Man displaying Confederate flag fired from job site

[-Nurot]

There are laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring someone because of their actual or assumed political beliefs or activities. The NFLs' TV ratings have seen a significant drop due to people siding with Kaepernick in his stance. As more players continue to put pressure on the NFL, you will see the NFL change its' tune.

The law doesn't really apply in this case.

I agree with those who say it sounded like the decision was a weighted scenario. Ultimately he doesn't have a job now, because he's not an amazing player. We could probably rattle off several dozen football players who would still have a job if it were them who had done this instead.

He's a mediocre player and no one wants to pick him up in with the combination of -

A: He's controversial, (which didn't really bother them, they could have asked him to stop if they wanted to)

B: With him only being mediocre why bother with him at this point

Well it should. With as highly politicized as everything is now in this country, your political affiliation is just as big of an identifier as your religion and sexual orientation. As long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to do you job, you should be free to be whatever you want to be, even if that means being a Nazi or Klansman. And by the same token, the anarcho-communist Antifa kids should get that same liberty despite being just as ideologically dangerous as the fascists they're clashing with.

Except no one gets fired for being a fascist.

I imagine if their bosses discovered they were at an Antifa rally fighting on either side, or had gotten arrested for something like property destruction, they would be fired. Most employers do not want you to be recognize/representing them in public doing stupid shit. Some major companies require you to let them know when/why you've been arrested (they'll fire you if they find out you didn't) so they can decide if they still want you working for them.

As for being fired on ideology alone, Nazi and KKK ideals are unlike most popular ideals. If you are actively one of the two, most employers would fire you without blinking, and no there should be no laws to protect them.

[Gorgodeus]

The law doesn't really apply in this case.

I agree with those who say it sounded like the decision was a weighted scenario. Ultimately he doesn't have a job now, because he's not an amazing player. We could probably rattle off several dozen football players who would still have a job if it were them who had done this instead.

He's a mediocre player and no one wants to pick him up in with the combination of -

A: He's controversial, (which didn't really bother them, they could have asked him to stop if they wanted to)

B: With him only being mediocre why bother with him at this point

He is better than several starting QBs and most back-up QBs. His playing ability is not the reason he has not been signed by a team. His beliefs are.

[Wolfman31]

As for being fired on ideology alone, Nazi and KKK ideals are unlike most popular ideals. If you are actively one of the two, most employers would fire you without blinking, and no there should be no laws to protect them.

There absolutely should be laws to protect them because that's exactly why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were worded they way that they were. America was founded by fringe groups considered too extreme for European society at the time. They came to the New World to get further out from under the thumb of oppressive authoritarian governments and the social climates they fostered. If you start changing the very fabric of the spirit of America by removing civil liberties because Nazis make you uncomfortable, then you never deserved those liberties in the first place because the bravery of America is standing in the face of such extremists and not wavering in our ideals and principles that built this country. It's not perfect, but the framework is there for it to become a more perfect union and we've seen that in action throughout the years as more and more civil liberties have been extended to peoples of all walks of life. We've already scene the results of discriminatory witch hunts with McCarthy and in Salem, not to mention what the government did to Japanese-American citizens in WW2. We need to preserve the Constitution and adhere to its wording by the letter to keep our own government in check from growing even more towards the very authoritarian state the founders of this country fled from in the first place. I will not beg Uncle Sam to intervene because a very small group of angry white neckbeards ruined my backyard barbecue because they depleted the tiki torch reserves.

[-Nurot]

He is better than several starting QBs and most back-up QBs. His playing ability is not the reason he has not been signed by a team. His beliefs are.

The problem would be proving that. It'd by be easier for the teams in question to state he is simply an average player and in being such they just don't feel that it's worth picking up an average player tied to controversy.

