NFL Caves, Pence Claims Victory For Trump.

[hurtinbuckaroo]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

So you think the Virginia hardware store that fired an employee for lecturing people about “homos in the Boy Scouts” should be forced to give him his job back?

 

[Tristan Scott]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

So you think the Virginia hardware store that fired an employee for lecturing people about “homos in the Boy Scouts” should be forced to give him his job back?

Ya, but this would be more like a Jewish soccer player in 1937 Germany refusing to stand for Deutschland Uber Alles.

I think the whole thing is really a question of morality, not legality.

 

[bilby]

So you think the Virginia hardware store that fired an employee for lecturing people about “homos in the Boy Scouts” should be forced to give him his job back?

Ya, but this would be more like a Jewish soccer player in 1937 Germany refusing to stand for Deutschland Uber Alles.

I think the whole thing is really a question of morality, not legality.

I concur.

It's irrelevant what the law says; Showing respect for a flag, anthem, or nation should always be a personal choice.

Any nation that demands that people show it respect is unworthy of any.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's all kinda like Little fat Donny meets Rosa Parks.

Just out of curiosity I thought the new rule only applies to players on the field. Can't a player enter the field after the anthem to make his point?

 

[Underseer]

This of course has nothing to do with Patriotism. Trump, Pence and all the others who had a problem with this know zero about patriotism. This country started as a protest. I wish these fuckers would at least read the Declaration of Independence.

How can you say this isn't about patriotism?

America is a racist shithole, after all and all of our talk about freedom of speech has always been lies.

- - - Updated - - -

It's all kinda like Little fat Donny meets Rosa Parks.

Just out of curiosity I thought the new rule only applies to players on the field. Can't a player enter the field after the anthem to make his point?

Why are you so against this? What is so offensive about this to you?

 

[Underseer]

America rebelled against the British crown for far less than what most African-Americans endure.

The white fragility driving all of this whining is simply disgusting. Believable, expected, but still shocking in its audacity. We expect African-Americans to just put up with getting gunned down in the streets despite doing nothing wrong and throw tantrums if any of them get uppity enough to complain about it in any way, shape, or form. Conservatives are offended that they are begging for their lives, even knowing that we rebelled from the British over far less than this.

Either the founding fathers were justified in their rebellion, or they weren't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[untermensche]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

So you think the Virginia hardware store that fired an employee for lecturing people about “homos in the Boy Scouts” should be forced to give him his job back?

An employer can expect a human to do their job if they are payed.

Unless the employer breaks a deal of some kind.

But a protest of government abuse that does not effect the job is no business of any employer.

 

[untermensche]

First Amendment doesn’t cover the workplace.

That is a defect in the law.

I'm occasionally amazed at the level of ignorance here. This is one of those times. The first amendment prevents the government from punishing you for the content of your speech. It does not prevent an employer from firing you for speechifying on your job. The logic of this ought to be blindingly obvious. When you go to work for McDonalds you say what McDonalds wants you to say to customers. You are not free to deliver lectures about how horrible McDonalds food is to customers. You'd have to be serioisly mentally challenged to think otherwise.

You cannot own a person's mind.

You sick tyrant!

You can merely rent their labor.

And standing for some ridiculous song is not the job of a QB.

 

[dismal]

This is unconstitutional.

A government supporting through inaction infringements on freedom of expression is as if the government is suppressing the expression.

If the government did not outlaw rape the government is sanctioning rape.

But who cares about that?

Which part of the Constitution do you imagine it violates?

Be as specific as possible.

 

[dismal]

I'm occasionally amazed at the level of ignorance here. This is one of those times. The first amendment prevents the government from punishing you for the content of your speech. It does not prevent an employer from firing you for speechifying on your job. The logic of this ought to be blindingly obvious. When you go to work for McDonalds you say what McDonalds wants you to say to customers. You are not free to deliver lectures about how horrible McDonalds food is to customers. You'd have to be serioisly mentally challenged to think otherwise.

You cannot own a person's mind.

You sick tyrant!

You can merely rent their labor.

And standing for some ridiculous song is not the job of a QB.

You can also set out the terms on which you will employ them. McDonalds having a policy that McDonalds cashiers can't deliver anti-McDonalds rants to McDonalds customers as they walk up to the counter is not "sick tyranny".

