Houstons owner racist comments??

[Cynjin]

3 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I think what we have all learned the past many months is that being quiet is not the answer to anything. I'm not captain PC in the least way...but what we've seen in Hollywood, with Cam Newton, with Donald Sterling, with Mr. Mcnair and so many other things is that we need to call it out when we see it.....if we just let this stuff go unchecked then that's how things grow and fester. Is everything racist or sexist or offensive...of course not...but that shouldn't mean we ignore what we are seeing and feeling when this stuff happens. There can be good from calling out what we see and feel is offensive. There can be little change if we all just accept the status quo.

 

That’s all well and good, but that will also lead to people calling out statements as racist that are not, this would be the case with McNair.  Also, if everyone is going to start calling out people for statements that might offend, well lord have mercy then, because nowadays it seems like everything is offensive to someone.

[Cynjin]

25 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

The fact that some people can not understand the importance of context baffles me...

 

While I feel that every poor choice of words or off color comment doesn't need to be overly demonized, the lengths some go to in defense of insensitive comments is also saddening...

 

 

 

 

The way some get offended over a simple phrase and don’t acknowledge the actual meaning is even sadder.

[Swan Ronson]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

That’s all well and good, but that will also lead to people calling out statements as racist that are not, this would be the case with McNair.  Also, if everyone is going to start calling out people for statements that might offend, well lord have mercy then, because nowadays it seems like everything is offensive to someone.

Very true.

 

You only have to look at the enormous outrage over people respectfully kneeling during the national anthem. 

[Superman]

Just now, Cynjin said:

 

It would apply to everyone in his company.  Everyone but the owner, that’s one of the perks of being the owner.

 

It already doesn't apply to everyone. The NFL supports causes all the time, they put patches on jerseys, they paint the field, the entire show of patriotism is a 'cause' that has nothing to do with the business of playing a football game (besides advertisement for the military), etc. 

 

Not to get too political, but a person has the right to sit or kneel during the national anthem, for whatever reason they choose. I personally think the idea of forcing anyone to partake in or stand for the national anthem is a violation of their constitutional rights, rights that have been upheld in several supreme court cases. And beyond that, I believe it's against the spirit of patriotism in the first place to obligate anyone to uphold your ideal of support for the government, military, or the flag; that's not patriotism, it's oppression, and IMO, is completely counter to the ideals upon which the US was founded, the ideal that those in the military fought and died for. That includes the idea that anyone's employment or standing would be based even partly on whether they stand for the national anthem. 

 

And that's what McNair's statement is saying -- we're the owners, they have to do what we want. Which is true to an extent, but not when it infringes upon a person's constitutional rights or leads to discrimination against them due to their beliefs.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Kind of, but not really. If the owner of a company institutes a policy stating no one can speak out about a cause they care about, that policy needs to apply equally to everyone, across the board. 

This country have business owners all over the place and they do things to protect their business. A NFL owner is no different. In a business where it is dependent on the public for it to thrive perception is everything. The NFL has already lost a lot of fan over the last few seasons due to a few issue such as brain injury, the player kneeling and now something like this. The mass majority watch sports as an outlet to get away from everyday issues and to be entertained. The fans don't want to be distracted with things like this. Like it or not that is the way it is. It's not a point of turning a blind eye, it's a point of the average fan just want those 3 hours a week to get away from everyday life.

[dgambill]

16 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I think if he wanted to assert his power over the players in a public statement then he should have just said, it's the owners decision to make

Indeed...if that was his point he could just as easily said that when they put on their uniform and come to work as an employee of the Houston Texans that they are representing the organization. The organization's recognizes the players protest and concerns and will work with them to voice and support their opinions but as policy they ask all its employees to stand together during the anthem. It is my wish as owner that we show unity as an organization and come together to improve relations in this country. Starting by standing together united not just for the anthem but in the communities we live to fight so everyone has equal opportunity an can equally pursuit happiness.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

This country have business owners all over the place and they do things to protect their business. A NFL owner is no different. In a business where it is dependent on the public for it to thrive perception is everything. The NFL has already lost a lot of fan over the last few seasons due to a few issue such as brain injury, the player kneeling and now something like this. The mass majority watch sports as an outlet to get away from everyday issues and to be entertained. The fans don't want to be distracted with things like this. Like it or not that is the way it is. It's not a point of turning a blind eye, it's a point of the average fan just want those 3 hours a week to get away from everyday life.

