Possible changes to anthem guidelines

[MHS831]

4 hours ago, 4Corners said:

Where the hell do you work? Some mill or factory where most of the employees don’t own a desk?  There’s plenty of people where I work with political things on their desks, both sides of the isle. But you are missing the point. I don’t think peacefully raising awareness for what someone believes in to be “political,” but unfortunately the whole anthem debate has managed to wake up the racists and prejudiced people in our country. It’s turned into white conservative America vs black “militant” players as a previous poster so eloquently put it.  

You are obviously so out of your element that it is amusing, and honestly, you need to stick to sports. Your comments reek of racial undertones and it’s apparent you are ignorant on this topic. Kapernick was protesting well before two years ago, it just wasn’t noticed by a camera until later. You can also look up the social causes, charities, and programs that the anthem protesters have donated their time and money to. Don’t believe me? Google it!

I would be willing to bet that Kapernick has donated more time and money to charities than  President Good christian has since this nonsense started. 

Your powers of inference are uncanny.  I simply know that your place of employment is not where you demonstrate your political feelings, especially if it hurts the company you work for.  Is that concept beyond your comprehension?   That must be some classy office you work in, with political signs and crap decorating the workspace--and you want to mock me because your office is as classy as a NASCAR jumpsuit?

I assure you, where I work there are desks and the purpose for them is not to facilitate phones for insurance telemarketers.  But the point that I was making blew by you.  Your job is not where you promote political or religious views if you work in a place that does not require a hair net.

[Thorrez]

7 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's not embedded in the Constitution, but yes, employers do have the right to set behavior standards for their employees.

That said, regardless of where you stand on the protest issue, I'm not in favor of assessing football penalties for non-football related actions.

Mike Florio had a good take on this (he is a former labor lawyer). 

Yes, but the league did not use that right as they put "should stand" in the conduct rules (shall would have been binding, should its just a recommendation in law terms) and tvice stated they support the players right to not stand for the anthem. 

Now the employees, players, have that right and it cannot be taken away by the employer, league, without a bargain agreement. 

So the skinny is the league have given up the right to have a rule on the matter. 

[The Pieyed Piper]

This should go over as well as Hillary for President.

[The Pieyed Piper]

11 minutes ago, HornetsSting said:

 

SMH, they couldn't just leave it alone and let father time take care of it could they? 

Mother is always running late....

[KendrickPanther]

The league is totally justified in doing this... it will get them bad PR but more fans than not want the players standing or not present for the anthem. 

Everytime someone brings up constitutional rights for peaceful protest I roll my eyes. They are at work. They are there to work and tow the company line. How about they peaceful protest after work, before work, or on their off days? A lot of them don't care enough to do that. They just want to do the lazy thing and take a knee at work. 

[The Pieyed Piper]

not everybody can get booked on MSNBC....

[emcannon]

17 hours ago, MadHatter said:

Not telling anyone which side of this issue they should be on.  But your assertion about constitutional right to peaceful protest (and others comments about freedom of speech) are not accurate in this situation.  Those constitutional rights only afford you the right to not allow the government to restrict your ability to do those things.  They do NOT afford you the right to say or protest anything you want and anywhere you want without consequences from employers...including penalties, suspensions, firings, etc.  they are allowed to set behaviorscand rules that employees are required to abide by.

Again, this is not a comment about which side is correct on this issue...only the incorrect “rights” assertions that many are making.

 

 

Thanks for the Con Law lesson, guy. NC attorney here, nice to meet you.

My point wan't the fact that the NFL doesn't have the right to restrict speech (they do), it's that their prior restraint is obviously going to blow up in their faces when the inevitable fan/player backlash happens.

Have a nice day.

[emcannon]

Also would like to point out that MadHatter's Con Law lesson above, while generally correct, neglects to mention cases where private entities who are found to have been acting at the behest of the state are, for all intents and purposes, considered "state actors" which may permit a plaintiff to recover in a First Amendment action. Look no further than our current carrot-in-chief's NFL diatribes to see how this could be applied in a potential retaliation case against NFL owners.

     

[AggieLean]

4 hours ago, KendrickPanther said:

The league is totally justified in doing this... it will get them bad PR but more fans than not want the players standing or not present for the anthem. 

Everytime someone brings up constitutional rights for peaceful protest I roll my eyes. They are at work. They are there to work and tow the company line. How about they peaceful protest after work, before work, or on their off days? A lot of them don't care enough to do that. They just want to do the lazy thing and take a knee at work. 

You have numbers to back your first paragraph up?

[Wyank]

13 minutes ago, emcannon said:

Thanks for the Con Law lesson, guy. NC attorney here, nice to meet you.

My point wan't the fact that the NFL doesn't have the right to restrict speech (they do), it's that their prior restraint is obviously going to blow up in their faces when the inevitable fan/player backlash happens.

Have a nice day.

I don't think he/she was disputing your point that it would blow up in their face.  It read to me that he was just pointing out the first part of your post (as well as others who were stating it as a right) was inaccurate and misleading, especially coming from a NC attorney who admits that generally the info he posted is correct.  MadHatter problably doesn't know your profession before hand and your main point is very accurate.  A shitstorm would be expected if a rule like this would be made.  I don't mean any offense but your op he was quoting probably could of been worded better and still get the same point across.  

[emcannon]

3 minutes ago, Wyank said:

I don't think he/she was disputing your point that it would blow up in their face.  It read to me that he was just pointing out the first part of your post (as well as others who were stating it as a right) was inaccurate and misleading, especially coming from a NC attorney who admits that generally the info he posted is correct.  MadHatter problably doesn't know your profession before hand and your main point is very accurate.  A shitstorm would be expected if a rule like this would be made.  I don't mean any offense but your op he was quoting probably could of been worded better and still get the same point across.  

Not sure what I posted that was inaccurate? Never did I mention this proposed rule change was outright unconstitutional.  

[Wyank]

19 hours ago, emcannon said:

Assessing a penalty for exercising your constitutional right to peaceful protest. I'm sure that'll go over well among the players and fans. Unbelievable.

This is the post MadHatter replied to and if I'm reading MadHatter's post right, the only part he was really responding too. The context of the thread is players peaceful protest on the field.  Your first sentence reads like they have a constitutional right to peacefully protest the way they have been doing it which is on the field at their workplace.  If i'm reading MadHatter's post correctly, I can see why he quoted you and mentioned other posters posting that about constitutional right.  I don't think MadHatter meant to dispute your main point.  However he/she probably could discuss that with you themselves if he/she disputes that as well. 

[Fryfan]

13 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Flip it over though.

If a load of players were holding anti-abortion protests with graphic pictures held up during games, would you want to see that?

Kneeling = medical pictures?

 

LOL  

 

im down for some good graphics though some good dead fetus imagery works up an pregame appetite.

 

[tondi]

Which no life having groups more pathetic?  Those who get pissed off when players protest or those who are threatening to get pissed off if they don't.  Seems like both groups would get along great in the "must not have anything wrong in their otherwise perfect lives" club if this is what they waste their time worrying about.