eventually.  Not saying everyone else should see it that way, but it does surprise me when someone solely focuses on LDS and ignores the Catholic effort to stop gay marriage.  That plus who voted and why matters more to me than who spent the most money, though certainly amount feeds into the determination of how important a position is to someone or some organization (I would factor in what funds were available as well, percentage of wealth devoted to a particular cause).

Edited October 1, 2025 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is that unusual in college football stadiums?

Not at all.  I think it would be somewhat exceptional if we saw many students carrying anti-discrimination signs into a football game.  In my estimation, the typical football stadium is populated with (1) a lot of people who love their team and love the sport -- so much so that they're willing to pay a LOT of money to attend; (2) people (like my wife) who only come, because they love me; and (3) students who come to support their university sports team.  I think the situation you described earlier (a group of LGBTQ+ students and supporters starting a chant) is definitely possible -- though honestly, I don't think it is all that likely.

[ZealouslyStriving]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Really Calm?  You know the numbers and how much each group contributed.  Mormons over $20 million Catholics $3 million.  

During the campaign for California's Proposition 8 in 2008, an estimated 80% to 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as the Mormon Church

. While this is a very high percentage, it doesn't represent the 40% of overall manpower for the entire campaign. 

Thanks for your answer.  I don't know the answer to your question.  I do know that there are people who refused to go to BYU because of the way they treat LGBT students.  Remember the very public events that happened when students thought that the honor code rules were changed?

So students that were between 1-5 years-old at the time of Prop 8 are still furious at the role of the Church and voiced it at a week 4 football game? 🤨

I think you are a little blinded with it being an issue very personal to you.

[ZealouslyStriving]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is that unusual in college football stadiums?

Colorado has received the "honor" several times of being the drunkest University.

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn’t say they matched.  I said it was significant and the article indicates that funding came from Catholic leaders, so what I identify as “the organization” or at least the decision makers.  People’s behaviour matters, not just dollar amounts.  They were spending that money even though other long time important to the faith projects were lacking in funding.  That shows what level of importance standing against gay marriage was for the leaders. That $3 million plus the invitation plus the 70% of high attendance Catholics voting against gay marriage would be enough for me to take strong notice. 

 If you are talking numbers, lots more Catholic voters in California than LDS back then (37% vs 2%).  If money and not personal beliefs were the key factor, why didn’t the pro gay marriage side win?  I tried to find polling on attitudes prior to the Prop 8 campaign to see the possible influence, to see if minds were really changed, but besides the detail the majority of Californians were against gay marriage at that time my brain is locking up and not processing stuff.  My memory is that analysis of deciding factors for votes were age and church attendance, something not dependent on the campaign (this does not mean the campaign had no effect, it does mean imo we need to be cautious assuming how much difference it actually made, it could have made a big difference if those then against gay marriage didn’t care to vote until the campaign; this is why I would like to see studies on what influenced the result before assuming it was what LDS spent and therefore it makes sense to assume LDS were primarily responsible and not the higher number of Catholic and Evangelical in the states who might have voted it down even if the LDS Church had done nothing).

I recognize that just because that’s what is more important to me, that might not be what is most pertinent to others, but that recognition doesn’t stop me from questioning ‘why wouldn’t it matter most who voted for Prop 8?’

Me being me which means paying attention to connections and not forgetting them, the Catholics being the ones who got LDS first involved would be seen as significantly responsible for the over $20 million even if I thought LDS would have gotten involved anyway eventually.  Not saying everyone else should see it that way, but it does surprise me when someone solely focuses on LDS and ignores the Catholic effort to stop gay marriage.  That plus who voted and why matters more to me than who spent the most money, though certainly amount feeds into the determination of how important a position is to someone or some organization (I would factor in what funds were available as well, percentage of wealth devoted to a particular cause).

We have had this discussion so many times on this board.  If you still want to believe that the Church was not the principle force behind Prop 8 by a wide margin, then I guess I am not going to change your mind at this point.  