 

Progress and change always makes people uncomfortable. MLB had a mess on its hands when Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers, but allowing black players to play in MLB was the right thing to do, even though a lot of fans didn't like it, even though it cost them money and favor from certain fans, etc.

[Nadine]

8 minutes ago, Swan Ronson said:

Very true.

 

You only have to look at the enormous outrage over people respectfully kneeling during the national anthem. 

I was thinking about that when I went to the Jaguars game.  During the national anthem there are so many people on the field who are standing as well, a flag over the entire field.

 

It's impressive visually but also, I wondered to myself........how does someone sitting on the colts side of the field even see someone who is kneeling behind all that?

 

I sure couldn't.......and I was looking.

 

 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Progress and change always makes people uncomfortable. MLB had a mess on its hands when Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers, but allowing black players to play in MLB was the right thing to do, even though a lot of fans didn't like it, even though it cost them money and favor from certain fans, etc.

Let me ask you a question.

When you either by yourself or take your wife or family to the movies do you want it to contain issues to distract you from being entertained?  Unless the movie was made to do that you would know that before hand.

That was my point, that's all.

 

[runthepost]

Racist statement no? Inappropriate yes. If he said slaves running the plantation then I’m sure no one would be on his side.

[crazycolt1]

13 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Indeed...if that was his point he could just as easily said that when they put on their uniform and come to work as an employee of the Houston Texans that they are representing the organization. The organization's recognizes the players protest and concerns and will work with them to voice and support their opinions but as policy they ask all its employees to stand together during the anthem. It is my wish as owner that we show unity as an organization and come together to improve relations in this country. Starting by standing together united not just for the anthem but in the communities we live to fight so everyone has equal opportunity an can equally pursuit happiness.

IMO he just put his foot in his mouth. The way things are worded can be taken anyway someone puts their own spin on it. (it happens all the time right here in this forum). 

You add the media playing to their viewers and a fire can be started that over shadows what was said and most importantly meant.

[dgambill]

11 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

That’s all well and good, but that will also lead to people calling out statements as racist that are not, this would be the case with McNair.  Also, if everyone is going to start calling out people for statements that might offend, well lord have mercy then, because nowadays it seems like everything is offensive to someone.

Sure thing...and if you cry wolf all too often you end up like say Jessie Jackson and people turn tone def to what you are saying because you turn everything into an agenda or oppression. That doesn't mean nothing can be offensive though. It is up to us to try to discern right and wrong but there is nothing wrong with opening up dialogue...maybe after much debate and discussion we learn that we are wrong....that we missed something or maybe others learn from mistakes or people change their actions for the good...but doing nothing just lets the world keep going around and nothing changing. I don't think this country is an awful place...quite the contrary I am blessed to live here but that doesn't mean we couldn't be better and shouldn't strive to do so.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Let me ask you a question.

When you either by yourself or take your wife or family to the movies do you want it to contain issues to distract you from being entertained?  Unless the movie was made to do that you would know that before hand.

That was my point, that's all.

 

 

That's a loaded question. If I am looking for entertainment, then of course I don't want to be distracted from entertainment.

 

However, that's not a legitimate reason to avoid or suppress change/progress. 

 

And specific to players kneeling during the national anthem, if that "distracts" a person from enjoying 3 hours of football that follow, then I wonder who is actually being thin-skinned?

[Swan Ronson]

11 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I was thinking about that when I went to the Jaguars game.  During the national anthem there are so many people on the field who are standing as well, a flag over the entire field.

 

It's impressive visually but also, I wondered to myself........how does someone sitting on the colts side of the field even see someone who is kneeling behind all that?

 

I sure couldn't.......and I was looking.

 

 

Ah yes, the giant flag held by over 100 people.

 

In contravention of flag code that says the flag must always be allowed to fall freely.

 

I wonder why people aren't up in arms about that 'disrespect'.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That's a loaded question. If I am looking for entertainment, then of course I don't want to be distracted from entertainment.

 

However, that's not a legitimate reason to avoid or suppress change/progress. 

 

And specific to players kneeling during the national anthem, if that "distracts" a person from enjoying 3 hours of football that follow, then I wonder who is actually being thin-skinned?

There is nothing loaded about my point.

Funny you should bring up thinned skinned? IMO it is those same thinned skinned people who are making an issue over a non issue deal where someone put their foot in their mouth.

[Nadine]

Just now, Swan Ronson said:

Ah yes, the giant flag held by over 100 people.

 

In contravention of flag code that says the flag must always be allowed to fall freely.

 

I wonder why people aren't up in arms about that 'disrespect'.