It's something so simple, basic and reasonable it sits at a level or two below "common sense". It's at a "you'd have to be seriously mentally impaired not to see it" level.

They are paid to say "Do you want fries with that?", so that's what they say. Their free speech rights do not entitle them to say what they want behind the counter of McDonalds without being fired by McDonalds.. Their free speech rights place no burden on McDonalds at all. Their free speech rights place a burden on the government only. The government is not allowed to punish them for speaking. That's what free speech right are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So... if there's no workplace protection of political speech, I cannot make my employees recite the pledge of allegiance, can I? I mean, unless it's somehow a critical part of what I employed them for, as professional allegiance pledgers?

I suspect that if sitting-out the anthem isn't protected, then neither is the whole 'singing the anthem while saluting' ritual, no?

 

[dismal]

So... if there's no workplace protection of political speech, I cannot make my employees recite the pledge of allegiance, can I? I mean, unless it's somehow a critical part of what I employed them for, as professional allegiance pledgers?

I suspect that if sitting-out the anthem isn't protected, then neither is the whole 'singing the anthem while saluting' ritual, no?

Who says you can't require your employees to say the pledge?

Do you have a cite?

 

[Opoponax]

I'm occasionally amazed at the level of ignorance here. This is one of those times. The first amendment prevents the government from punishing you for the content of your speech. It does not prevent an employer from firing you for speechifying on your job. The logic of this ought to be blindingly obvious. When you go to work for McDonalds you say what McDonalds wants you to say to customers. You are not free to deliver lectures about how horrible McDonalds food is to customers. You'd have to be serioisly mentally challenged to think otherwise.

You cannot own a person's mind.

You sick tyrant!

You can merely rent their labor.

And standing for some ridiculous song is not the job of a QB.

You can also set out the terms on which you will employ them. McDonalds having a policy that McDonalds cashiers can't deliver anti-McDonalds rants to McDonalds customers as they walk up to the counter is not "sick tyranny".

It's something so simple, basic and reasonable it sits at a level or two below "common sense". It's at a "you'd have to be seriously mentally impaired not to see it" level.

They are paid to say "Do you want fries with that?", so that's what they say. Their free speech rights do not entitle them to say what they want behind the counter of McDonalds without being fired by McDonalds.. Their free speech rights place no burden on McDonalds at all. Their free speech rights place a burden on the government only. The government is not allowed to punish them for speaking. That's what free speech right are.

Yep. And without going into an exhaustive list of reasons why the 1AM only applies to government action, suffice it to say that there's good reason employees can be fired for what they say on the job. It becomes different when it's a government employee though. That gets complicated too though and I have full day of complicated things to do, so I won't use my limited brain horsepower on it. Besides, nobody'll read it anyway because it's boring as hell.

Anyway, Dismal is 100% correct on this one.

An at-will employee can be fired any time for almost any reason. Please take note that I used the word "almost."

 

[Opoponax]

So... if there's no workplace protection of political speech, I cannot make my employees recite the pledge of allegiance, can I? I mean, unless it's somehow a critical part of what I employed them for, as professional allegiance pledgers?

If it's a precondition to at-will employment, you probably can make them say the pledge. But even if the policy was instituted following hiring, I tend to think you could still fire someone for not saying it if it became a job requirement.

 

[dismal]

So... if there's no workplace protection of political speech, I cannot make my employees recite the pledge of allegiance, can I? I mean, unless it's somehow a critical part of what I employed them for, as professional allegiance pledgers?

If it's a precondition to at-will employment, you probably can make them say the pledge. But even if the policy was instituted following hiring, I tend to think you could still fire someone for not saying it if it became a job requirement.

There may be some state law in some state it offends, but it would not violate the Constitution.

 

[bilby]

“Once something has been approved by the Government, it's no longer immoral.” - Rev. Lovejoy, The Simpsons

Now that we have established that making people stand for the national anthem is not illegal or unconstitutional, clearly there is no further need for debate. The law allows it, so it is perfectly OK.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can also set out the terms on which you will employ them. McDonalds having a policy that McDonalds cashiers can't deliver anti-McDonalds rants to McDonalds customers as they walk up to the counter is not "sick tyranny".

