Just Joshin' Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 28 minutes ago, jaybee said: Cant they (Seahawks) as a potential employer say: We'll take a shot on you but while working for us there will be no protesting". Why dont they do that? Or is it union/NFL prohibited? I can understand why teams would shy away from him. Its an emotional issue and you are alienating roughly half of your fan base if you hire him. All comes back to $$$ That is what they basically did - they asked, he refused. 1
BillsfanAZ Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Right- it collusion implies all 32 teams got together and said “nobody hire that stupid a-hole that’s marginally better than ej manual but a PR train wreck and gameday spectical until kickoff when he’s just warming the bench.” In his niavety it seems like collusion, but in reality his talent so very obviously isn’t worth the headache, that all the teams likely reached the same conclusion independently... Lets not forget about his girlfriend posting pics of the Ravens owner and Ray Lewis as master and slave. That always goes over well with future employers
nuklz2594 Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 freedom of speech goes to everyone. the owners have the right to say nope.
Maybe Someday Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, kota said: It's a slippery slope my friend. 1st amendment rights tend to win the court of law. Don't care about company time. They are at their job getting ready to do their job. Anyone who has an issue with what the players are kneeling for needs to open their eyes. Social injustices happen in this country everyday. These players don't need to kneel. They make millions of dollars. They aren't kneeling for themselves it's for everyone else. I think where it gets slippery is how do your 1st amendment rights apply when you are representing your employer...what language is in the contract he signed? For example, every year for my job I have to acknowledge that I understand that while I am on the clock or wearing any company logos, etc. that I am not allowed to engage in any activity that could be considered political in nature. Off the clock, I can support whatever I want. If I do it, I'll get fired and I don't expect that my 1st amendment rights would protect me because I agreed to follow the company rules. The collusion case will be next to impossible to prove unless there’s some secret tape or witness who flips. For the record, I fully support CK's fight for social justices, I just don't agree with his method.
Mickey Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: None of those things are being discriminated against. The Seattle Seahawks are not obligated to hire someone who's actions once they are an employee may hurt their sales or reputation. They didn't cancel because of his thoughts, they canceled because he wouldn't promise to control his actions. It is a far more complicated question than that. I understand that in your opinion, this has nothing to do with race, creed, sex, etc. and I might even be inclined to agree with you, however, one could easily make the argument that race is involved since the protest is essentially over police conduct toward unarmed black men. Further, there are laws in place apart from federal Civil Rights Laws that could be employed. There are federal laws which protect against any deprivation of civil rights regardless of whether race, sex or creed, etc. was involved. There the key inquiry is whether the defendant acted under color of state law and you would be surprised at how broadly "under color of state law" is defined. Also, I have no clue what statutes, laws or local ordinances might be in play here jurisdictionally but I imagine that the potential forums all have pretty robust civil rights laws in effect. If NFL owners are actually talking to each other and reaching a mutual agreement not to hire this guy, I gotta believe that such a conspiracy is going to run afoul of some law somewhere. Apart from whatever legal consequences there may be, it was monumentally incompetent for Seattle to have handled the matter in the way they did. Nothing good is going to come from this. If they have him in for a workout and then sign someone else, they can simply say he didn't measure up and move on. Instead they clumsily opened a can of worms that has no upside for them or the league.
Just Joshin' Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 It appears many people here have no real world experience - they only know what they think it should be, not the reality or law.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Mickey said: It is a far more complicated question than that. I understand that in your opinion, this has nothing to do with race, creed, sex, etc. and I might even be inclined to agree with you, however, one could easily make the argument that race is involved since the protest is essentially over police conduct toward unarmed black men. Further, there are laws in place apart from federal Civil Rights Laws that could be employed. There are federal laws which protect against any deprivation of civil rights regardless of whether race, sex or creed, etc. was involved. There the key inquiry is whether the defendant acted under color of state law and you would be surprised at how broadly "under color of state law" is defined. Also, I have no clue what statutes, laws or local ordinances might be in play here jurisdictionally but I imagine that the potential forums all have pretty robust civil rights laws in effect. If NFL owners are actually talking to each other and reaching a mutual agreement not to hire this guy, I gotta believe that such a conspiracy is going to run afoul of some law somewhere. Apart from whatever legal consequences there may be, it was monumentally incompetent for Seattle to have handled the matter in the way they did. Nothing good is going to come from this. If they have him in for a workout and then sign someone else, they can simply say he didn't measure up and move on. Instead they clumsily opened a can of worms that has no upside for them or the league. No, it isn't. His grievance is about collusion. The why doesn't matter because it's not a discrimination suit. The only thing that matters is that each team is making decisions on their own. 2
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, kota said: It's a slippery slope my friend. 1st amendment rights tend to win the court of law. Don't care about company time. They are at their job getting ready to do their job. Anyone who has an issue with what the players are kneeling for needs to open their eyes. Social injustices happen in this country everyday. These players don't need to kneel. They make millions of dollars. They aren't kneeling for themselves it's for everyone else. I assumed that went without saying but thanks for opening our eyes. If, for example, you started your day at work by propping a giant picture of an aborted fetus in a jar and started shouting out against abortion---you would figure that should be ok with the owner of the company? There are countless outlets where these guys could send their thoughts and message. I have no problem with their kneeling during the Anthem, by the way. But I view it as more of a fashion statement than a protest. Look at Kaep himself--he was very late to the movement. Trayvon Martin was killed 4 years before Kaep sat. Eric Garner and Michael Brown were dead for 2 years before Kaep felt compelled to protest on the field. Then there was Tamir Rice and Freddy Gray...still Kaep chose to say and do nothing. I'm not impressed with these guys as actual social messangers. They are just followers, high profile ones. 1
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 28 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: Viewers don't tune in to have political beliefs dictated to them. Why does kneeling for the anthem count as a political belief, but standing for the anthem does not? 1
Irv Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 He sucks and has baggage. Creates problems in the locker room, the stands, and for the league overall. Why would and NFL team bother? Go get someone else less polarizing.
