NFL weighs penalty for Anti American Kneelers

[airplanemechanic]

It's the same thing --- fascism.

There are still a few of us left who oppose it. Like it or lump it.

If you're going to oppose it, it might help to know what you're even opposing.

It has nothing to do with fascism. Apparently you have no clue what fascism is. It's called capitalism. The right to work anywhere you want and the right to be fired from anywhere you work.

Liberals don't seem to understand, you don't have a RIGHT to a job. And having a job doesn't mean you can do anything you want and you are entitled to keep it.

You are being paid money for your performance. Whether you throw a football, weld a seam, make a t shirt, etc. That makes the company money. If you do anything that costs them money, they can terminate you. Contract or not, no contract gives someone free reign on what they can and can't do.

So is it "fascism" for a company to put a sign out front that says "No shoes no shirt no service?" Should customers have a right to walk in barefoot? Or could it be that the company doesn't want people walking around barefoot because they could step on something and get hurt and in turn sue the company? COSTING THEM MONEY? Remember, with capitalism, the dollar drives everything.

 

[Lysistrata]

Employers still are required to state a legitimate reason for a discharge if sued for discrimination, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, at-will employment or not.

I don't like the idea of forcing an employee to exhibit an emotion or salute a symbol, though.

The NFL should stay out of it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Employers still are required to state a legitimate reason for a discharge if sued for discrimination, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, at-will employment or not.

That's not true at all.

In at at-will state, where no reason is needed to fire someone, how could a court of law mandate that an employer give a "legitimate reason"? So the courts can overrule the law and make their own?

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove that they were fired because of race or whatnot. The employer is under no obligation to prove they didn't. If the plaintiff states they were fired because they were black or muslim or whatnot and the defendant says they were not, the plaintiff must PROVE they were.

If they state no reason at all for termination in an at-will state, the case would die before it got off the ground. Otherwise every black man ever fired would sue and win a case against his past employer. Which of course isn't happening.

In 2013, after having worked for a corporate jet hangar for almost 3 years, my boss walked into my office and said "we're terminating you, effective immediately, get your stuff and leave." I was never given a reason. I went home, got my truck and got my tool box and left. I couldn't do anything about it. I was never given a reason to this day don't know why I was fired.

 

[Pogo]

It has nothing to do with fascism. Apparently you have no clue what fascism is. It's called capitalism. The right to work anywhere you want and the right to be fired from anywhere you work.

Liberals don't seem to understand, you don't have a RIGHT to a job. And having a job doesn't mean you can do anything you want and you are entitled to keep it.

You are being paid money for your performance. Whether you throw a football, weld a seam, make a t shirt, etc. That makes the company money. If you do anything that costs them money, they can terminate you. Contract or not, no contract gives someone free reign on what they can and can't do.

So is it "fascism" for a company to put a sign out front that says "No shoes no shirt no service?" Should customers have a right to walk in barefoot? Or could it be that the company doesn't want people walking around barefoot because they could step on something and get hurt and in turn sue the company? COSTING THEM MONEY? Remember, with capitalism, the dollar drives everything.

Oh I ain't talking about anybody's "right to work". That's your gig. I'm talking about the mob mentality that tries to force a man to kiss a flag and if he doesn't he gets hard labor. THAT kind of fascism. The same mob mentality you're selling here.

 

[candycorn]

Terrible idea. So….

What if you have more than one kneeler? 10 kneelers =150 yards.

What if someone on both teams kneels…offsetting penalties and nothing happens?

As one of the commentators said; it is industrial strength stupid.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The "right to work" plays a huge part in this. It is the basis of which they can be fired.

I don't agree with the penalty, I think if they kneel, they should get their stuff out of the locker room and go home. The NFL is losing money, that's the only reason that they need to get rid of kneelers.