It's something so simple, basic and reasonable it sits at a level or two below "common sense". It's at a "you'd have to be seriously mentally impaired not to see it" level.

They are paid to say "Do you want fries with that?", so that's what they say. Their free speech rights do not entitle them to say what they want behind the counter of McDonalds without being fired by McDonalds.. Their free speech rights place no burden on McDonalds at all. Their free speech rights place a burden on the government only. The government is not allowed to punish them for speaking. That's what free speech right are.

Yep. And without going into an exhaustive list of reasons why the 1AM only applies to government action, suffice it to say that there's good reason employees can be fired for what they say on the job. It becomes different when it's a government employee though. That gets complicated too though and I have full day of complicated things to do, so I won't use my limited brain horsepower on it. Besides, nobody'll read it anyway because it's boring as hell.

Anyway, Dismal is 100% correct on this one.

An at-will employee can be fired any time for almost any reason. Please take note that I used the word "almost."

Here is the problem... the owners of the teams didn't see a problem. In fact, the new NFL rule indicates that the team gets fined, not the individual player(s). Trump has applied pressure to force employers to change their policy. I know this nuance is lost on dismal though.

 

[dismal]

You can also set out the terms on which you will employ them. McDonalds having a policy that McDonalds cashiers can't deliver anti-McDonalds rants to McDonalds customers as they walk up to the counter is not "sick tyranny".

It's something so simple, basic and reasonable it sits at a level or two below "common sense". It's at a "you'd have to be seriously mentally impaired not to see it" level.

They are paid to say "Do you want fries with that?", so that's what they say. Their free speech rights do not entitle them to say what they want behind the counter of McDonalds without being fired by McDonalds.. Their free speech rights place no burden on McDonalds at all. Their free speech rights place a burden on the government only. The government is not allowed to punish them for speaking. That's what free speech right are.

Yep. And without going into an exhaustive list of reasons why the 1AM only applies to government action, suffice it to say that there's good reason employees can be fired for what they say on the job. It becomes different when it's a government employee though. That gets complicated too though and I have full day of complicated things to do, so I won't use my limited brain horsepower on it. Besides, nobody'll read it anyway because it's boring as hell.

Anyway, Dismal is 100% correct on this one.

An at-will employee can be fired any time for almost any reason. Please take note that I used the word "almost."

Here is the problem... the owners of the teams didn't see a problem. In fact, the new NFL rule indicates that the team gets fined, not the individual player(s). Trump has applied pressure to force employers to change their policy. I know this nuance is lost on dismal though.

It's so much of a nuance it doesn't exist.

Trump applied pressure? WTF. Exactly what pressure are you talking about?

Meanwhile, back in observable reality, when Trump opened his mouth the owners went out and kneeled with the players to say FU Trump.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I hate to say it, but I've changed my mind. I dislike Trump so much that I hate to see him win all the time. However, I agree with the NFL. The NFL relies on fans to purchase their tickets, watch their sponsors, buy their products, and etc. Some of those fans, probably a great deal of them, are deeply offended by the kneeling. The NFL is like all other companies, they are trying to maximize their profit. As I think about it, I do the same! I own a small medical manufacturing company. I have three full time salesmen. If one of them offended a customer - we'd have a big problem. I wouldn't allow it. I can't afford to allow it. Companies have to satisfy their customers - or they will be out of business.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hate to say it, but I've changed my mind. I dislike Trump so much that I hate to see him win all the time. However, I agree with the NFL. The NFL relies on fans to purchase their tickets, watch their sponsors, buy their products, and etc. Some of those fans, probably a great deal of them, are deeply offended by the kneeling. The NFL is like all other companies, they are trying to maximize their profit. As I think about it, I do the same! I own a small medical manufacturing company. I have three full time salesmen. If one of them offended a customer - we'd have a big problem. I wouldn't allow it. I can't afford to allow it. Companies have to satisfy their customers - or they will be out of business.

The football players are employees of the Franchise, are they not? The biggest problem is that Trump wanted to force employers to punish their employees regardless of their own choice, which happens to be against the law, I believe... unlike kneeling.

And currently, I think the NY Jets owner said he'd pay the fine as others would as well, I'd guess to hazard.