Politics infects this as it does almost every aspect of our lives these days.

 

[Swan Ronson]

Just now, Nadine said:

Politics infects this as it does almost every aspect of our lives these days.

 

Maybe people need to be told they should be upset about it.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Politics infects this as it does almost every aspect of our lives these days.

 

Be careful Nadine, we cant go there.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is nothing loaded about my point.

Funny you should bring up thinned skinned? IMO it is those same thinned skinned people who are making an issue over a non issue deal where someone put their foot in their mouth.

 

It's absolutely a loaded question. It suggests that if I don't want to be distracted, that I should protect others from ever being distracted.

 

And I'm not the one that brought up being thin-skinned. The idea is that people are overly sensitive to even make an issue over McNair's poorly chosen words, but you're defending people who are supposedly unable to enjoy a 3 hour football because for 2 minutes before the game even started, some players chose to kneel during the national anthem?

 

If people can be offended at one, others can be offended at the other. Either they're all thin-skinned, or they all have legitimate viewpoints that should be heard and taken into consideration. And to me, one viewpoint actually carries weight, while the other is a copout.

[Nadine]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Be careful Nadine, we cant go there.

I hear you.  But these days, it's at the root of almost every disagreement it seems.

 

Off topic but something that's been on my mind lately.  I watch a show on PBS titled Poldark.  It's set in Cornwall England after the American Revolution.  Anyway, in a scene last week, Poldark's wife asks him 'What drives men to go to war'

 

His answer resonated with me 'It's when men stop seeing each other as human beings'

 

It's easier to hate someone when you don't think about how like you they really are

[Dingus McGirt]

18 minutes ago, runthepost said:

Racist statement no? Inappropriate yes. If he said slaves running the plantation then I’m sure no one would be on his side.

Yet...it wasn't racist when some players characterized the team owners as "plantation owners."

 

[Trace Pyott]

To me this is what happens when humans no longer have to walk 3 miles to get clean water or worry about dying from the Black Plague or being eaten by wolves. Americans have things so easy that we have to manufacture outrage over silly things that have no bearing in our immediate lives. I can see where what he said was insensitive toward his workers but I def don't see him being racist. I mean I think Tony dungy knows what he's talking about.  He said he knows the guys heart so I will take Tony at his word. 

[dgambill]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It already doesn't apply to everyone. The NFL supports causes all the time, they put patches on jerseys, they paint the field, the entire show of patriotism is a 'cause' that has nothing to do with the business of playing a football game (besides advertisement for the military), etc. 

 

Not to get too political, but a person has the right to sit or kneel during the national anthem, for whatever reason they choose. I personally think the idea of forcing anyone to partake in or stand for the national anthem is a violation of their constitutional rights, rights that have been upheld in several supreme court cases. And beyond that, I believe it's against the spirit of patriotism in the first place to obligate anyone to uphold your ideal of support for the government, military, or the flag; that's not patriotism, it's oppression, and IMO, is completely counter to the ideals upon which the US was founded, the ideal that those in the military fought and died for. That includes the idea that anyone's employment or standing would be based even partly on whether they stand for the national anthem. 

 

And that's what McNair's statement is saying -- we're the owners, they have to do what we want. Which is true to an extent, but not when it infringes upon a person's constitutional rights or leads to discrimination against them due to their beliefs.

I'm with you to an extent. So do you think ESPN journalists should be able to be suspended if its workers decide to voice their first amendment rights and protest say the president or any number of other things they believe in or make commentary on religious or other sensitive topics that ESPN does not publically endorse? Organizations have to be allowed to operate and set up their own rules and terms of employment. If someone wants to kneel during the anthem they have every right to do so...and while I might think its disrespectful for all the opportunities this country has offered to us and all those that have sacrificied and given up their happiness so that we can pursuit ours they have that right....but as a business owner is it not ok to ask you to check your political, social, or religious beliefs when you come to work for me? I know my wife works for the government and she can't post anything political or make any statements of support or against political figures, parties, or government laws or she could violate the Hatch Act. So she has to give up some of her first amendment rights just to work for the government. Can the NFL ask its employees to do the same....I think yes....is this particular battle one that either side can win.....nope. The best case scenario is the players use this podium to get some action they want from the NFL through support for their causes off the field in exchange for their support of the NFLs owners wishes that they stand on the field. In the end nobody is going to win this battle. The NFLs standing in public opinion will diminish...the players will have a smaller market to speak to...the funds will dry up...the owners will have less to put into the causes the players seek. The best case scenario is to make the NFL as successful and popular as possible while the two work together to address social and community causes that are important to players from the position of power both would hold.