My team is the Saints. They've NEVER kneeled for the anthem and they know they better damn well not. Louisiana is a HUGE military state with multiple huge military installations throughout the state. They wouldn't DARE kneel for the anthem. They'll kneel BEFORE it which is fine, but when the anthem comes on, they stand up.

 

[WEATHER53]

A bunch of horsesh’t protesting a non existent fabrication
Yep, that’s why we watch football

 

[Pogo]

The "right to work" plays a huge part in this. It is the basis of which they can be fired.

I don't agree with the penalty, I think if they kneel, they should get their stuff out of the locker room and go home. The NFL is losing money, that's the only reason that they need to get rid of kneelers.

My team is the Saints. They've NEVER kneeled for the anthem and they know they better damn well not. Louisiana is a HUGE military state with multiple huge military installations throughout the state. They wouldn't DARE kneel for the anthem. They'll kneel BEFORE it which is fine, but when the anthem comes on, they stand up.

Kneeling has nothing to do with "the military". Don't try to sell that shit.

 

[Pogo]

Terrible idea. So….

What if you have more than one kneeler? 10 kneelers =150 yards.

What if someone on both teams kneels…offsetting penalties and nothing happens?

As one of the commentators said; it is industrial strength stupid.

I'm sure it was put out as a joke, but that's what I expect would happen. Soon as somebody on this team kneels, somebody on that team kneels too. Penalties offset, nothing changes and (horrors) they can actually play the normal game they came there to play, and the end result for whoever sees it is that the whole fake-patriotism charade is mocked for the mockery it already is.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's disrespecting the country and the men and women who have died to defend their right to play football.

Yes, it is definitely disrespecting the military.

Why the fuck do you think you have a right to wake up in the morning without a gun pointed at your head. You think that shit came from unicorns and candycanes? It's the fucking military you dipshit. That's the ONLY reason you are free.

 

[Pogo]

It's disrespecting the country and the men and women who have died to defend their right to play football.

Yes, it is definitely disrespecting the military.

Why the fuck do you think you have a right to wake up in the morning without a gun pointed at your head. You think that shit came from unicorns and candycanes? It's the fucking military you dipshit. That's the ONLY reason you are free.

Oh FUCKING BULLSHIT. It ain't your place to dictate what somebody else is thinking, fascist.

Once ***AGAIN*** unless it's the fucking Army-Navy game "the military" has no function in a FUCKING FOOTBALL GAME. Football has a function in a fucking football game.

 

[Lysistrata]

Employers still are required to state a legitimate reason for a discharge if sued for discrimination, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, at-will employment or not.

That's not true at all.

In at at-will state, where no reason is needed to fire someone, how could a court of law mandate that an employer give a "legitimate reason"? So the courts can overrule the law and make their own?

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove that they were fired because of race or whatnot. The employer is under no obligation to prove they didn't. If the plaintiff states they were fired because they were black or muslim or whatnot and the defendant says they were not, the plaintiff must PROVE they were.

If they state no reason at all for termination in an at-will state, the case would die before it got off the ground. Otherwise every black man ever fired would sue and win a case against his past employer. Which of course isn't happening.

In 2013, after having worked for a corporate jet hangar for almost 3 years, my boss walked into my office and said "we're terminating you, effective immediately, get your stuff and leave." I was never given a reason. I went home, got my truck and got my tool box and left. I couldn't do anything about it. I was never given a reason to this day don't know why I was fired.

Cases brought under federal and most state anti-discrimination laws are analyzed in the following manner:

Direct evidence can be relied upon to show discrimination. In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is appropriate. To establish a cause of action for disparate treatment based upon circumstantial proof, the charging party must show:

1. That he was a member of a group protected by Title VII;
2. That he was qualified for his position, or for a position for which he was applying;
3. That he suffered an adverse employment action; and
4. That applicants or employees, who were not a member of his protected group, were treated differently by the employer.

