Quote: @pumpf said:
@ Mike Olson said:
It absolutely is a first amendment right and they will get sued to hell and back for it if they do it. I can’t support such an ifiotic move by the owners calling even more attention to this.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard the NFL do yet.
So where do you stand on bakers refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings? It's not apples to apples... but I'd be curious to hear your defense of the 1A in this case... and not in that one.
Let's stick to one story at a time. First for this story, we are talking about forcing nationalism, patriotism, pledges, etc. That is something that goes to the heart of our constitution if not the entirety of our reason for existing as a country to a degree. I have a real problem with the concept that people should stand for the national anthem or they should leave the country. That type of mindset to me is as offensive as it gets. Frankly, it disgusts me as it should anyone that has ever taken the oath to support and defend the constitution. Again I don't have to like your protest, views, and actions so long as they are legal, and I should find any attempt to force you to do or not do those things by penalty as un-American.
On the bakers cake issue... People need to remember that the constitution itself is the framework on which laws are measured against. If there is commerce law that says that the bakers must provide the service, then that law can be argued on it's constitutionality. How I feel about that particular case is really without any consequence. I think if you are going to provide a service, then provide the service. But I'd probably say that the bakers likely shouldn't be force to do the job. I'm sure there are plenty of cake bakers that would love to do the job as there are also plenty of people that would love to highlight the fact that the business refused to do the job. Free market and all. I don't know the exact commerce laws that are in play in that location so I can't comment on it other than I think they should have baked the cake. I may have had other feelings on it when it first came out.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Mike Olson said:
It absolutely is a first amendment right and they will get sued to hell and back for it if they do it. I can’t support such an ifiotic move by the owners calling even more attention to this.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard the NFL do yet.
So where do you stand on bakers refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings? It's not apples to apples... but I'd be curious to hear your defense of the 1A in this case... and not in that one.
Let's stick to one story at a time. First for this story, we are talking about forcing nationalism, patriotism, pledges, etc. That is something that goes to the heart of our constitution if not the entirety of our reason for existing as a country to a degree. I have a real problem with the concept that people should stand for the national anthem or they should leave the country. That type of mindset to me is as offensive as it gets. Frankly, it disgusts me as it should anyone that has ever taken the oath to support and defend the constitution. Again I don't have to like your protest, views, and actions so long as they are legal, and I should find any attempt to force you to do or not do those things by penalty as un-American.
On the bakers cake issue... People need to remember that the constitution itself is the framework on which laws are measured against. If there is commerce law that says that the bakers must provide the service, then that law can be argued on it's constitutionality. How I feel about that particular case is really without any consequence. I think if you are going to provide a service, then provide the service. But I'd probably say that the bakers likely shouldn't be force to do the job. I'm sure there are plenty of cake bakers that would love to do the job as there are also plenty of people that would love to highlight the fact that the business refused to do the job. Free market and all. I don't know the exact commerce laws that are in play in that location so I can't comment on it other than I think they should have baked the cake. I may have had other feelings on it when it first came out.
so forced patriotism is bad, but forced to do things against your other beliefs is fine? kind of a tough argument to make IMO.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ Poiple said:
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
Aside from a 1943 USSC in which the court ruled:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Now this ruling was in regards to the education system forcing children to say the pledge so it is a little different. But I will go on to say this. I do not have to like that someone does or doesn't stand to sing the national anthem. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to not care for someone's protest, or decision to not stand for the anthem. That's all fine and dandy. But what should be much MORE infuriating is the concept that our country's citizenry be forced to do that. Forced patriotism or nationalism is antithetical to freedom, democracy and patriotism itself. Patriotism to me is having the courage to stand up and identify where we can do better as a country BECAUSE we care about the direction we are headed. And we all may disagree with one and others viewpoints on what those ideas and concerns are. What patriotism to me is has very little to do with standing for the flag, even less about the anthem. We sing the anthem, and stand and salute the flag because we are moved to. Forcing anyone to do those things is among the least American actions I can imagine.
This. Forced nationalism is Nazi Germany. "Ve have vays of making you pledge your allegiance to Der Fuhrer."
If America is truly the greatest nation on earth, it shows its greatness in the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Our right to due process, habeas corbus, to NOT pledge allegiance...to NOT stand if we so choose. And that's a beautiful thing.
It's shocking to me how many in recent years have voted and would vote to end those freedoms, to unwittingly lessen the greatness of America under the insidious guise of "making america great again."
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ Poiple said:
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
Aside from a 1943 USSC in which the court ruled:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Now this ruling was in regards to the education system forcing children to say the pledge so it is a little different. But I will go on to say this. I do not have to like that someone does or doesn't stand to sing the national anthem. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to not care for someone's protest, or decision to not stand for the anthem. That's all fine and dandy. But what should be much MORE infuriating is the concept that our country's citizenry be forced to do that. Forced patriotism or nationalism is antithetical to freedom, democracy and patriotism itself. Patriotism to me is having the courage to stand up and identify where we can do better as a country BECAUSE we care about the direction we are headed. And we all may disagree with one and others viewpoints on what those ideas and concerns are. What patriotism to me is has very little to do with standing for the flag, even less about the anthem. We sing the anthem, and stand and salute the flag because we are moved to. Forcing anyone to do those things is among the least American actions I can imagine.