I will give this summation from AI

 

Quote

 

It is not possible to provide a specific percentage for how many people believe the Mormon Church led the Prop 8 campaign because no polls on that specific perception were found in the search results

. However, news reports, analyses, and comments show that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) was widely perceived as a major force behind Proposition 8. 

Here's what the search results show about the perception of the LDS Church's role in Prop 8:

• Media coverage: News outlets like The New York Times reported extensively on the LDS Church's significant role in supporting the initiative through organized grassroots efforts and funding.
• Public backlash: After Prop 8 passed in 2008, the LDS Church became a target of protests and boycotts from same-sex marriage supporters, who held the church responsible for the measure's passage.
• Documentary: A 2010 documentary, 8: The Mormon Proposition, focused on the LDS Church's involvement, further highlighting its role in public discourse.
• Official confirmation: Church leaders issued statements acknowledging their involvement in the coalition supporting Prop 8.
• Impact on reputation: The church's involvement damaged its public image, with a poll showing a drop in its favorability rating a year after the election.
• Internal division: The campaign also caused internal rifts among members, with some speaking out about intense pressure to support the initiative. 

While the exact percentage of the public holding this belief is unknown, evidence from media, public reaction, and internal church discussions shows that the perception of strong LDS leadership in the Prop 8 campaign was widespread.

 

 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If you were a LGBT student at one of those schools that the administration power brokered a deal to get that BYU broadcasting money without significantly considering the social justice issues, just how would you push back?  Seriously, I would like an answer to that question.

If it were something that really mattered to me, I would vote with my feet and take my tuition dollars to a university which better aligned with my ideals.

If that cost is too high, well, then, on the bright side, I guess you just learned the monetary value of your principles. 

 

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So students that were between 1-5 years-old at the time of Prop 8 are still furious at the role of the Church and voiced it at a week 4 football game? 🤨

I think you are a little blinded with it being an issue very personal to you.

So your position is that LGBT students don't know LGBT history?  My experience is very different than that.  

 

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If it were something that really mattered to me, I would vote with my feet and take my tuition dollars to a university which better aligned with my ideals.

If that cost is too high, well, then, on the bright side, I guess you just learned the monetary value of your principles. 

 

Tell me, what is my monetary value of my principles?

[california boy]

I think this tread is becoming a little too personal for me.  Evidently I seem to be the only one on this thread that believes discrimination against LGBT students is of any importance at any university in this country.  Good to know that no one seems to think this is even a possibility.  Probably the same thinking that discrimination against Blacks was not important in the 1970's and pushing back against discrimination is not really a thing at universities.  

Do I know how much of this is about treatment of LGBT students at BYU?  No I do not.  But I do know how much animosity there is against the Church within the LGBT community.  Let me just say, the Church not liked and people have pretty strong feelings against Mormons because of the policies against the LGBT community.  Remember the firestorm when the Church decided to not allow baptisms if one of the parents was gay and gay couples were called apostates?  You still don't think that people care?  

Ok, carry on.  That is all I have to say about this.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

So your position is that LGBT students don't know LGBT history?  My experience is very different than that.  

 

My position is that I highly doubt the most rabidly LGTBQYXUVICYCU+ students were at a football game in such numbers that they made any difference as far as the reason that a bunch of students at the University named the "winner" as drunkest University or College several times were chanting vulgarities.

My position is that I think you overestimate how much the average drunken University frat boy cares about your personal cause.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

My position is that I highly doubt the most rabidly LGTBQYXUVICYCU+ students were at a football game in such numbers that they made any difference as far as the reason that a bunch of students at the University named the "winner" as drunkest University or College several times were chanting vulgarities.

My position is that I think you overestimate how much the average drunken University frat boy cares about your personal cause.

LGTBQYXUVICYCU+ tells me everything I need to know about your respect for those in the LGBT community.  You are asking people to show more respect for BYU but you show no respect for them.  