[Nadine]

1 minute ago, Trace Pyott said:

To me this is what happens when humans no longer have to walk 3 miles to get clean water or worry about dying from the Black Plague or being eaten by wolves. Americans have things so easy that we have to manufacture outrage over silly things that have no bearing in our immediate lives. I can see where what he said was insensitive toward his workers but I def don't see him being racist. I mean I think Tony dungy knows what he's talking about.  He said he knows the guys heart so I will take Tony at his word. 

 

I would agree that at times people are quick to take offense.

 

I was thinking that amid the sexual harassment allegations being made of one time, my dad, who had a memory impairment did something that could have ended so poorly.

 

Dad never had any filter really but, when his mind started to go, the filter he had was completely gone, which was dangerous because to look at him, you wouldn't know that.

 

Anyway, one time my mom had him out shopping for some new slacks and he touched the sales clerk inappropriately.......which cause my mother to dissolve into tears.

 

It was hard to manage dad.

 

Anyway, this clerk hugged my mom and said 'Don't worry, I understand'

 

We need more understanding of one another. Separating out what's wrong from what's just a mistake.

 

I don't think everyone is easily offended.  I think lots of people have lots of legitimate grievances.  What we seem to lack these days is the willingness to come together.

[dgambill]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's a loaded question. If I am looking for entertainment, then of course I don't want to be distracted from entertainment.

 

However, that's not a legitimate reason to avoid or suppress change/progress. 

 

And specific to players kneeling during the national anthem, if that "distracts" a person from enjoying 3 hours of football that follow, then I wonder who is actually being thin-skinned?

I think its the typical 5 to 10 comments every game through the broadcast that you get blind sided by and the unlimited amount of sports radio that is devoted to the topic that's the real problem....even if the kneeling itself is offensive to some. Some people don't want to support "watching" people that they are upset over what they are saying/doing. Personally I'm still watching football obviously...with a careful eye and a bruised heart. That said I am NOT watching ESPN and listening to sports talk radio precisely because it never ends and its become more politically/socially opinionated then FOX News/CNN.

[Buck Showalter]

47 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

The way some get offended over a simple phrase and don’t acknowledge the actual meaning is even sadder.

Yes, it would be sad if we weren't living in the Post-Modern era where cynicism, sarcasm, innuendo, & parody were major components of the culture that we all consume.

[Cynjin]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It already doesn't apply to everyone. The NFL supports causes all the time, they put patches on jerseys, they paint the field, the entire show of patriotism is a 'cause' that has nothing to do with the business of playing a football game (besides advertisement for the military), etc. 

 

Not to get too political, but a person has the right to sit or kneel during the national anthem, for whatever reason they choose. I personally think the idea of forcing anyone to partake in or stand for the national anthem is a violation of their constitutional rights, rights that have been upheld in several supreme court cases. And beyond that, I believe it's against the spirit of patriotism in the first place to obligate anyone to uphold your ideal of support for the government, military, or the flag; that's not patriotism, it's oppression, and IMO, is completely counter to the ideals upon which the US was founded, the ideal that those in the military fought and died for. That includes the idea that anyone's employment or standing would be based even partly on whether they stand for the national anthem. 

 

And that's what McNair's statement is saying -- we're the owners, they have to do what we want. Which is true to an extent, but not when it infringes upon a person's constitutional rights or leads to discrimination against them due to their beliefs.

 

I have a feeling that you do not understand what those constitutional rights entails.  It only prevents the government from doing anything to you it does not prevent a private employer from taking action.

 

To your first paragraph, that’s because they are the owners.  They get to support what they want, the employees do not, especially on company time.  My boss has certain political/social views and publicly supports them. He would take a dim view on any employee that publicly supported an opposing view.  That is his privilege as the owner of the company.  If I or any other employee wants to support a different view, then we need to start our own company, then we would get to make those judgements.

[DougDew]

The inmates running the prison is a metaphor.  Mature people would not be genuinely upset.

 

Just a bunch of crybullying going on...as usual.

 

Because he said those words, there will probably be an effort to force the owner out of the NFL, and sell the team to someone with a more community oriented bent.  Afterall, most of the players are black so why shouldn't the owners be too.    Maybe a PC tech mogul can buy the Texans in a few months.

[Cynjin]

4 minutes ago, Buck Showalter said:

Yes, it would be sad if we weren't living in the Post-Modern era where cynicism, sarcasm, innuendo, & parody were major components of the culture that we all consume.

