The first amendment has NOTHING to do with this issue.
Originally Posted by: KRK
This is one of 2 issues...and I profoundly disagree [See 2nd half of post]!
That's like me showing up to work and kneeling down in a meeting protesting about something that has nothing to do with my job.
Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla
This is the 2nd issue:
A more precise simile has you sitting at your desk around startin’ time. You’re fired because you refused to stand and cluck like a chicken [Because you’re a beef man]; your boss further blackballs you in your profession. If you’d find this problematic and if there’s intellectual consistency, then what is happening to Kaepernick is also problematic to you.
1. To see the subject issues with clarity American values need to be reviewed and nationalistic biases need to be stowed.
What if a team were bought by a N.Korean entity, can the team force a player to pledge allegiance to Kim Jung-Un before each game? Or are Americans required to pay reverence to England’s anthem for a game in London? If one is intellectually honest and consistent, it’s clear these situations are analogous to the subject outrageous demands NFL owners are placing on their players.
By its very definition, one cannot disrespect our Flag; it’s just a symbol, it’s nothing more than a colorful piece of cloth. Countries in which one could be prosecuted for “disrespecting” a national symbol: N.Korea [Remember Wambier?]; 1933-45 Germany, and a plethora of despotic regimes throughout history. America doesn’t prosecute peaceful protestors for even burning a Flag. A protestor losing his career for his protest, not the substance of the protest, is nothing more than a de facto prosecution.
The Flag can’t be disrespected, but the values it represents can be. Disrespect comes when one is ignorant or openly hostile to the American values our Flag represents. Punishing a protestor asserting that the G’s police are oppressing members of his race is 100% hostile to American values [Even if the protester is incorrect], it threatens our national security, and its ignorant [Unless one supports despotism]. Ironically, one waxing patriotic while demanding everyone have a robotic reverence to symbols literally defiles the American values they’re touting; it’s downright creepy; it’s a most wretched duplicity.
This is how a Patriot voices dissent to a protest. A Patriot counters a peaceful protestor of [EG] lawful abortion by first exercising EMPATHY and RESPECT for THE PROTESTOR’s THINKING that a child is being outright killed, even though that thinking is entirely misplaced. A Patriot imagines if the G decided to KILL her children, she’s thankful similar protestors will sound. A Patriot counters the abortion activist’s speech with freedom of choice speech/demonstration and voices disagreement with scholarship, not ignorant denials that abortion doesn’t exist ellipsed in idiotic feckless dogma. A Patriot dissenting to an abortion activist’s thinking will never demand the activist is prosecuted, muzzled or his ability to earn is disabled…NEVER!
Protest is fundamental to our genesis and our ongoing security. Our Nation’s birth mimics just about every regime’s creation: when King George punished and/or ignored protest, our forefathers settled their issues with guns. And we call them heroes, don’t we? After the revolt, the greatest fear of the Constitution’s drafters was the inherent problem with democracies: tyranny of the majority. The ENTIRE thrust of our Constitution is designed to prevent a majority from using their position to terrorize a minority. One critical feature of this design are protections installed for the interplay of protest and speech. If speech and protest is punished and/or dismissed and minorities believe the G is out to exterminate and/or fiscally enslave them, it is certain that one day they will take up arms. And if foreign powers and/or an ISIS type faction intervene in a big way; present day America will be gone. Imagine lore of this Browner America that emerges will hail the protesters as heroes, President Kaepernick and VP Reid will be on the $1 and $5 bills…“USA…USA…USA!”
2. There’s two employment issues at play.
Does an Employer have the right to:
(#1) curb/quash protected free speech of his employees; and
(#2) make one stand for Anthem, recite Pledge Allegiance to Flag, crow like a rooster at dawn or pledge allegiance to NK’s Kim?
Answer to #1 is YES! However, the dynamic changes drastically if the employer is either de facto or in fact the USG or working in concert with the USG. There are surely enough facts to allege in a suit that the new Anthem policy is the work of the USG acting in concert with the NFL. Heck, Trump and Jerry Jones even said so [While their lawyers gasp]! Also, considered for the purposes of abridgement of speech is that otherwise private companies can be considered governmental units based on the amount of Public assistance they receive. The NFL receives enough Public assistance in the form of funds [directly or thru tax breaks], infrastructure and subsidized facilities to allege in suit that the NFL is a governmental unit; then it’s up to the trier of fact to decide. The actions the NFL has taken against Kaepernick is probably “illegal;” and 100% certainly “illegal” if multiple teams colluded to blackball.
Answer to #2 is also YES; as long as that condition is fundamental to the job and/or was expressly made at the time of hiring and is in the employment manual. But, neither of these conditions apply in Kaepernick’s case. Obviously, Anthem standing is NOT intrinsically part of playing football and the NFL’s employment relationship is defined by a CBA, which means, NFL owners are prohibited from unilaterally changing terms of employment. Clearly, the NFL’s new Anthem standing rule is “illegal.”
Sure, the NFL will argue the Anthem standing rule is simply a clarification of the CBA’s conduct policy, which obviously cannot list every required or prohibited behavior. The viability of this position turns on whether the players could have reasonably expected that Anthem standing was a required behavior.
But, this argument will fail for the following reasons:
Kaepernick first sat August 26 2016 [BTW, A GB Game] and then started kneeling after consulting with an army vet. The next week he was joined by Eric Reid [Ya think the NFL is sending a message?]. Obviously, if it was understood by the league that this was a conduct policy violation, the clarification would have been made known or a grievance would have been filed in the fall of ’16.
The NFL actually said in August 2016 that "Players are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the national anthem."
The NBA has had an expressed Anthem standing rule for many years. It is not like this wasn’t thought of before and bargained for by a major professional sports league. A player could assume if the NFL expected Anthem standing to be required that they too would have simply bargained for a rule.
Until 2009, the players were in the lockerroom during the Anthem. It was well known that some players would find their way to the end of the tunnel or otherwise seek out a Flag and stand for the Anthem. Obviously, standing for the Anthem was never required prior to 2009.
In November 2014, 5 Rams players [one was Jared Cook] came out of tunnel in “Hands-up don’t shoot” position in response to Ferguson. The St Louis police union wanted scalps. Goodell refused to discipline the players because it was before the game. This served as notice to the players that protesting before the game is not a conduct policy violation.
Oh BTW, did you know that from 1775 to 1783 Americans were promised property to induce them to join the revolutionary fight against the British? This offer obviously appealed to poorer Americans. After the defeat of the British the parcels were distributed; but states immediately levied massive property taxes on those parcels causing most of the parcels to be reclaimed through eviction. USA…USA…USA!
Know your history…see Howard Zinn!