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

LGTBQYXUVICYCU+ tells me everything I need to know about your respect for those in the LGBT community.  You are asking people to show more respect for BYU but you show no respect for them.  

 

I've seen the videos of kids identifying themselves as so many things you can't even understand what they are talking about- LGBTQ+ doesn't even begin to cover it anymore. I saw one video where the girl said, "I like frogs, not people." when asked how she identifies.

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me, what is my monetary value of my principles?

No idea. I never claimed to know the value of your principles.

What I said is that each person makes that calculation for themselves. If someone believes a school’s values conflict with their own, they either decide it’s worth the personal cost to leave, or they decide the benefits outweigh the conflict and they stay. That trade-off - whatever it ends up being - is the price they’ve set on their principles, whether they admit it or not.

 

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, longview said:

It is better to maintain minimum standards to some degree. Otherwise there is the potential for ever increasing levels of brute intolerance and bigotry among the liquored-up crowds that could lead to rioting or heaven forbid a lynching. 

I'm not especially worried about anybody getting lynched at a Colorado football game.

Contact high? Maybe. 

 

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I've seen the videos of kids identifying themselves as so many things you can't even understand what they are talking about- LGBTQ+ doesn't even begin to cover it anymore. I saw one video where the girl said, "I like frogs, not people." when asked how she identifies.

 

So an opinion to show disrespect to a community based on outliners that say stuff to grab attention.  Well I hope you never have a problem with people basing the opinion of the Church by what they see on Tic Toc or wherever they broadcast this stuff.  I personally think that is very unfair of people to judge any organization based on what some random person says on the internet.  If you really want to have a more honest and educational understanding of the LGBT community I might suggest you actually talk to someone who is LGBT. You might be surprised that we aren't really the freaks you seem to think we are.

While the LGBT community is not a monolith, Glaad is probably the best source to find the right term for that community.  They and I and most everyone in the LGBT community will tell you LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+ are all acceptable terms,.   When you use the term LGTBQYXUVICYCU+ you are just being an  _hole and insulting.  But then I think that was your intent.  I will try not to judge all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by you.

Edited October 1, 2025 by california boy

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I see what you’re saying, and it’s reasonable.

I tend to use the “Jewish religion” litmus test.

If I’m OK with somebody doing it to or screaming it about “Jews” then I’m OK with them doing it to or screaming it about anyone else.

Not because it’s ever OK, but because I think that different events come with different social contracts and people have a right to expect certain things at certain events.

If I would absolutely be incensed and up in arms (theoretically speaking) over a group of college kids screaming “F the Jews” at a football game then same for them doing it to any other religion. Not because I don’t believe in protecting free speech, but because I think that people attending a football game sponsored by an organization they support have a right to attend without organized religious harassment.

Under those circumstances, I think the students can take their free speech somewhere else or suffer the consequences. 

I like your litmus test. I think it's a good way of getting that 'gut reaction' to try and make a neutral comparison.

My hesitation, however, is more about where we draw the line between insensitive speech and punishable behavior. I tend toward letting people speak, even if it's upsetting. 

In this case, I can live with the fine because it's (1) pretty nominal; and (2) being levied against the institution for violating the code of conduct they agreed to follow as conference participants. Remember, the Big 12 is a private athletic conference, and their sportsmanship rules are contractual obligations for the member schools. 

However, if Colorado as a public university, bound by the First Amendment, tried to ban or expel individual students for offensive chants, that would be blatantly unconstitutional, and I would be firmly in the offending student's corner - despite my personal distaste for their comments.

 

[let’s roll]

If the conference had its member schools make an announcement before games that inappropriate fan behavior can result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (15 yards) and trained officials to call such penalties when they witness such conduct (e.g. throwing things on the field, profane chants), I believe that such real time game impacting consequences would do much more to mitigate bad behavior than after the fact apologies.

