Owners Considering Penalizing 1st Amendment Rights

As this drifts away from the NFL part of the discussion and more into the political arena I want to remind everyone that if they would like to have access to the ST forum (for when this gets moved)  they just need to PM me and I will get their account changed so that they can see and participate in those discussions.

@"JimmyinSD" said: As this drifts away from the NFL part of the discussion and more into the political arena I want to remind everyone that if they would like to have access to the ST forum (for when this gets moved)  they just need to PM me and I will get their account changed so that they can see and participate in those discussions.

@"Poiple" 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."

what i found shocking and very disappointing was many of the same whiny bitches stood by silently while people who wanted to hear a presidential candidate speak had to run a gauntlet of protesters who used intimidation through verbal and physical attacks to enter the building.  Often times while police officers stood by and watched it happen. This is Nazi Germany in action.  I never thought i would see it in my lifetime.  People bloodied while attempting to hear a candidate speak.  Nothing excuses this.
Many of the same people then stand silently while their party of choice’s candidate actively worked to steal the party’s nomination through deception and lies.  And finished with cheating in the presidential debates by getting the list of questions prior to the debate.  But sure, lets complain about someone wanting to make America great again.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Poiple" 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."

what i found shocking and very disappointing was many of the same whiny bitches stood by silently while people who wanted to hear a presidential candidate speak had to run a gauntlet of protesters who used intimidation through verbal and physical attacks to enter the building.  Often times while police officers stood by and watched it happen. This is Nazi Germany in action.  I never thought i would see it in my lifetime.  People bloodied while attempting to hear a candidate speak.  Nothing excuses this.
Many of the same people then stand silently while their party of choice’s candidate actively worked to steal the party’s nomination through deception and lies.  And finished with cheating in the presidential debates by getting the list of questions prior to the debate.  But sure, lets complain about someone wanting to make America great again.

OMG! You actually voted for the moron! LOL. Well, at least you're honest. I'll give you that.

Sorry you had to run a gauntlet of protesters to hear the idiot speak, but try to remember that those were the good guys. On one side we have a hater who retweets white nationalists, who called white supremacists "very fine people," and was heartily endorsed by the KKK. And on the other side you have people trying to stand up to that hate. 

Maybe you should re-think which side you want to be on. 

this will certainly be an interesting time to read about in the history lessons 80 years from now.

Bottom line I really think this latest decision by King Roger and his band of merry men will end up being much ado about nothing.  In my "unededuated" opinion the NFLPA won't allow it to go forward because of the CBA.

@"purplefaithful" said: 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:

OMG! You actually voted for the moron! LOL. Well, at least you're honest. I'll give you that.

Sorry you had to run a gauntlet of protesters to hear the idiot speak, but try to remember that those were the good guys. On one side we have a hater who retweets white nationalists, who called white supremacists "very fine people," and was heartily endorsed by the KKK. And on the other side you have people trying to stand up to that hate. 

Maybe you should re-think which side you want to be on. 

@"1VikesFan" said: Bottom line I really think this latest decision by King Roger and his band of merry men will end up being much ado about nothing.  In my "unededuated" opinion the NFLPA won't allow it to go forward because of the CBA.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"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?

BigAl99 had it right.  This was not an issue before 2009.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nfl-sideline-anthem/

n image widely circulated on Facebook in response to the National
Football League’s anthem controversy held that NFL players did not stand
on the sidelines during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before
games prior to 2009. Instead, they stayed in locker rooms during the
anthem and did not begin standing along the sidelines for renditions of
“The Star-Spangled Banner” until after the Defense Department began
paying the NFL to hold patriotic displays in 2009:

This has always been about money to the owners.  The DOD had to stop giving taxpayer money to owners when it came out and people were upset over taxpayer money being spent.

What is truly interesting is that many who are upset about players not standing for the anthem do not talk about the third verse of the anthem.

The players have a whole heck of a lot more to worry about nowadays.

Going to Starbucks, shopping at Nordstrom, staying in an AirBNB, moving into your own apartment, or even having a BBQ could get you arrested or a visit from the police who handcuff you to be sure.

Funny that the issues players are trying to bring attention to not only are forgotten but seem to be escalating.

I still do not know why the anthem needs to be played at every sporting event in the first place.

Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf lives!

@"Mike Olson" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"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?

