Just Joshin' Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfanAZ Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuklz2594 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 freedom of speech goes to everyone. the owners have the right to say nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maybe Someday Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Joshin' Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irv Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineforty Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Diver Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, SmokinES3 said: This is a fantastic point. 100% true. The 2nd Amendment is vile to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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!)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeBuffaloGreatAgain Posted April 13, 2018 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Diver Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said: 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!!! Right. We don't have enough politics in entertainment. There should be protests that at half time and during the post game too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: 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. Two important points: 1) We don't have to watch him hit his girlfriend, and we are 1000% for the law taking care of that. 2) We are forced to watch him kneel during the game and the constant news coverage of it. Its not being a snowflake to vote with your dollars on the NFL changing the show it puts on. What would be a snowflake is if we demanded the government step in and shut kaepernick down because it is infringing on my right to not be offended. Edited April 13, 2018 by What a Tuel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Just now, jaybee said: 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. So coke head woman beater who hasn’t done squat in the nfl is a better option than a guy who nearly won a SB? Good set of values there. 1 minute ago, Sky Diver said: Right. We don't have enough politics in entertainment. There should be protests that at half time and during the post game too. People didn’t want Jackie Robinson to play baseball. Sports and entertainment can make a huge difference in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Just now, C.Biscuit97 said: So coke head woman beater who hasn’t done squat in the nfl is a better option than a guy who nearly won a SB? Good set of values there. Let this thread be your teacher on why no owner in is right mind would take a controversial and epicly bad football player as a backup wasting a roster spot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: Two important points: 1) We don't have to watch him hit his girlfriend, and we are 1000% for the law taking care of that. 2) We are forced to watch him kneel during the game and the constant news coverage of it. Its not being a snowflake to vote with your dollars on the NFL changing the show it puts on. What would be a snowflake is if we demanded the government step in and shut kaepernick down because it is infringing on my right to not be offended. I respect your opinion but man if anyone can say Manziel is ok but Kaepernick isn’t shouldn’t have kids, especially a daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 If anyone is interested here's a good objective analysis of what his legal team must prove to win their case: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/15/colin-kaepernick-collusion-lawsuit-against-nfl He basically needs to show that at least 2 teams, and/or the league office, conspired to deny him an employment opportunity. No clue how the arbitration will go but he does have legal standing here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, jaybee said: Let this thread be your teacher on why no owner in is right mind would take a controversial and epicly bad football player as a backup wasting a roster spot. Manziel wouldn’t cause any distractions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Just now, C.Biscuit97 said: I respect your opinion but man if anyone can say Manziel is ok but Kaepernick isn’t shouldn’t have kids, especially a daughter. For the record, I am not for Manziel anything. Actually I'd probably be ok with there being a ban on convicted violent offenders in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, HappyDays said: If anyone is interested here's a good objective analysis of what his legal team must prove to win their case: https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/15/colin-kaepernick-collusion-lawsuit-against-nfl He basically needs to show that at least 2 teams, and/or the league office, conspired to deny him an employment opportunity. No clue how the arbitration will go but he does have legal standing here. I think that's basically what I said. It's what I tried to say anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Diver Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: So coke head woman beater who hasn’t done squat in the nfl is a better option than a guy who nearly won a SB? Good set of values there. People didn’t want Jackie Robinson to play baseball. Sports and entertainment can make a huge difference in society. Are you comparing Jackie Robinson with Kapernick? I don't recall Jackie Robinson staging any protests before a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Dalton said: No issue with him protesting on his time, his dime. Big issue with any employee protesting when they are working in an official capacity during work hours. If this was not the NFL there would not be a debate that it is inappropriate in a business environment. If your teller at the bank wants to share their political opinions while cashing your check, you can bet your bottom dollar they will hear about in a hurry. Cease or