[over the mountain]

scowan - this is not an apples to apples comparison bc a strong argument could be made that the redskins and the NFL are private and not businesses open to the public (like a 7-11 or a bakery) and that the redskins, by their name alone, are not refusing service to anyone but ...

back in the 60's the Civil Rights Act was passed which basically said that you cannot discriminate against a person because of their race, joining other protected categories such as gender, religion, age, handicap.

Shortly thereafter, a Motel refused to allow black people to stay at the motel. The SCOTUS ruled that a business open to the public cannot discriminate against business invitees based upon race. The Federal Civil Rights Act extended to businesses only doing business in a particular state under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That laid the ground work that a business open to the public cannot refuse service based upon a protected class/category.

In '05 or '06, conservatives tried to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to federally define marriage as between a man and woman. The SCOTUS ruled against DOMA and added "sexual preference" to the list of protected categories you cannot discriminate against.

last year a baker refused service to a lesbian couple bc of their sexual preference. The Court ruled that the bakery, as a business open to the public, could not discriminate against the couple and had to bake the cake. The bakery decided to close shop.

if you are a private organization, you can deny membership for any reason you want (see Augusta nat'l)

Short answer - while the Redskins are not refusing a service to the native americans like the baker did the lesbian couple .... eventually the Fed Govt may be able pull any and all federal benefits, incentives etc

im not a fan of telling offended people to just close their eyes or cover their ears when offensive conduct is being conducted in the public arena