Yes I believe you did misinterpret what I said. I don't know what the laws are in that area. I myself think that the people should have baked the cake. The entire thing to ME seems like a losing proposition. But that is of no consequence. What I think they should do doesn't have any real bearing on what they CAN or CANNOT do by law. Mine is only an opinion. There are laws and I'm not sure what those laws state. If the law is thought to be unconstitutional then those that feel that way should work to have it changed. 

I have a real problem with the concept that the person with money can force you to do something that isn't associated with the game. Or that dictates how you must show your patriotism. The thing that gets me is that these players weren't turning their backs on the flag. They weren't flipping the flag the bird. When Kaepernick first did it he sat for it. And he was told that kneeling would be a more respectful way to go about it. So he did that. He kneeled. He was quiet. Non-disruptive. Still not the way I would have done it. But I actually think this is a MUCH more respectful way to do it than to not come out at all. 

At the heart of the matter I think the NFL is making another terrible decision which is just going to continue to keep them at odds with people. One that they could have left alone and it would have been the players that drew the ire from the fans that wanted them to stand rather than the league drawing the ire from both groups of people.... Those that feel they should be able to kneel and those that will now criticize the league for allowing the players to walk off the field. The NFL for whatever reason loves to find their way into indefensible positions. Had they left it alone we would be having dialog likely about the issue which is at the heart of the protest rather than what we are discussing. 

as far as if what the owners are doing is right or wrong... their ratings are dropping and eventually that will hit their bottom line,  a lot, a lot of people were tuning out because of these protests (how many more were tuning in because they were allowing them?)  this is a business and what ever hurts the bottom line gets scrutinized and allowing these acts were bad for business.  plain and simple,  and unless somebody can demonstrate how these protests by the players are protected by either the CBA or the Constitution then this is really a moot.  I think the owners are making a smart move as it still lets the players have their little hissy fits over whatever moves them that year,  but it removes it from the public eye.  If fox, espn, or any other want to make a story of why those players were absent they can do it apart from the game and those that dont want to listen to their shit wont be subjected to it.

@"greediron" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

OMG! You actually voted for the moron! LOL. Well, at least you're honest. I'll give you that.

Sorry you had to run a gauntlet of protesters to hear the idiot speak, but try to remember that those were the good guys. On one side we have a hater who retweets white nationalists, who called white supremacists "very fine people," and was heartily endorsed by the KKK. And on the other side you have people trying to stand up to that hate. 

Maybe you should re-think which side you want to be on. 

Just going to highlight that little bit o irony and leave it out there.  Watching the behavior exhibited, you can't really believe that.  Spitting on people, throwing liquids on people, punching them, assaulting them all reminds me of a previous era.  But not in the same manner in which you allude.  The white hoods have indeed been replaced, but not by red hats.

"Congress 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 NFL isn't congress, the NFL is their employer.  Jobs have policies, and if you don't like the policies of your job, you are welcome to go find another one.    Remember when this whole thing was about police brutality?  Yeah, it sure was for like a week.  Then it turned into "look it me, I have the right to kneel."  Many people in the history of time have stood up for what they believed in, but they all did so knowing that sometimes their actions would have consequences.  Am I saying that is right?  No, but if you truly believe in what you are doing you do whatever you can to send your message.  Good on you, you took a knee during our anthem.  Then you trotted your happy ass on the field, made your millions of dollars, and went home to your mansion in the country that has done you so wrong. 

It happens over and over and over in History.  The Gun Confiscation Agenda has no authentic connection to Public Safety or Race.  It is about Empire and Control.

There is NO SUCH THING as A 1st Amendment, without A Fully-Unrestricted 2nd Amendment.

The second guns are removed from ANY POPULACE, Tyranny will follow;  Restrictions on what was previously innocent and normal speech always follows.  The Legal Establishment of Thought Crimes follows (like misgendering your transexual dance therapy instructor and losing your job at Uni).

Postmodernist Social Engineering already runs amok in Nations like UK and Sweden.  Sweden is doomed and cannot fight back.  It took their corrupt government One Generation to destroy their own people - and their people are too politically frightened and under constant societal and physical threat to speak out or defend their own women as they are mass raped.  Their cultural (Viking) identity will be erased (and probably torn down) within 30 years.  Canada is currently at risk for the same fate.  Some of their leaders are covertly begging The US for help, but the sad truth is that it is too late for several European countries.  Rights Matter.  The Consequence in this case will be Cultural, Religious and Genetic Extermination of entire cultures and societies for the Holy Grail of Political Correctness.

