https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-tebow-kneel-anthem/
It also explains the tremendous differences between what CK and TT did.
Nike and Kaepernick
- Thread starter gamecockcat
- Start date
- Status
It also explains the tremendous differences between what CK and TT did.
To be fair, neither of these are technically Constitutional issues. The constitution, for the most part, protects a person from the government infringing upon a right. The government has not infringed and did not infringe on either Tebow's right to practice his religion, nor on Kap's right to free speech (although, Trump does seem to be somewhat toeing that line by encouraging NFL owners to fire players).
Anyone who was critical of Tebow was also wrong. I don't agree with his message, but he has a right to promote it. Tebow wasn't shunned from the league for his views. He was shunned because he sucked as a QB and did not want to switch positions. Kaepernick was a far superior pro QB, but again he likely isn't a quality starter today. I have no issue with either being fired, that is thew NFL's right. My issue is with the indigent-minded morons who feel the need to destroy clothing while citing respect for military and whatnot. If you really cared about the military, why burn perfectly good clothes they can use?
Well obviously not but stated that anyone can assume what he would say or do. The thing is nobody can speak for him. They can assume what he would say just like the other guy who said he would kneel doesn't know either.
Thats fine, but can anyone tell me what Kaepernick sacrificed??
Lol, Riiiiiggght, they are just close friends, family and fellow soldiers, but they have no clue about who he really is, what he represents and or would do.
By this I am going to assume that you mean that you have no constitutional protection from your employer firing you for saying something, which is true. However, you still have a right to free speech at work. You have a right to free speech pretty much everywhere in our country.
So you think your spouse, friends or parents would know everything you would do and exactly how you would handle it? Yeah right.
So if they put Hitler’s face there, you would be ok with it?
They have every right to fire players for kneeling. It’s not debatable.
Because those morons have the right to burn the clothes for whatever reason they want. Why do you have an issue with their right to do so?
Do you practice your little speeches before you post them? I am against abortion. Better practice another one for me.
great, that's one of thousands of articles on the matter. We could post endlessly with articles which we each align. What does that prove or accomplish?
Really? You sure you don't mean in the private sector you have less protections of 1st amendmant rights? Public sectors, particularly government jobs are completely protected by the 1st amendmant. Private sector jobs are still covered in several instances. WLAD, whistleblower laws and countless local and state laws protect a lot of things. Also, anti discrimination laws, particular of the religious, gender, age type are protected through this. You might want to crack a book and learn about the
And I was giving you word for word what she actually stated, and a link to a fellow friend and soldier who stated he believes Pat would support Kaepernick and kneel.
Because the face is a hypocrite and a fraud. Please enlighten us on the sacrifices he made. Was it when the family that took him in and raised him as their own? Was it when the school he went to gave him a free education? Was it when he made millions in the NFL? Poor guy.
Well, when you have the president and his legion saying they should be silenced, that tends to go against that belief.
Yes, so again... the constitution does not protect the person from being fired. Which is what I said in the first line. However, they do not lose their right to freedom of speech and protection from government action just because they are in a work environment when they say it. Which was the point of my 'however,' statement.
Not to mention that my original post on this subject was actually pointing out that freedom of speech was not at issue here because the government was not acting or trying to pass a law to limit the players from kneeling. So, you're largely agreeing with me to begin with.
No it doesn’t. The players have zero right to protest on employer property or during their employment hours. The players are free to express their beliefs on their own time.
I read what she stated. It didn't fully support your statement. I think the article I posted was pretty clear.
Yes, which is why I mentioned that the president's comments at least approach the line of it being improper/unconstitutional. Without those comments there is no government action that I am aware of.
Did you read the article? There are some protections in the private sector, but "free speech" isn't one of them.
Trump can give his opinion. That isn’t improper or unconstitutional. An example of what is improper is Obama running his piehole during the Baltimore riots about the police with zero knowledge of the facts. Later, an African American judge found the police officers not guilty.
I'd be far more concerned about what a treasonous President and a complicit Congress is doing than what a football player does for 2 minutes prior to a game. Vlad certainly is.
What this article is basically discussing is whether or not the constitution extends the 1st Amendment protection and makes it unconstitutional for an employer to fire or punish you for something you say or do at work. With little exception, the constitution has not been extended to that.
However, you are still protected by the constitution when you are at work. The government still cannot, with limited exceptions, arrest you for saying/doing something at work. This was my point, and has been my point the entire time. In other worse, freedom of speech only means, in large part, that you're free from being punished by the government. It does not mean that you are entirely immune from any other consequences.
I guessed you overlooked the millions he's given back to impoverished communities. The thousands of hours he's donated to communites, organizations and kids.
How is he a fraud or hypocrit? Please enlighten us!
I think there is a pretty solid chance they would. After 30 years I would hope so. We are pretty close after all.
Who said I had an issue with their right to do so? I just question the intellect of someone who says they are pro military, veterans and showing them the utmost respect, Yet, they choose to burn shoes, clothing and apparel that could be of major benefit to the homeless or struggling vets across the nation. You know, instead of just essentially burning it in their faces. But yea, you're right, standing for a flag and song that less than 90% of the nation even knows the history of is much worse than destroying clothes and shoes that can provide warmth and protection to those in need. I don't recall seeing a flag or song do that.
Not technically true. Ever heard of a players union and striking? Also, Tim Tebow's protest was considered religious, which is protected, even from employers. The NFL would be slapped with a ginormous lawsuit if they had tried to stop that. Same reason they aren't enacting their new policy of standing or staying in the locker room this year. They know they will get sued.
Deflection is your strong suit. You clearly said you had an issue with them- those were your words. You also deftly try to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about whether kneeling was right or not- I simply said pro teams have the absolute right to tell players not to kneel during the national anthem on employer property and during employment time. The concept really isn’t that difficult. It’s the same with the NFL telling players they can’t have breast cancer stickers on their helmets.
I am not trying to make this any attack on Trump, or really make it political at all. I am just discussing this in regards to whether it is constitutional free speech. In that sense, a government official using his position in government, on what he has coined as a government social media account, and while acting as a government official, pushing for someone to be fired can arise to being unconstitutional. Especially if there are threats, such as tax consequences, if the business doesn't do what the government official says.
Lol! Actually the facts. That you have an issue with the facts is your problem.
- Status