There absolutely should be laws to protect them because that's exactly why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were worded they way that they were. America was founded by fringe groups considered too extreme for European society at the time. They came to the New World to get further out from under the thumb of oppressive authoritarian governments and the social climates they fostered. If you start changing the very fabric of the spirit of America by removing civil liberties because Nazis make you uncomfortable, then you never deserved those liberties in the first place because the bravery of America is standing in the face of such extremists and not wavering in our ideals and principles that built this country. It's not perfect, but the framework is there for it to become a more perfect union and we've seen that in action throughout the years as more and more civil liberties have been extended to peoples of all walks of life. We've already scene the results of discriminatory witch hunts with McCarthy and in Salem, not to mention what the government did to Japanese-American citizens in WW2. We need to preserve the Constitution and adhere to its wording by the letter to keep our own government in check from growing even more towards the very authoritarian state the founders of this country fled from in the first place. I will not beg Uncle Sam to intervene because a very small group of angry white neckbeards ruined my backyard barbecue because they depleted the tiki torch reserves.

Firing someone for being a Nazi is in no way comparable to a which hunt.

Wanting Uncle Sam to intervene because their boss fired them for being dick-bags that the owners/company doesn't want tied to their company/them is exactly the definition of freedom.

One has the freedom to be a sack of shit, and their employer has the freedom to fire them.

Their employers didn't fire them because they were witches, Japanese-Americans, Russians, or even English separatists.

Forcing an employer to keep someone employed, who negatively impacts their bottom line, or that they might personally feel ashamed to have representing their company, in public, goes against everything in the very Declaration and Constitution you just mentioned. If the Nazis/KKK feel disenfranchised because of that, then good they can set sail and find a new home. There is no taxation without representation in regards to them and they should be compared to shit at best rather than our own founding fathers.

We do not need an authoritarian state telling our small and large business owners who they can fire, other than the protections already in place. This is especially true when it comes to a group that doesn't believe in those very same protections and freedoms in the first place. Call it ironic, but no they don't deserve the protections they fight against.

[Ripster42]

He was a temp. Also, labor laws in the US are VERY relaxed.

It also wasn't in the US. This whole thread is stupid. It's about a canadian troll flying the confederate flag to piss people off.

- - - Updated - - -

People shouldn't be fired from their jobs because of their worldview. That's discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act also covers political affiliations.

Only US govt employees are protected from being fired for political speech. This might extend down to govt contractors, though I'm not sure. That doesn't matter though, as, again, this happened in canada.

[Gorgodeus]

The problem would be proving that. It'd by be easier for the teams in question to state he is simply an average player and in being such they just don't feel that it's worth picking up an average player tied to controversy.

It is easy to prove that he is better than many current QBs in the league. Sports analytics and metrics are used by every team, as well as many news organizations. These show the proof.

[jibberbox85]

There are laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring someone because of their actual or assumed political beliefs or activities. The NFLs' TV ratings have seen a significant drop due to people siding with Kaepernick in his stance. As more players continue to put pressure on the NFL, you will see the NFL change its' tune.

He's protesting for a cause just like this guy is (Which is also political) Care to try again?

Also, hiring/firing go with the same type of rules set that the NFL teams are privately owned which means they can fire/hire at will.

[primalmatter]

Canada has hated free speech for years. It isn't much a surprise when they crack down on it.

[Endus]

Canada has hated free speech for years. It isn't much a surprise when they crack down on it.

So utterly baseless and malicious slander, combined with a failure to recognize that the government of Canada had nothing to do with this.

Is this a game where you see how egregiously bad a post you can make in as few words as possible?

[Heladys]

I'm confused, this happened in Canada right? Why are people discussing the Civil Rights Act as if it has any bearing on this?

I don't know if you've noticed, but plenty of people around here are dumb.

- - - Updated - - -

In my defense, I was replying to a guy who was talking about it.

You are forgiven.

[primalmatter]

So utterly baseless and malicious slander, combined with a failure to recognize that the government of Canada had nothing to do with this.

Is this a game where you see how egregiously bad a post you can make in as few words as possible?