These principles were established in a decision by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973). Once the above elements have been established, a prima facie case (or an inference of) discrimination exists. It is then up to the employer to present evidence of a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. This is a burden of production, and not a burden of proof. At all times, the burden of proof remains upon the charging employee. If the employer satisfies its burden of production, and shows that the adverse employment action was based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the charging employee must then show that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reason for the employment action was a mere pretext. ​

Title VII and Sexual Harassment Claims - FindLaw

The employer is required to state something.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Oh FUCKING BULLSHIT. It ain't your place to dictate what somebody else is thinking, fascist.

Once ***AGAIN*** unless it's the fucking Army-Navy game "the military" has no function in a FUCKING FOOTBALL GAME. Football has a function in a fucking football game.

now all you have to do is apply that to the kneeling as well and everyone will be on the same page

 

[Godboy]

NFL weighs 15-yard penalties for kneeling during national anthem: report

They shouldn't be allowed to stay in the locker room for the anthem. They are ALLOWED to live in this country that ALLOWS them to play a game and make MILLIONS the VERY LEAST they can do is stand for the damn National Anthem!

Oh fuck the fuck you and the jingoistic horse you rode in on.

The players weren't trotted out to be marionettes for a fucking fake patriotism display that has ZERO to do with the game they're actually there to play until less than a decade ago. They're fucking CITIZENS of this country, not "allowed" to live here. In closing, bite me.

Youve got it backwards. Kneeling is anti patriotic, and it pisses off Americans. Thats why they are giving them 15 yard penalties.

 

[Lysistrata]

NFL weighs 15-yard penalties for kneeling during national anthem: report

They shouldn't be allowed to stay in the locker room for the anthem. They are ALLOWED to live in this country that ALLOWS them to play a game and make MILLIONS the VERY LEAST they can do is stand for the damn National Anthem!

Oh fuck the fuck you and the jingoistic horse you rode in on.

The players weren't trotted out to be marionettes for a fucking fake patriotism display that has ZERO to do with the game they're actually there to play until less than a decade ago. They're fucking CITIZENS of this country, not "allowed" to live here. In closing, bite me.

Youve got it backwards. Kneeling is anti patriotic, and it pisses off Americans. Thats why they are giving them 15 yard penalties.

There is absolutely nothing "anti-patriotic" about kneeling. And it only pisses of some Americans; by no means all.

 

[otto105]

Stupid thread

 

[Godboy]

NFL weighs 15-yard penalties for kneeling during national anthem: report

They shouldn't be allowed to stay in the locker room for the anthem. They are ALLOWED to live in this country that ALLOWS them to play a game and make MILLIONS the VERY LEAST they can do is stand for the damn National Anthem!

Oh fuck the fuck you and the jingoistic horse you rode in on.

The players weren't trotted out to be marionettes for a fucking fake patriotism display that has ZERO to do with the game they're actually there to play until less than a decade ago. They're fucking CITIZENS of this country, not "allowed" to live here. In closing, bite me.

Youve got it backwards. Kneeling is anti patriotic, and it pisses off Americans. Thats why they are giving them 15 yard penalties.

There is absolutely nothing "anti-patriotic" about kneeling. And it only pisses of some Americans; by no means all.

So they are kneeling because they love their country?

 

[Lysistrata]

NFL weighs 15-yard penalties for kneeling during national anthem: report

They shouldn't be allowed to stay in the locker room for the anthem. They are ALLOWED to live in this country that ALLOWS them to play a game and make MILLIONS the VERY LEAST they can do is stand for the damn National Anthem!

Oh fuck the fuck you and the jingoistic horse you rode in on.

The players weren't trotted out to be marionettes for a fucking fake patriotism display that has ZERO to do with the game they're actually there to play until less than a decade ago. They're fucking CITIZENS of this country, not "allowed" to live here. In closing, bite me.

Youve got it backwards. Kneeling is anti patriotic, and it pisses off Americans. Thats why they are giving them 15 yard penalties.

There is absolutely nothing "anti-patriotic" about kneeling. And it only pisses of some Americans; by no means all.