The Lefty Gun Grab is just another Bankster Ploy, authored and funded in Switzerland, to permanently take American Rights - And they will lie and pose, and conflate, and miscategorize until they are told to BTHO.  They are also deeply-committed to exaggerating racial conflict as an effective control tool.  They HATE our Bill Of Rights over at the IMF/BIS in Basel and Bern.

Let's see if we can find some common ground at least on the premises. My premise are that:
(1) fining you to get you to do something (or to prevent you from doing it) is equivalent to forcing you to do it (or forcing you not to do it).
(2) kneeling during the anthem is a form of protest. It is speech and it is protected by the Constitution.
(3) the NFL and its member teams are not the government so they are not violating the players' 1st Amendment rights by fining them for kneeling during the anthem.
(4) as the employers of players, NFL owners have the power to suppress the players' speech without violating their Constitutional rights.
Given these points .... 
IMO:
-that billionaire NFL owners have caved in to Trump or to the fans/mob is cowardly.
-an American forcing a fellow American to stand for the flag/anthem when they do not want to is un-American. It is a sad irony.
-I would be far less troubled if the NFL forced players to stand during the half-time show where the dog chases a Frisbee.

@"dadevike" said: Let's see if we can find some common ground at least on the premises. My premise are that: (1) fining you to get you to do something (or to prevent you from doing it) is equivalent to forcing you to do it (or forcing you not to do it). (2) kneeling during the anthem is a form of protest. It is speech and it is protected by the Constitution. (3) the NFL and its member teams are not the government so they are not violating the players' 1st Amendment rights by fining them for kneeling during the anthem. (4) as the employers of players, NFL owners have the power to suppress the players' speech without violating their Constitutional rights. Given these points ....  IMO: -that billionaire NFL owners have caved in to Trump or to the fans/mob is cowardly. -an American forcing a fellow American to stand for the flag/anthem when they do not want to is un-American. It is a sad irony. -I would be far less troubled if the NFL forced players to stand during the half-time show where the dog chases a Frisbee.

as far as the owners caving to Trump... no way,  they are caving to the numbers.  the majority of America is not supporting these players, and now some are no longer supporting the league.  The longer the owners let the players make the game experience for the fan something other than what the average consumer wants the more likely that they will lose future revenue.

@"kahsmick" said: It happens over and over and over in History.  The Gun Confiscation Agenda has no authentic connection to Public Safety or Race.  It is about Empire and Control.

There is NO SUCH THING as A 1st Amendment, without A Fully-Unrestricted 2nd Amendment.

The second guns are removed from ANY POPULACE, Tyranny will follow;  Restrictions on what was previously innocent and normal speech always follows.  The Legal Establishment of Thought Crimes follows (like misgendering your transexual dance therapy instructor and losing your job at Uni).

Postmodernist Social Engineering already runs amok in Nations like UK and Sweden.  Sweden is doomed and cannot fight back.  It took their corrupt government One Generation to destroy their own people - and their people are too politically frightened and under constant societal and physical threat to speak out or defend their own women as they are mass raped.  Their cultural (Viking) identity will be erased (and probably torn down) within 30 years.  Canada is currently at risk for the same fate.  Some of their leaders are covertly begging The US for help, but the sad truth is that it is too late for several European countries.  Rights Matter.  The Consequence in this case will be Cultural, Religious and Genetic Extermination of entire cultures and societies for the Holy Grail of Political Correctness.

The Lefty Gun Grab is just another Bankster Ploy, authored and funded in Switzerland, to permanently take American Rights - And they will lie and pose, and conflate, and miscategorize until they are told to BTHO.  They are also deeply-committed to exaggerating racial conflict as an effective control tool.  They HATE our Bill Of Rights over at the IMF/BIS in Basel and Bern.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"greediron" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

OMG! You actually voted for the moron! LOL. Well, at least you're honest. I'll give you that.

Sorry you had to run a gauntlet of protesters to hear the idiot speak, but try to remember that those were the good guys. On one side we have a hater who retweets white nationalists, who called white supremacists "very fine people," and was heartily endorsed by the KKK. And on the other side you have people trying to stand up to that hate. 

Maybe you should re-think which side you want to be on. 

Just going to highlight that little bit o irony and leave it out there.  Watching the behavior exhibited, you can't really believe that.  Spitting on people, throwing liquids on people, punching them, assaulting them all reminds me of a previous era.  But not in the same manner in which you allude.  The white hoods have indeed been replaced, but not by red hats.

I don't condone violence. Violence only begets more violence. But I do think it's important to protest this man wherever he goes, if only to show the world that not all of us are so willing to let hate and white nationalism take root in America. Again.