I meant its citizens though yes the government is involved as well.

Free speech doesn't only apply to speech you like its all speech and Canada actively works against the ideal.

[Wolfman31]

Firing someone for being a Nazi is in no way comparable to a which hunt.

As an isolated incident, it isn't but if this became a widespread effort as we are seeing with the Charlottesville protesters being "outed" as it were, then it very much is a witch hunt at least on a social level. I'm no sympathizer, but at the same time, I don't want it to become easier to oppress a group of people based on their beliefs because it opens the door for potential abuse.

Wanting Uncle Sam to intervene because their boss fired them for being dick-bags that the owners/company doesn't want tied to their company/them is exactly the definition of freedom.

We do not need an authoritarian state telling our small and large business owners who they can fire, other than the protections already in place. This is especially true when it comes to a group that doesn't believe in those very same protections and freedoms in the first place. Call it ironic, but no they don't deserve the protections they fight against.

If this were true, then we should get rid of the Equal Opportunity laws altogether so business owners can be free to discriminate against anyone they want. Chick-fil-a has a long history of anti-LGBT activism. Their CEO has made their stance on gay marriage very clear. They don't like gay people. But legally, they can't treat their gay employees any differently than any of their other employees. I believe this should also extend to political affiliation as well because of how much politics have become a part of people's identity and worldview, for better or worse. And white supremacy and nationalism is very inherent in extreme right wing politics in this country. It's hard to find someone on the so-called alt right who doesn't have some bigoted political view on immigration etc. It's the dark side of identity politics.

And yes while it is extremely ironic, they should not have their liberties removed for wanting to remove the liberties of other groups of people. We have a democratic process in this country that, while flawed like any other system of governance, has done an excellent job of preserving and expanding our civil liberties over the years. It might be a never-ending game of tuggle war, but we've won more than we've lost over the years. Progress might not come fast enough for the extreme progressives on the left, but it does eventually come and the Constitution can remain relatively in tact in the process. I remain unconvinced that we have to give in to anarcho-communists on the left just because Trump won. This past election cycle had more to do with the ineptitude of the Democrats as a party than it did with some sort of wide-spread White Nationalist movement trying to hijack our democracy. I see no need to dismantle the electoral college and expand the authoritative reach of the Federal government. The center-left just needs to get its shit together.

this happened in canada.

I'm aware it happened in Canada but this is also happening in America, so I felt it relevant to address it from an American perspective.

[Endus]

I meant its citizens though yes the government is involved as well.

Free speech doesn't only apply to speech you like its all speech and Canada actively works against the ideal.

No. We don't. You're just engaging in nationalist slander out of malice. Or you're repeating some bit of propaganda nonsense you got fed by some blog you should know better than to take seriously.

[primalmatter]

No. We don't. You're just engaging in nationalist slander out of malice. Or you're repeating some bit of propaganda nonsense you got fed by some blog you should know better than to take seriously.

How do you (speaking with the royal you. The country and the people) not?

When you threaten,harm, or destroy a persons livelihood due to what they say or in this case how they decorate their car you are actively attacking free speech.

It is a extremely hard ideal to keep but its one I believe should be protected with only the smallest of exceptions. (Yelling fire in a theater for example or screaming bomb at a airport.)

[Endus]

How do you (speaking with the royal you. The country and the people) not?

Strong protections of free speech in the Charter, stronger protections/rankings for press freedom than the USA, etc.

When you threaten,harm, or destroy a persons livelihood due to what they say or in this case how they decorate their car you are actively attacking free speech.

Literally and definitively incorrect. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with people facing social consequences for their public behaviour. Attempting to restrict that is an attack on everyone else's freedoms, not a defense of free speech.

Your problem is you have no idea what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is the right to say "fucking shit cuntwhores" in the middle of the town square, without being thrown in prison. It doesn't mean people can't get angry at you being an obscenity-spewing asshole using language like that in front of their children. Nobody's saying you can't say it. But everyone else is free to think you're an asshole and act accordingly. You seem to have a problem with those freedoms.