So they are kneeling because they love their country?

It's a protest conveying the feelings of the participants that the country, as represented by the anthem and the flag, has been straying from its core values and this problem needs attention. Unfortunately, some manipulative Americans have tried to co-opt these symbols to mean, not the love of country that these symbols are supposed to represent to all Americans, but rather assent to their policies and actions.

 

[candycorn]

Terrible idea. So….

What if you have more than one kneeler? 10 kneelers =150 yards.

What if someone on both teams kneels…offsetting penalties and nothing happens?

As one of the commentators said; it is industrial strength stupid.

I'm sure it was put out as a joke, but that's what I expect would happen. Soon as somebody on this team kneels, somebody on that team kneels too. Penalties offset, nothing changes and (horrors) they can actually play the normal game they came there to play, and the end result for whoever sees it is that the whole fake-patriotism charade is mocked for the mockery it already is.

Well, it's like (and I'll schill for it again--IT IS THAT GOOD!!!!) the May 4 edition of This American Life where they talked about free speech on campus....

They point out that the more you try to ban something, the more interest you generate and the more compelling you make the episode.

I'm a Simpson's fan but I don't get to watch original telecasts for many reasons. I saw the other day that they had an episode that addressed the outrage over their humiliating treatment of the Apu character. I made a point to look it up just because of the outrage. The quickest way to get player solidarity on this topic is to tell the players they can't do something that they consider "off the field".

 

[airplanemechanic]

Employers still are required to state a legitimate reason for a discharge if sued for discrimination, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, at-will employment or not.

That's not true at all.

In at at-will state, where no reason is needed to fire someone, how could a court of law mandate that an employer give a "legitimate reason"? So the courts can overrule the law and make their own?

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove that they were fired because of race or whatnot. The employer is under no obligation to prove they didn't. If the plaintiff states they were fired because they were black or muslim or whatnot and the defendant says they were not, the plaintiff must PROVE they were.

If they state no reason at all for termination in an at-will state, the case would die before it got off the ground. Otherwise every black man ever fired would sue and win a case against his past employer. Which of course isn't happening.

In 2013, after having worked for a corporate jet hangar for almost 3 years, my boss walked into my office and said "we're terminating you, effective immediately, get your stuff and leave." I was never given a reason. I went home, got my truck and got my tool box and left. I couldn't do anything about it. I was never given a reason to this day don't know why I was fired.

Cases brought under federal and most state anti-discrimination laws are analyzed in the following manner:

Direct evidence can be relied upon to show discrimination. In the absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is appropriate. To establish a cause of action for disparate treatment based upon circumstantial proof, the charging party must show:

1. That he was a member of a group protected by Title VII;
2. That he was qualified for his position, or for a position for which he was applying;
3. That he suffered an adverse employment action; and
4. That applicants or employees, who were not a member of his protected group, were treated differently by the employer.

These principles were established in a decision by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973). Once the above elements have been established, a prima facie case (or an inference of) discrimination exists. It is then up to the employer to present evidence of a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. This is a burden of production, and not a burden of proof. At all times, the burden of proof remains upon the charging employee. If the employer satisfies its burden of production, and shows that the adverse employment action was based on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the charging employee must then show that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reason for the employment action was a mere pretext. ​

Title VII and Sexual Harassment Claims - FindLaw

The employer is required to state something.

Um, did you read your reply? Your reply states EXACTLY what I did. That the burden of proof is not on the defendant, but on the plaintiff to show they were discriminated against. And your reply showed exactly that. That 4 elements must be established BY THE PLAINTIFF, and then and only then does the defendant have to show proof otherwise. And the first one is the one that shows I'm exactly right, that they are a protected class of people. And people in at-will states fired for no reason at all are not protected.

Title VII:

Title VII Protected Classes: Everything You Need to Know

So thanks for backing up what I said! I knew I was right but you showed me a link proving it. Thanks!