An end to Anthem protests? [UPDATE - Augmented by new Anthem Policy]

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, K-9 said:

So contract law trumps his protected right of free exercise of religion? It would be an interesting case. 

 

Is the hypothetical player not free to seek work elsewhere?

 

[MAJBobby]

4 minutes ago, starrymessenger said:

 

Well maybe she shouldn't have used a private server but the Prez conducts the nation's business on a burner phone.

 

Hillary Investigations: 72 Months, 0 Indictments

 

Trump/Russia - 14 Months,  23 indictments & counting.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

I’m not saying he shouldn’t have the right lol I’m a very conservative Catholic and I played for over 15 years. Let them play

 

Im saying an NFL player should rethink his profession if he will not attend games on Sundays because religious beliefs 

 

He’d be a glorified practice player

Like I said, I don’t want to overthink the hypothetical here.

[thebandit27]

Just now, K-9 said:

Like I said, I don’t want to overthink the hypothetical here.

 

On this board?  That's kind of what we do

[ColoradoBills]

5 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Employers limit constitutional rights all the time; that's totally legal.

 

Why should the NFL be any different?

 

 

4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

So are they ok with a protest in a public funded stadium. This policy says nope. So yes they bent over and limited the right to protest.

 

i hope a player goes out takes a knee, gets fined and watch the lawsuits 

 

Who ownes the stadiums again?

 

I have not engaged in the Anthem debate knowing full well the NFL would probably rule on it during this offseason.

Now that they have I will state my opinion.

 

First, I've been on this board long enough to respect both of you guys and your posts.

This is the way I feel. 

 

1.  The NFL brought this on themselves by mixing it's product with the US Military and wrapping itself up in the flag.

It was a decision they made and it turned "political".  Personally I never liked that they did this.  It is a game of football not patriotism.

 

2.  I'm a vet and am long time friends with other vets and the majority of us feel that we raised our hands to defend the Constitution.

That Constitution gives citizens the right to protest.  We have had a lot of conversations with other friends who have not served and

many of them are the "most offended" over the protests.  I find that kind of strange.

 

3.  Some talk about the "majority" of fans, NFL Owners and others being against the protests, the "majority" cannot overrule protection of lawful protests.

The NFL is a business and they can make up their rules to a degree and they have ruled to not allow these protests at their place of business.

They have a right to do this but...........players will have the right to challenge this "rule" in court and probably will in the future.

 

4.  I feel nothing but sadness over this whole issue and the only thing I can say is I hope it doesn't ruin families, friends and even message board

members over something that should have never been an issue in the first place.  The NFL ruling is exactly what I figured it would be.  It sits on

the fence over money, politics and patriotism on a issue it chose to entangle itself with.  I guess that is just the way the world works now.

 

FWIW, I spoke my piece on this.

Go Bills.

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Collectively Bargined employees. So was this change in business policy conducted iaw with the CBA and what concession did the NFL give?

 

Stop moving the goalposts.  Is this a con law or a contract law issue?  Pick one and stick to it, don't play silly motte and bailey games.

 

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

So contract law trumps his protected right of free exercise of religion? It would be an interesting case. 

 

Again, "reasonable accommodation" is the standard.  Not working on 15/16 days you're supposed to really show up is not a reasonable accommodation.

[Commsvet11]

29 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

NFL Owners are a bunch of cowhering Pussies. With this vote to limit peoples rights in public funded stadiums. 

 

So if a soldier in uniform, which represents not the soldier individually but the U.S. Army, whom is on a military base which isn’t privately funded either, kneels during Reveille

or the anthem that is okay with you right? 

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Hillary Investigations: 72 Months, 0 Indictments

 

Trump/Russia - 14 Months,  23 indictments & counting.

 

You're an idiot.

 

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

It's a "reasonable accommodation" standard.  Could he have been compelled?  Yes, but who was gonna fire Sandy Koufax?

Right. Which is why I made the earlier point about certain players having their ability to be employed by the NFL impacted more than others. 

[starrymessenger]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Hillary Investigations: 72 Months, 0 Indictments

 

Trump/Russia - 14 Months,  23 indictments & counting.

 

But but its all a big witch hunt lol...

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Is the hypothetical player not free to seek work elsewhere?

 

Sure, but that wouldn’t be the issue if it was contested in court. 

[Chicken Boo]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

You're an idiot.

 

 

Yeah that truth is a hard pill to swallow.

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

 

I have not engaged in the Anthem debate knowing full well the NFL would probably rule on it during this offseason.

Now that they have I will state my opinion.

 

First, I've been on this board long enough to respect both of you guys and your posts.

This is the way I feel. 

 

1.  The NFL brought this on themselves by mixing it's product with the US Military and wrapping itself up in the flag.

It was a decision they made and it turned "political".  Personally I never liked that they did this.  It is a game of football not patriotism.

