Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are completely wrong on your interpretation of the first amendment. We have been over this, on this board, so many times I am not going to repeat it other then to say, the NFL protests are not protected speech.We can make up whatever we think the constitution says to fit our bias. But if an employer fires an employee for peacefully expressing their first amendment rights, that business is going to court and will probably end up paying a steep price.
Probably. And that's a screwed up, inside-out implementation of the First Amendment. It's not protecting anyone's rights and is actually violating the employer's rights. An employer firing someone for expressing opinions they disagree with is no different than an employee quitting because their employer express opinions they don't agree with. Should that be prohibited as well?
The employer or anyone else does not have the right to impede or suppress free speech. If the owners would fire people for this it has to be for the reason the protest is being held not for what is being perceived. The protest here is not a protest of the fucking flag or national anthem. The protest here is about police brutality and racial injustice. I can't fire you for what you are not doing. I have been an employer fool, and if you fire someone for something they are not doing, your business is in deep shit trouble. So until you actually learn and understand why this protest is actually being done, you really shouldn't be making comments on what should be done.
Learn this too, these teams and owners are members of the NFL. As such they are bound by NF policy. At least check the NFL had no policy pertaining to players conduct during the national anthem. The players are protected by the NFLPA and as such there are binding agreements owners must follow that are agreed to by owners and players. So owners can't just do what they want.
This is not moms and pops store we are talking about..
Actually not.The "spirit" I regard as the idea that anybody can express their opinion without its being either suppressed by Authority (in the reactive) or coerced by Authority (in the initiative). That pretty much calls out "fire the sumbitches" and tossing Earnest Starr in jail. It also calls out the idea of injecting national anthems into sporting events where it has no function, just because some demagogue wants to milk mob mentality.
Interesting. You avoided calling out government, instead going with "authority" (capitalized!)(twice!)
This suggests to me that you see the employer as an Authority, like government. I think that entirely misses the point of our First Amendment rights. Indeed, the First actually protects the employer's right to fire someone as a political statement.
That, to me, is the only interesting part of this issue. Should government be allowed to tell employers who they can hire or fire, and for what reasons?
We can make up whatever we think the constitution says to fit our bias. But if an employer fires an employee for peacefully expressing their first amendment rights, that business is going to court and will probably end up paying a steep price. Let a owner of one of those teams start firing players for protesting racial injustice and you will see a reprimand of that move by the fans that will far surpass this little claim made by people who are dumb enough to believe this protest is about the flag and anthem.
The rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations – including employer/employee relationships.
There would be no free speech, free expression ‘violation’ if an NFL payer were fired for protesting, and such a player would have no standing to sue on First Amendment grounds.
But you are correct in the context of private society – in our free and democratic society – where citizens would be at liberty to denounce a team owner who fired a protesting player, and call for a boycott of the team’s games.
The "spirit" I regard as the idea that anybody can express their opinion without its being either suppressed by Authority (in the reactive) or coerced by Authority (in the initiative). That pretty much calls out "fire the sumbitches" and tossing Earnest Starr in jail. It also calls out the idea of injecting national anthems into sporting events where it has no function, just because some demagogue wants to milk mob mentality.
Interesting. You avoided calling out government, instead going with "authority" (capitalized!)(twice!)
This suggests to me that you see the employer as an Authority, like government. I think that entirely misses the point of our First Amendment rights. Indeed, the First actually protects the employer's right to fire someone as a political statement.
That, to me, is the only interesting part of this issue. Should government be allowed to tell employers who they can hire or fire, and for what reasons?
We can make up whatever we think the constitution says to fit our bias. But if an employer fires an employee for peacefully expressing their first amendment rights, that business is going to court and will probably end up paying a steep price. Let a owner of one of those teams start firing players for protesting racial injustice and you will see a reprimand of that move by the fans that will far surpass this little claim made by people who are dumb enough to believe this protest is about the flag and anthem.
If the league fired the kneelers for being anti-American pieces of shit, the fans would love it.
IF they DON'T, the fans are going to hate it, and they will have to deal with the fact that the players who they celebrate, have nothing but contempt for them.
That's going to poison the fan base, now and more over time.
But they aren't kneeling as anti americans so if they get fired for peacefully protesting racial injustice, the fans are not going to like it. Those fans who want to believe a lie are not important.
You stand during the Anthem to show respect to the Nation and it's Citizens.
You kneel, and you are showing the opposite, ie disrespect to the Nation and it's Citizens.
Your lying denial of that does not fool anyone, not even yourself.
They are anti-American pieces of shit and should have no place in American society.
Actually not.The "spirit" I regard as the idea that anybody can express their opinion without its being either suppressed by Authority (in the reactive) or coerced by Authority (in the initiative). That pretty much calls out "fire the sumbitches" and tossing Earnest Starr in jail. It also calls out the idea of injecting national anthems into sporting events where it has no function, just because some demagogue wants to milk mob mentality.
Interesting. You avoided calling out government, instead going with "authority" (capitalized!)(twice!)