 

I’m living in a different era then, because I am not as easily offended as many seem to be.

[Cynjin]

55 minutes ago, Swan Ronson said:

Very true.

 

You only have to look at the enormous outrage over people respectfully kneeling during the national anthem. 

 

See, I do not find that action to be respectful.  I consider it to be quite disrespectful, but they do have a right to do it and I do not consider myself to be offended by it.

[Nadine]

5 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I’m living in a different era then, because I am not as easily offended as many seem to be.

The older I get, the more stuff rolls off me.

I come from a big family so, I have a lot of practice

Some family disputes are such a colossal waste of time.........and none of us is here forever

[Buck Showalter]

3 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I’m living in a different era then, because I am not as easily offended as many seem to be.

Ha, I agree I don't think McNairs comments were overly offense, but I understand how it can be viewed in poor taste in the context of the current climate. But he seems to have appropriately apologized, so hopefully it dies off...

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I'm with you to an extent. So do you think ESPN journalists should be able to be suspended if its workers decide to voice their first amendment rights and protest say the president or any number of other things they believe in or make commentary on religious or other sensitive topics that ESPN does not publically endorse? Organizations have to be allowed to operate and set up their own rules and terms of employment. If someone wants to kneel during the anthem they have every right to do so...and while I might think its disrespectful for all the opportunities this country has offered to us and all those that have sacrificied and given up their happiness so that we can pursuit ours they have that right....but as a business owner is it not ok to ask you to check your political, social, or religious beliefs when you come to work for me? I know my wife works for the government and she can't post anything political or make any statements of support or against political figures, parties, or government laws or she could violate the Hatch Act. So she has to give up some of her first amendment rights just to work for the government. Can the NFL ask its employees to do the same....I think yes....is this particular battle one that either side can win.....nope. The best case scenario is the players use this podium to get some action they want from the NFL through support for their causes off the field in exchange for their support of the NFLs owners wishes that they stand on the field. In the end nobody is going to win this battle. The NFLs standing in public opinion will diminish...the players will have a smaller market to speak to...the funds will dry up...the owners will have less to put into the causes the players seek. The best case scenario is to make the NFL as successful and popular as possible while the two work together to address social and community causes that are important to players from the position of power both would hold.

 

Interesting question about ESPN. If you allow for respectful political expression from one person, then you have to allow it from everyone else. This is why big companies pay millions of dollars for in-house counsel and HR specialists, to make sure they are being fair in the way they handle their employees, especially employees that are being paid to express their opinion. It's muddy water, for sure.

 

However, standing during the national anthem can specifically be interpreted as political expression. These leagues are taking the position that they should be able to obligate players to stand for the national anthem -- they are requiring political expression --  and I think that's a step too far. 

 

And to the point that a business owner should be able to require that employees check their political, social and religious beliefs at the door, well, no, you can't do that. An employee is allowed to hold their beliefs no matter what. It's a different story to ask them not to promote those beliefs at work, but that policy has to apply evenly across the board, otherwise it's discriminatory. You can't tell Employee A that it's okay to be overtly patriotic and then tell Employee B that they MUST stand for the national anthem. You can't force someone to participate in the company-wide morning prayer, you can't force them to observe Black History Month, etc. Your wife can't post any political comments, favorable or not, and neither can anyone else. 

 

I agree that it's in everyone's best interests that the NFL and its players work together to bring attention to important issues across the board. But at the same time, I believe it's a violation of a person's constitutional rights to obligate them to perform any act of patriotism under any circumstance. And if protecting the constitutional rights of its players costs the NFL in public perception (read: money), that's a sad state of affairs, as it exposes the hypocrisy of the general public (IMO) by indicating that people only support free speech when they agree with it or don't have to be exposed to it. 'You can say what you want, just don't do it where anyone else can hear you.' Still, it would be the right thing to do.

[Cynjin]

Just now, Buck Showalter said:

Ha, I agree I don't think McNairs comments were overly offense, but I understand how it can be viewed in poor taste in the context of the current climate. But he seems to have appropriately apologized, so hopefully it dies off...

 

I agree.  IMO, they can be considered condescending, which I think Superman was saying.

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I have a feeling that you do not understand what those constitutional rights entails.  It only prevents the government from doing anything to you it does not prevent a private employer from taking action.