 

2.  I'm a vet and am long time friends with other vets and the majority of us feel that we raised our hands to defend the Constitution.

That Constitution gives citizens the right to protest.  We have had a lot of conversations with other friends who have not served and

many of them are the "most offended" over the protests.  I find that kind of strange.

 

3.  Some talk about the "majority" of fans, NFL Owners and others being against the protests, the "majority" cannot overrule protection of lawful protests.

The NFL is a business and they can make up their rules to a degree and they have ruled to not allow these protests at their place of business.

They have a right to do this but...........players will have the right to challenge this "rule" in court and probably will in the future.

 

4.  I feel nothing but sadness over this whole issue and the only thing I can say is I hope it doesn't ruin families, friends and even message board

members over something that should have never been an issue in the first place.  The NFL ruling is exactly what I figured it would be.  It sits on

the fence over money, politics and patriotism on a issue it chose to entangle itself with.  I guess that is just the way the world works now.

 

FWIW, I spoke my piece on this.

Go Bills.

 

Well said.  I don't agree 100%, but I definitely agree with the spirit of what you're saying.

 

[LeviF]

Just now, K-9 said:

Right. Which is why I made the earlier point about certain players having their ability to be employed by the NFL impacted more than others. 

 

And that's the case in almost every profession, and reasonable accommodations are made for religious and other affiliations (and disabilities).

 

But the ADA doesn't guarantee a paraplegic a QB1 job, and the First Amendment doesn't guarantee a devout Christian will be able to get paid for a job that requires working on Sunday.

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Stop moving the goalposts.  Is this a con law or a contract law issue?  Pick one and stick to it, don't play silly motte and bailey games.

 

 

Again, "reasonable accommodation" is the standard.  Not working on 15/16 days you're supposed to really show up is not a reasonable accommodation.

I wonder if there are settled precedents regarding the issue. I’ll have to see.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Chicken Boo said:

 

Yeah that truth is a hard pill to swallow.

 

No, not really.

Because none of the indictments have !@#$ all to do with "russian hacking," "russian interference" or even "collusion" (whatever that is).

 

The one bonus of this whole dog and pony show is just how corrupt the Obama admin was in dealing with Hillary's investigation is going to be revealed to the full light of day, and very soon.

 

[MAJBobby]

5 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Stop moving the goalposts.  Is this a con law or a contract law issue?  Pick one and stick to it, don't play silly motte and bailey games.

 

 

Again, "reasonable accommodation" is the standard.  Not working on 15/16 days you're supposed to really show up is not a reasonable accommodation.

 

Everyrhing isnt black and white and have a bunch of different goalposts 

[CommonCents]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

 

I have not engaged in the Anthem debate knowing full well the NFL would probably rule on it during this offseason.

Now that they have I will state my opinion.

 

First, I've been on this board long enough to respect both of you guys and your posts.

This is the way I feel. 

 

1.  The NFL brought this on themselves by mixing it's product with the US Military and wrapping itself up in the flag.

It was a decision they made and it turned "political".  Personally I never liked that they did this.  It is a game of football not patriotism.

 

2.  I'm a vet and am long time friends with other vets and the majority of us feel that we raised our hands to defend the Constitution.

That Constitution gives citizens the right to protest.  We have had a lot of conversations with other friends who have not served and

many of them are the "most offended" over the protests.  I find that kind of strange.

 

3.  Some talk about the "majority" of fans, NFL Owners and others being against the protests, the "majority" cannot overrule protection of lawful protests.

The NFL is a business and they can make up their rules to a degree and they have ruled to not allow these protests at their place of business.

They have a right to do this but...........players will have the right to challenge this "rule" in court and probably will in the future.

 

4.  I feel nothing but sadness over this whole issue and the only thing I can say is I hope it doesn't ruin families, friends and even message board

members over something that should have never been an issue in the first place.  The NFL ruling is exactly what I figured it would be.  It sits on

the fence over money, politics and patriotism on a issue it chose to entangle itself with.  I guess that is just the way the world works now.

 

FWIW, I spoke my piece on this.

Go Bills.

My brother is a veteran too and this might come of as harsh but just because your a veteran you don’t have a right to decide which freedoms you fought for and which ones you didn’t. You and Bobby were quick to mention the rights of the players but ignored the rights of the employer.

 

That tells me you already have your own politics in the way of what is actually going on. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Sure, but that wouldn’t be the issue if it was contested in court. 

 

Would it?

 

If an employee enters into a contract knowing that he's not going to be able to perform the job due to some esoteric belief, I'd think the employer would have good cause to argue that the contract was entered into in bad faith.

 

[MAJBobby]

6 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

 

So if a soldier in uniform, which represents not the soldier individually but the U.S. Army, whom is on a military base which isn’t privately funded either, kneels during Reveille

or the anthem that is okay with you right? 

 

 

 

Completely different