No one is being "forced" to do anything. Those who do not want to can remain in the locker-room.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ Poiple said:
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
Aside from a 1943 USSC in which the court ruled:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Now this ruling was in regards to the education system forcing children to say the pledge so it is a little different. But I will go on to say this. I do not have to like that someone does or doesn't stand to sing the national anthem. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to not care for someone's protest, or decision to not stand for the anthem. That's all fine and dandy. But what should be much MORE infuriating is the concept that our country's citizenry be forced to do that. Forced patriotism or nationalism is antithetical to freedom, democracy and patriotism itself. Patriotism to me is having the courage to stand up and identify where we can do better as a country BECAUSE we care about the direction we are headed. And we all may disagree with one and others viewpoints on what those ideas and concerns are. What patriotism to me is has very little to do with standing for the flag, even less about the anthem. We sing the anthem, and stand and salute the flag because we are moved to. Forcing anyone to do those things is among the least American actions I can imagine.
This. Forced nationalism is Nazi Germany. "Ve have vays of making you pledge your allegiance to Der Fuhrer."
If America is truly the greatest nation on earth, it shows its greatness in the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Our right to due process, habeas corbus, to NOT pledge allegiance...to NOT stand if we so choose. And that's a beautiful thing.
It's shocking to me how many in recent years have voted and would vote to end those freedoms, to unwittingly lessen the greatness of America under the insidious guise of "making america great again."
Again: no one is "forcing" the players to do anything.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ Poiple said:
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
Aside from a 1943 USSC in which the court ruled:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Now this ruling was in regards to the education system forcing children to say the pledge so it is a little different. But I will go on to say this. I do not have to like that someone does or doesn't stand to sing the national anthem. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to not care for someone's protest, or decision to not stand for the anthem. That's all fine and dandy. But what should be much MORE infuriating is the concept that our country's citizenry be forced to do that. Forced patriotism or nationalism is antithetical to freedom, democracy and patriotism itself. Patriotism to me is having the courage to stand up and identify where we can do better as a country BECAUSE we care about the direction we are headed. And we all may disagree with one and others viewpoints on what those ideas and concerns are. What patriotism to me is has very little to do with standing for the flag, even less about the anthem. We sing the anthem, and stand and salute the flag because we are moved to. Forcing anyone to do those things is among the least American actions I can imagine.
This. Forced nationalism is Nazi Germany. "Ve have vays of making you pledge your allegiance to Der Fuhrer."
If America is truly the greatest nation on earth, it shows its greatness in the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Our right to due process, habeas corbus, to NOT pledge allegiance...to NOT stand if we so choose. And that's a beautiful thing.
It's shocking to me how many in recent years have voted and would vote to end those freedoms, to unwittingly lessen the greatness of America under the insidious guise of "making america great again."
little bit of a difference between govt mandated patriotism vs an employer expecting their employees to refrain from alienating a large segment of their customer base. i see the argument, but this isnt the US govt making the NFL players stand, its the guys that sign their pay checks.
life is full of choices, I dont see the ire in the leagues way of resolving this issue.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Mike Olson said:
It absolutely is a first amendment right and they will get sued to hell and back for it if they do it. I can’t support such an ifiotic move by the owners calling even more attention to this.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard the NFL do yet.
So where do you stand on bakers refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings? It's not apples to apples... but I'd be curious to hear your defense of the 1A in this case... and not in that one.
Let's stick to one story at a time. First for this story, we are talking about forcing nationalism, patriotism, pledges, etc. That is something that goes to the heart of our constitution if not the entirety of our reason for existing as a country to a degree. I have a real problem with the concept that people should stand for the national anthem or they should leave the country. That type of mindset to me is as offensive as it gets. Frankly, it disgusts me as it should anyone that has ever taken the oath to support and defend the constitution. Again I don't have to like your protest, views, and actions so long as they are legal, and I should find any attempt to force you to do or not do those things by penalty as un-American.
On the bakers cake issue... People need to remember that the constitution itself is the framework on which laws are measured against. If there is commerce law that says that the bakers must provide the service, then that law can be argued on it's constitutionality. How I feel about that particular case is really without any consequence. I think if you are going to provide a service, then provide the service. But I'd probably say that the bakers likely shouldn't be force to do the job. I'm sure there are plenty of cake bakers that would love to do the job as there are also plenty of people that would love to highlight the fact that the business refused to do the job. Free market and all. I don't know the exact commerce laws that are in play in that location so I can't comment on it other than I think they should have baked the cake. I may have had other feelings on it when it first came out.
so forced patriotism is bad, but forced to do things against your other beliefs is fine? kind of a tough argument to make IMO.
I didn’t make that argument. Show me where i made that argument
i wonder gow well this would go over if a muslim owner wanted to force their players to face the east and kneel on a prayer rug, under the guise of I pay your paycheck so you need to do this.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ Poiple said:
I dont see where the publicly financed affects the 1st ammendment or the employers rights.
Does Burger Kings customers use only private roads to get to their restaurants? Do they cook those burgers using public utilities or are they generating private power? slippery slope. Lets stick with legal definitions.
Aside from a 1943 USSC in which the court ruled:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.
Now this ruling was in regards to the education system forcing children to say the pledge so it is a little different. But I will go on to say this. I do not have to like that someone does or doesn't stand to sing the national anthem. It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to not care for someone's protest, or decision to not stand for the anthem. That's all fine and dandy. But what should be much MORE infuriating is the concept that our country's citizenry be forced to do that. Forced patriotism or nationalism is antithetical to freedom, democracy and patriotism itself. Patriotism to me is having the courage to stand up and identify where we can do better as a country BECAUSE we care about the direction we are headed. And we all may disagree with one and others viewpoints on what those ideas and concerns are. What patriotism to me is has very little to do with standing for the flag, even less about the anthem. We sing the anthem, and stand and salute the flag because we are moved to. Forcing anyone to do those things is among the least American actions I can imagine.
This. Forced nationalism is Nazi Germany. "Ve have vays of making you pledge your allegiance to Der Fuhrer."
If America is truly the greatest nation on earth, it shows its greatness in the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Our right to due process, habeas corbus, to NOT pledge allegiance...to NOT stand if we so choose. And that's a beautiful thing.
It's shocking to me how many in recent years have voted and would vote to end those freedoms, to unwittingly lessen the greatness of America under the insidious guise of "making america great again."
Again: no one is "forcing" the players to do anything.
I was referring to the piece of legislation that went around a few years ago requiring students to recite the pledge of allegiance. Many people voted for that. And if you introduced legislation to require standing for the anthem, many would vote for that as well. You know I'm right.
No, the NFL thing is different. Of course players aren't being "forced" to stand for the anthem. But the message is clear. And there are pretty disturbing edges to this thing when you have the leader of our government saying that American citizens who don't exhibit the proper amount of allegiance at work should be fired.
The NFL thinks it solved the problem, but they just made it worse. What happens when the next bad cop shoots a black person with a phone?
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Mike Olson said:
It absolutely is a first amendment right and they will get sued to hell and back for it if they do it. I can’t support such an ifiotic move by the owners calling even more attention to this.
This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard the NFL do yet.
So where do you stand on bakers refusing to provide cakes for gay weddings? It's not apples to apples... but I'd be curious to hear your defense of the 1A in this case... and not in that one.
Let's stick to one story at a time. First for this story, we are talking about forcing nationalism, patriotism, pledges, etc. That is something that goes to the heart of our constitution if not the entirety of our reason for existing as a country to a degree. I have a real problem with the concept that people should stand for the national anthem or they should leave the country. That type of mindset to me is as offensive as it gets. Frankly, it disgusts me as it should anyone that has ever taken the oath to support and defend the constitution. Again I don't have to like your protest, views, and actions so long as they are legal, and I should find any attempt to force you to do or not do those things by penalty as un-American.
On the bakers cake issue... People need to remember that the constitution itself is the framework on which laws are measured against. If there is commerce law that says that the bakers must provide the service, then that law can be argued on it's constitutionality. How I feel about that particular case is really without any consequence. I think if you are going to provide a service, then provide the service. But I'd probably say that the bakers likely shouldn't be force to do the job. I'm sure there are plenty of cake bakers that would love to do the job as there are also plenty of people that would love to highlight the fact that the business refused to do the job. Free market and all. I don't know the exact commerce laws that are in play in that location so I can't comment on it other than I think they should have baked the cake. I may have had other feelings on it when it first came out.
so forced patriotism is bad, but forced to do things against your other beliefs is fine? kind of a tough argument to make IMO.
I didn’t make that argument. Show me where i made that argument
i wonder gow well this would go over if a muslim owner wanted to force their players to face the east and kneel on a prayer rug, under the guise of I pay your paycheck so you need to do this.
" I don't know the exact commerce laws that are in play in that location so I can't comment on it other than I think they should have baked the cake. "
I took this as you saying you thought those bakers, that were refusing to bake the cake on religious beliefs/grounds, should have baked the cake. but you dont think that the players should be able to be forced to stand up for the anthem by their employers because they have personal reasons that compel them not to.
maybe I misinterpreted your intent?
I will care more about this when it becomes a first amendment issue. What that means is if (and only if) Congress makes a law that:
1. establishes a religion; or prohibits the free exercise of religion; or
2. abridges the freedom of speech or of the press; or
3. abridges the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That hasn’t happened. Instead, it really becomes a business decision of a league who has lost tremendous viewership inmpart because half of americans dont want to see this shit.
The league realizes that many people will walk away because of the politics.
Would the league allow people to wear pro-life advertising on their jerseys? Can Tim Tebow take a knee after a touchdown to give thanks to Christ?
Same issue. Different political leaning.
Laura Ingraham got it right. Shut up LeBron and dribble.
|