[-Nurot]

If this were true, then we should get rid of the Equal Opportunity laws altogether so business owners can be free to discriminate against anyone they want. Chick-fil-a has a long history of anti-LGBT activism. Their CEO has made their stance on gay marriage very clear. They don't like gay people. But legally, they can't treat their gay employees any differently than any of their other employees. I believe this should also extend to political affiliation as well because of how much politics have become a part of people's identity and worldview, for better or worse. And white supremacy and nationalism is very inherent in extreme right wing politics in this country. It's hard to find someone on the so-called alt right who doesn't have some bigoted political view on immigration etc. It's the dark side of identity politics.

Nazis and KKK members aren't a protected class. The protected classes were established in 1964 and petty much cover all reasonable bases.

One can be fired for their political views, but this doesn't happen often, nor should it. Nazis and KKK, are not a feasible political view. It goes way beyond that. In fact, if the employer allowed their workers to discriminate, in public, against the very same protected classes, does that not walk a thin line between actually allowing discrimination in the work place? I'm sure the customers and fellow employees will rest easy knowing that they're hated by him/her and that he/she thinks they should be cleansed from the country. That's got to be great for business.

It is easy to prove that he is better than many current QBs in the league. Sports analytics and metrics are used by every team, as well as many news organizations. These show the proof.

He could be the Jesus of football, but it's literally impossible to determine if it's because he's caused enough controversy for them, that they feel he's not worth it, or if it's because they don't agree with him on a personal level. Unless they were to literally come out and admit it of course.

[primalmatter]

Strong protections of free speech in the Charter, stronger protections/rankings for press freedom than the USA, etc.



Literally and definitively incorrect. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with people facing social consequences for their public behaviour. Attempting to restrict that is an attack on everyone else's freedoms, not a defense of free speech.

Your problem is you have no idea what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech is the right to say "fucking shit cuntwhores" in the middle of the town square, without being thrown in prison. It doesn't mean people can't get angry at you being an obscenity-spewing asshole using language like that in front of their children. Nobody's saying you can't say it. But everyone else is free to think you're an asshole and act accordingly. You seem to have a problem with those freedoms.

Then by that logic you agree with firing people who practice a faith the employer doesn't agree with? Then there is sexuality as well why should a employer have to deal with that?

I don't believe in complete freedom of speech as I understand the need for restriction. What I dont get is when people such as yourself are so two faced about it. You readily agree that people should have the right to do things such as fire someone for minor and passive things. In this case having a flag on a personal vechile while as the same time protecting intrusive things that you support.

You can't have it both ways and eventually it will come to bite you in the ass.

[Spectral]

It is easy to prove that he is better than many current QBs in the league. Sports analytics and metrics are used by every team, as well as many news organizations. These show the proof.

Without knowing what contract he's looking for, whether he's better than backups isn't really relevant.

As a starter, there aren't many teams with reasons to be interested even from a purely football personnel perspective. Here are all the depth charts - which teams do you think should be interested? Jacksonville is literally the only team in the league that I think would make much sense, and they presumably wanted to give Bortles every chance before giving up.

[Gorgodeus]

He's protesting for a cause just like this guy is (Which is also political) Care to try again?

Also, hiring/firing go with the same type of rules set that the NFL teams are privately owned which means they can fire/hire at will.

There is no "hire at will". Otherwise one could discriminate in hiring practices. One can be fired for any or no reason, in most cases.

[jibberbox85]

There is no "hire at will". Otherwise one could discriminate in hiring practices. One can be fired for any or no reason, in most cases.

Employers can choose to hire who they want, but some of them choose to do it in different ways. In the end process it's within their rights to choose. Also, the same can be said with firing an employee. They can decide to fire who they choose, but each company has a specific policy on how to follow that process.