This suggests to me that you see the employer as an Authority, like government. I think that entirely misses the point of our First Amendment rights. Indeed, the First actually protects the employer's right to fire someone as a political statement.
That, to me, is the only interesting part of this issue. Should government be allowed to tell employers who they can hire or fire, and for what reasons?
We can make up whatever we think the constitution says to fit our bias. But if an employer fires an employee for peacefully expressing their first amendment rights, that business is going to court and will probably end up paying a steep price. Let a owner of one of those teams start firing players for protesting racial injustice and you will see a reprimand of that move by the fans that will far surpass this little claim made by people who are dumb enough to believe this protest is about the flag and anthem.
The rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations – including employer/employee relationships.
There would be no free speech, free expression ‘violation’ if an NFL payer were fired for protesting, and such a player would have no standing to sue on First Amendment grounds.
But you are correct in the context of private society – in our free and democratic society – where citizens would be at liberty to denounce a team owner who fired a protesting player, and call for a boycott of the team’s games.
A private business or individual is not immune from constitutional rights. If the players were actually disrupting their job, then could see how a player can be fired. If during a NFL football game players would suddenly decide to sit down on the field during play refusing to play because they are protesting no matter how peaceful this is, I can see how thy could be fired Standing on the sidelines before a game starts is not disrupting job performance of you or your co workers.
We can make up whatever we think the constitution says to fit our bias. But if an employer fires an employee for peacefully expressing their first amendment rights, that business is going to court and will probably end up paying a steep price.
Probably. And that's a screwed up, inside-out implementation of the First Amendment. It's not protecting anyone's rights and is actually violating the employer's rights. An employer firing someone for expressing opinions they disagree with is no different than an employee quitting because their employer express opinions they don't agree with. Should that be prohibited as well?
The employer or anyone else does not have the right to impede or suppress free speech.
Interesting. You avoided calling out government, instead going with "authority" (capitalized!)(twice!)
This suggests to me that you see the employer as an Authority, like government. I think that entirely misses the point of our First Amendment rights. Indeed, the First actually protects the employer's right to fire someone as a political statement.
That, to me, is the only interesting part of this issue. Should government be allowed to tell employers who they can hire or fire, and for what reasons?
We can make up whatever we think the constitution says to fit our bias. But if an employer fires an employee for peacefully expressing their first amendment rights, that business is going to court and will probably end up paying a steep price. Let a owner of one of those teams start firing players for protesting racial injustice and you will see a reprimand of that move by the fans that will far surpass this little claim made by people who are dumb enough to believe this protest is about the flag and anthem.
If the league fired the kneelers for being anti-American pieces of shit, the fans would love it.
IF they DON'T, the fans are going to hate it, and they will have to deal with the fact that the players who they celebrate, have nothing but contempt for them.
That's going to poison the fan base, now and more over time.
But they aren't kneeling as anti americans so if they get fired for peacefully protesting racial injustice, the fans are not going to like it. Those fans who want to believe a lie are not important.
You stand during the Anthem to show respect to the Nation and it's Citizens.
You kneel, and you are showing the opposite, ie disrespect to the Nation and it's Citizens.
Your lying denial of that does not fool anyone, not even yourself.
They are anti-American pieces of shit and should have no place in American society.
That's what YOU believe, but the supreme court says we don't have to and what you say is not so.
.
The only reason the players take the field during the anthem is because they are getting paid by the US govt...The NFL is not paying them for that time...So you can see where the thin line has been drawn and it's not up to the NFL or the teams to tell the players what to do on their own time...
It’s idiocy to advocate firing anyone who engages in lawful protest; it likewise idiocy to fire anyone refuses to engage in protest.
Wrong. And they do have the right to protest Trump. After all you guys protested Obama for 8 years and you still do,
Sure they can. And if their owner is Charlie Finley he can require them to wear white shoes, silly as that looks.
But in neither case will they have a legitimate rational basis for doing so.
Actually the white shoes have more of a basis --- at least they're shoes.
I really don't remember Charlie (them) asking you ... But you have every right to say what you think about matter ... For whatever that is worth ...
The "spirit" I regard as the idea that anybody can express their opinion without its being either suppressed by Authority (in the reactive) or coerced by Authority (in the initiative). That pretty much calls out "fire the sumbitches" and tossing Earnest Starr in jail. It also calls out the idea of injecting national anthems into sporting events where it has no function, just because some demagogue wants to milk mob mentality.
Interesting. You avoided calling out government, instead going with "authority" (capitalized!)(twice!)
This suggests to me that you see the employer as an Authority, like government. I think that entirely misses the point of our First Amendment rights. Indeed, the First actually protects the employer's right to fire someone as a political statement.
That, to me, is the only interesting part of this issue. Should government be allowed to tell employers who they can hire or fire, and for what reasons?
That was the point of the OP. I wanted to know which of the conservatives who think the team owners should fire the kneelers would also support the owner's right to fire the non-kneelers.