[ZealouslyStriving]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

So an opinion to show disrespect to a community based on outliners that say stuff to grab attention.  Well I hope you never have a problem with people basing the opinion of the Church by what they see on Tic Toc or wherever they broadcast this stuff.  I personally think that is very unfair of people to judge any organization based on what some random person says on the internet.  If you really want to have a more honest and educational understanding of the LGBT community I might suggest you actually talk to someone who is LGBT. You might be surprised that we aren't really the freaks you seem to think we are.

While the LGBT community is not a monolith, Glaad is probably the best source to find the right term for that community.  They and I and most everyone in the LGBT community will tell you LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+ are all acceptable terms,.   When you use the term LGTBQYXUVICYCU+ you are just being an  _hole and insulting.  But then I think that was your intent.  I will try not to judge all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by you.

And I'll try not to judge all LGTB+ folks as seeing everything through that lense like you do.

I rather like Rob Smith. He is a gay, black, conservative. Do his views count?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If you still want to believe that the Church was not the principle force behind Prop 8 by a wide margin, then I guess I am not going to change your mind at this point.  

And you keep missing my point.  I have never ever said it wasn’t the principle force.  I have always been interested in how that influence played out…as in how much influence it had on what, not in comparison to other organizations or individuals, but in changing minds from pro or neutral gay marriage to anti gay marriage as well as how much influence it had on getting the vote out.  I have never even said anyone was wrong in resenting the Church.

You seem to think because I accept that others were also committed to trying to influence the vote that I am trying to downplay or shift responsibility from the LDS Church.  I am not.  I am trying to create a fuller picture of the Church’s involvement…what worked and why.  Also interested in why some people heavily focus on the Church and ignore other players because it doesn’t make sense to me.  If I got beaten up by a gang, I might resent the leader of the gang…the one who pushed the gang to attack me the most, but I wouldn’t be forgetting the guy who kicked me in the ribs or the one who gave me the black eye.  I don’t see what the Church did as anything close to it, but I understand why some people feel that way….but for some they just call the Church the bully in my experience.

I do think the Church made a difference and most likely a winning difference given the narrow margin, but it wasn’t acting on tabula rasa individuals or hypnotizing anyone.  And it wasn’t just the money amount that mattered because the Church and its allies were out spent by pro gay marriage opponents.  Maybe it was wiser spending, maybe it was the grassroots connecting, maybe it was because there was already a fertile ground as the majority of voters were already against gay marriage and we nudged them into voting when many wouldn’t have.  Maybe something else.

But given the dislike for the Church overall as well as the greater amount of money spent by the pro faction as well as the low numbers of all the LDS voters, I am interested in what actual weight was the influence  (in 2008 there were approximately 755,000 LDS in CA, am wondering if this is records or census numbers; the difference between pro and anti was almost 600,000…only assuming that no LDS would have voted yes without the Church coming out and telling them to can one say that LDS voters made the difference on their own….so it’s influence that matters).

I grew up and had extended family in the Bay Area, I know how popular LDS were generally speaking from the 60s up to the 90s, less familiar though still have family in Southern California these days.  The Priesthood Ban was not making us friends.  We weren’t taken seriously by most kids and adults I knew because of no sex, no smoking, no alcohol , not even coffee, iow no fun.  We were odd, at the very least, more often seen as racist.  So I get curious when I hear the Church was a powerhouse of influence in this campaign and I wonder why (not debating it, wondering about the mechanics, how we did it).  Mitt Romney did get to be a candidate nationally, but there is a chance being LDS hurt his candidacy.  Orrin Hatch had a lot of influence as did Harry Reid, so not saying LDS couldn’t have lots of influence, likely more than usual for our size, in part because we are centralized and very good at organization.  Also now because of wealth, which generally speaking gets paid attention to way too much by politicians in some quarters even if the Church isn’t among those who bribe, etc.

Added:  as for why I bring up other organizations, I will never understand why LDS had the level of influence they did as well as the staying power of that understandable resentment if I don’t also examine why other organizations involved aren’t seen that way even in proportion to level of involvement by some.

Edited October 1, 2025 by Calm