pack your stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Not that it matters in the legal case but didn’t he previously say he would stand if signed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jobot said: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000926234/article/seahawks-postpone-workout-for-colin-kaepernick So I read this article that Seattle had planned to bring in Kaepernick for a workout, but they are postponing because they want to know if he will continue his kneeling during the anthem... Regardless of where you stand on for or against what he's doing....This sounds like it will seriously bolster any case Kaepernick has about being black-balled... Not sure what they were thinking with letting this information get out. As an employer, this would clearly be seen as discrimination based on a constitutional right. No this is not any type of discrimination. Owner of business is allowed to protect his financial interest and placing reasonable works rules in place are his right. Employee does not need to follow those rules as is their right, but are then subject to discipline including termination. Owner of business has a vested interest in protecting owners financial interest and employees that work for them also expect the owner to do this as it protects their jobs also. EX: if a terrorists wish to demonstrate he/she is sympathetic to terrorist ways they do not have a right to do this during working hours at work. EX: Potential hires have been not hired just based on their social media postings. EX: I do not need to hire anyone I disagree with or just don't like. I don't need a reason. If activists want to protest they can do that anytime they want. On their own time, off company property, MAYBE on company property depending on company rules. Protesting at work and costing owner money is not proper and violates the owners rights. No protestor has a right to put a business out of business. Take the protest to the public spaces. Edited April 13, 2018 by cba fan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Just now, NoSaint said: Not that it matters in the legal case but didn’t he previously say he would stand if signed? I’m not positive, but I thought I heard that at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Manziel wouldn’t cause any distractions! My Manziel comment was 100% football centric. Not political. (was a bad example....by me) Point I was trying to make is Kaepernick is not a good QB anymore and we are wasting keystrokes. You can twist this however you will, but my comment was a football comment, not a political or skin-color based comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: Again its public perception and the public likes to honor their country and its servicemen and women Public perception has no bearing on this case at all. This isn't really a matter of Kaepernick choosing to protest. He isn't running out onto the field holding a banner that says "I hate the anthem." The league requires the national anthem to be played before every game and he's choosing to not stand. Him kneeling for the anthem has nothing to do with what he is employed to do. Companies can't make their employers follow any rule they choose, there are limits. This is getting away from the collusion argument he's bringing to arbitration but there could be a case to be made there to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I wonder if he'll go that route if the collision argument fails. 10 minutes ago, cba fan said: Protesting at work and costing owner money is not proper and violates the owners rights. No protestor has a right to put a business out of business. Take the protest to the public spaces. But he isn't "protesting" in the way you mean. He doesn't come to work with a picket sign. If he chose to not stand for the anthem because he just didn't feel like it, would his decision suddenly be legally protected? Can our employers force us to stand for the national anthem when our job has nothing to do with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Just now, Augie said: I’m not positive, but I thought I heard that at some point. He and Reid both said they would stand but then backed off that when asked by the Seahawks (Kap) and Bengals (Reid). I mentioned this before. About 2 months ago, I was on a plane and sat across the aisle from Eric and Justin Reid's grandfather. We had a great conversation. He was one of the first African American PhD's from an Ivy league school (Psychology) and I loved talking to him. His sons were both star athletes at LSU and Eric and Justin are both great athletes. I asked him about kneeling and he thoughtfully said its not what he would have done but he loves his grandson and respects his decision. He said he faced a lot of racial turmoil in his life but also realized from his travels to China and other places (as an emissary of the US Government for Education) that this country afforded him opportunities no other country would have. He also said he does want Eric and Kap to use their stature to help address societal ills. Grandpa calls Eric after every game with a critique. It was hysterical to hear some of the feedback he gives...it was an awesome conversation. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 he's toast legally for opting out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 What’s actually sad is people confusing standing drunk at a sporting event w actually helping or respecting a soldier. Insignificant actions offending people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Jobot said: I wrote an example up further, but would someone be legally be allowed to not hire a gun owner if he didn't believe in the second amendment? Probably. Not wanting to own a gun or owning a gun does not provide you membership to any protected class I am aware of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts