Owners Considering Penalizing 1st Amendment Rights

The Vikings’ longest-tenured player, defensive end Brian Robison, said he’ll continue to “stand up for that flag,” but he doesn’t have a problem with other players who protest.
“For me, I’m going to go out there and I’m going to stand up for that flag,” said Robison, the 35-year-old Texan. “At the same time, our military has fought for those freedoms to allow those guys to have that decision. Whether we agree or disagree with what their decision is, it doesn’t matter; not part of it. That’s their freedom to do what they want to do.”
Receiver Stefon Diggs declined to discuss the NFL’s new policy allowing players to stay in the locker room for the national anthem, other than saying he doesn’t want to draw attention to himself.
“For me personally, I don’t bring how I feel about things onto a team,” Diggs said. “I’m part of an organization, a part of a team. I always keep that first in mind. As a collective unit, I like to keep things that way. I try not to do anything that’s going to bring any attention to myself at all, I try to fly under the radar. As far as any comment on it, I belong to an organization and I belong to that.”
http://www.startribune.com/mike-zimmer-its-important-vikings-stand-for-the-national-anthem/483490091/

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

A bit of a difference between employer/employee and business owner/customer....for the fan it most certainly is a first amendment right to be disrespectful.   For the record I have seen food vendors stop what they are doing and stand at attention for the anthem.

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment applies to the government making a law or prosecuting you for your freedom of speech.  If they were chucking people in jail for kneeling, THEN we have a 1st amendment issue.  A private employer (NFL) is free and clear to tell you to shut up and fire your tail for violation of that policy.  The NFL by it's very nature and all team owners are incapable of violating anyone's 1st amendment because they do not have the power to make a law or imprison someone.

Not anymore. When Trump opened his mouth and said owners should fire protesters, he made it a 1st amendment issue. Government cannot order private companies to fire people for speech. 

@"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.

@"pumpf" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Vikesrock" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

A bit of a difference between employer/employee and business owner/customer....for the fan it most certainly is a first amendment right to be disrespectful.   For the record I have seen food vendors stop what they are doing and stand at attention for the anthem.

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment applies to the government making a law or prosecuting you for your freedom of speech.  If they were chucking people in jail for kneeling, THEN we have a 1st amendment issue.  A private employer (NFL) is free and clear to tell you to shut up and fire your tail for violation of that policy.  The NFL by it's very nature and all team owners are incapable of violating anyone's 1st amendment because they do not have the power to make a law or imprison someone.

Not anymore. When Trump opened his mouth and said owners should fire protesters, he made it a 1st amendment issue. Government cannot order private companies to fire people for speech. 

To be fair, this did not start with Trump.  I'm pretty sure his predecessor- and his justice dept- did quite a bit of suggesting what private businesses should do.

@"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. 

I think in spirit we agree.  The governemnt of a free nation should not be able to compell people to give reverence to the nations symbols.  

But that really isnt the question here.  The question is should an employer be able to?

What rights do an employer have?  Should he be able to require that employees observe beahvioral standards which reflect their brand and to preserve the business?  

@"Bullazin" said:

@"Vanguard83" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Vanguard83" said: Enough horseshit.

It's not about YOUR beliefs. Stand and honor the flag & your country.

Politics and sports DONT have to go hand in hand.
Honor those who put themselves in the line of fire for your opportunity to make millions.

anyone kneels on my team and your ass is cut. IDGAS.
Bunch of pouting children...

...and I consider myself a liberal. 

You seem to be a reasonable person on most issues, Vanguard, so I want to ask you a question. What if the country were doing something that deeply offended YOU? Let's take it to the extreme. What if we were throwing all school teachers in jail, or Jews, or intellectuals, or liberals, whatever. Would you protest then? Is there a point at which you would say "enough" and do something about it? Maybe your form of protest would be different than kneeling during an anthem. Maybe it would even be more extreme. 

But if there is a point at which you would protest, then isn't this just a matter of this particular issue not rising to the level you personally would deem protestable? 

I've protested before, (but not often) most recently with my daughter and her friends following the school shootings in Florida. (She is a junior in HS) The "March for our Lives" protest. As a teacher I'm tired of seeing children killing other children, but I went to support not only a "cease-fire" in public schools but to support my daughter and her friends who wanted their voice heard. (and still believe they can make a difference....I do not share their optimism) I distrust BOTH political parties, and tend to agree with Howard Zinn that we have become a plutocracy.

HOWEVER..
I do support the second Amendment. I cannot pick and choose which elements of the Constitution I support. At the center of it is, I support  MORE liberties not less. Criminals WILL find a way to get guns, explosives, trucks, planes, whatever to impress havoc on others.  PEOPLE are the problem, NOT the weapons. Generally, we have lost our tolerance and patience.
I refer to it as "The Falcon cannot hear the Falconer"
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
       THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know

    That twenty centuries of stony sleep

    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

If it came to pass that people are being put into jails for political dissonance, liberals, teachers, etc. then our Republic has failed, and yes, that is "enough" for me, quite simply I would leave the United States.

Guns are just really really good at killing , killing many and killing fast. I support the 2nd amendment as well, but believe additional reasonable restrictions would save lives. There are other measures that could be done as well without major limitations on rights.    

@"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. 

@"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.

@"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. 

@"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. 

@"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. 

@"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."

@"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."

@"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.

@"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.  

@"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 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. 

@"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."