 

To your first paragraph, that’s because they are the owners.  They get to support what they want, the employees do not, especially on company time.  My boss has certain political/social views and publicly supports them. He would take a dim view on any employee that publicly supported an opposing view.  That is his privilege as the owner of the company.  If I or any other employee wants to support a different view, then we need to start our own company, then we would get to make those judgements.

 

That's not true. The Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for an employer to take action against an employee on the basis of race, religion, gender or nationality. There are other federal laws that protect workplace equality.

 

And the issue is with how this is being framed. Participating in the national anthem is an act of patriotism, and under any circumstance, your right to decline to participate is protected.

 

If your employer penalizes employees who express differing political and social viewpoints because of those viewpoints, that's a problem. And different from that would be a requirement that all employees express support of specific political/social viewpoints, which is an even more obvious problem.

[Yehoodi]

I am an invitee to this message board.  As an invitee I must accept the rules and regulations of the house.  As a mature adult I must accept those rules as they are contingent upon my status as an invitee.   What I can do on a public street corner or in the privacy of my own house, regardless of how well founded my intentions or ideas are, I can not advocated that I can post here in a similar fashion as I express my views and opinions on the street or my house.  

 

Simply put, one must understand that one must yield some of ones bundle of rights when you are an invitee, guest etc.

 

Similarly, if I am an employee I must yield and understand the fact I have to give up some of bundle of rights when I am in the capacity of an employee.  I just find it troubling why folks can not understand this point. 

 

As for McNair's comments, I do not think they were racist per se and perhaps may have come out of frustration.   It is phrase commonly used when the folks not in control and making the rules, altho his version may have unconscious undertones (i,e, NFL players are criminals by nature).  Here, I can see his point about players thinking they have a "right" to take a knee, anymore than I have a "right" start a thread supporting Tim Tebow's advocating of his religion during interviews during or after games. 

 

It is not to say that inequality or the need for more faith in our country is true or not, or a just causes or not, but the simple principle that we need to understand that at times our status to be free and express ourselves can have restriction depending on where we are located. 

 

As for the point about suppression, it is not suppression in my opinion.  It would only be suppression if the NFL did not allow someone to take a knee for inequality but then allow another to take a knee for a different cause.       

[Cynjin]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's not true. The Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for an employer to take action against an employee on the basis of race, religion, gender or nationality. There are other federal laws that protect workplace equality.

 

And the issue is with how this is being framed. Participating in the national anthem is an act of patriotism, and under any circumstance, your right to decline to participate is protected.

 

If your employer penalizes employees who express differing political and social viewpoints because of those viewpoints, that's a problem. And different from that would be a requirement that all employees express support of specific political/social viewpoints, which is an even more obvious problem.

 

What I said is true, the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with freedom of speech or protecting employees from consequences of that speech.  Someone mentioned ESPN, they suspended J. Hill for speech that some considered offensive, they fired a couple of others for the same thing.  Was that inconsistent?  Probably, but they get to do that because they are a private employer and get to make those judgements.

[Nadine]

1 minute ago, Cynjin said:

 

What I said is true, the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with freedom of speech or protecting employees from consequences of that speech.  Someone mentioned ESPN, they suspended J. Hill for speech that some considered offensive, they fired a couple of others for the same thing.  Was that inconsistent?  Probably, but they get to do that because they are a private employer and get to make those judgements.

I think we need to update our rules. Social media didn't exist when the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Things are getting a little scary thought police wise

[dgambill]

54 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Yet...it wasn't racist when some players characterized the team owners as "plantation owners."

 

Some plantation owners were in fact black...and owned many slaves...so "plantation owners" could mean white or black....but yeah..I see what you were saying about it.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

What I said is true, the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with freedom of speech or protecting employees from consequences of that speech.  Someone mentioned ESPN, they suspended J. Hill for speech that some considered offensive, they fired a couple of others for the same thing.  Was that inconsistent?  Probably, but they get to do that because they are a private employer and get to make those judgements.

 

I'm not saying the CRA has to do with freedom of speech. I'm saying it's an example of employee protection.

 

I said a person has the right not to participate in the national anthem, and you said that right doesn't prevent an employer from taking action against you for not participating in the national anthem. I disagree with that statement. An act of patriotism cannot be a condition of a person's employment.

 

I also don't think a company can hide behind the 'public perception' argument. Jemele Hill making comments ESPN deemed inappropriate is one thing. It would be different if ESPN required all their hosts to stand for the national anthem at the beginning of every show, then singled out one person who decided not to stand and said 'we're firing you because you're hurting our public perception.' The NFL chose to make a show of patriotism a part of their programming, but that doesn't mean they can require their employees to participate.