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 33 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: You need documentation that owners, you know, colluded to prevent this guy from being hired to win a case against collusion. Do you have a source for this claim? I haven't heard that. 1 2
What a Tuel Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, HappyDays said: Why does kneeling for the anthem count as a political belief, but standing for the anthem does not? Again its public perception and the public likes to honor their country and its servicemen and women. Not to mention Kaepernick trashed police but everyone conveniently ignores that. Edit: That's why it is ok with the public anyway. Its ok with the teams because it is approved by ownership. Edited April 13, 2018 by What a Tuel
SmokinES3 Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 26 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said: The only reason 95% of Kaep supporters are in his corner is because they agree with his cause. Let somebody protest for something vile that they disagree with at a game and they would all change their stance. This is a fantastic point. 100% true. 1 1
Nineforty Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) People understand that there are subpoenas served, right? Not saying it turns up anything but anyone claiming he has no case or basis for a case is being ignorant. I have no idea on the standards or laws in this case and don't pretend to but the dismissive attitude of some illustrates much about them... Edited April 13, 2018 by Nineforty
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said: The only reason 95% of Kaep supporters are in his corner is because they agree with his cause. Let somebody protest for something vile that they disagree with at a game and they would all change their stance. His cause of equality for everyone??? How terrible that is!!!! and if he was yelling keeping MAGA, the reverse would be true. People are rooting for Johnny Manziel, who hasn’t done half of what Kaep did in the nfl and hit his girlfriend. So many double standards. its also funny that the people who cry about everything being so sensitive and snowflakes are often the biggest snowflakes. If that guy kneels for the national anthem, I’m not watching!!! Fact is he is a better quarterback than any one on our roster. Edited April 13, 2018 by C.Biscuit97
Sky Diver Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, SmokinES3 said: This is a fantastic point. 100% true. The 2nd Amendment is vile to some people.
jaybee Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 His career record 32-32. If I sucked at the position as badly as he, I might resort to similar attention getting activities. But what is lost in all of this he's an average back-up QB at best. I'd take Manziel as a back-up before I'd take this circus clown.
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 39 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: You need documentation that owners, you know, colluded to prevent this guy from being hired to win a case against collusion. In fact in this article one of Kaepernick's lawyers says the exact opposite: http://www.thedp.com/article/2018/02/colin-kaepernick-collusion-lawsuit-nfl-burbank-trump-penn-professor-arbitrator-system-law-university According to Ben Meiselas, one of the three attorneys representing Kaepernick, proving collusion does not require proof of some explicit document, but a demonstration of a pattern that two or more NFL teams, or one or more teams and the NFL itself, had an agreement to limit his employment options. Obviously the caveat is this is Kaepernick's lawyer. The NFL might have a different view. But it isn't open and shut.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Sky Diver said: The 2nd Amendment is vile to some people. So is the 1st apparently. Personally, I think it is sad how much we love guns here but I’m fine with hunting. By why does anyone need a better weapon than police carry around (blue lives matter!)?
MakeBuffaloGreatAgain Posted April 13, 2018 Posted April 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Jobot said: Not true... you can't legally discriminate based on religion, sex, age, race, etc.... the problem is proving that this had occurred. Seattle basically said they aren't going to work out Collin because of his stance during the anthem. That would be like me saying I'm not going to hire any 'gun owners' to my business because I don't believe in the second amendment (this is not true, just an example) So basically what all Silicon Valley companies do. 1
Recommended Posts