Trump-BOYCOTT NFL teams whose players refuse to stand for the National Anthem

a reply to: TheScale

im for all sides having their rights not picking and choosing cause of the social environment at this second in history

What does that mean?
You don't want people choosing what they wish to protest? Is that what you are trying to say?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

im for all sides having their rights not picking and choosing cause of the social environment at this second in history

What does that mean?
You don't want people choosing what they wish to protest? Is that what you are trying to say?

i dont like people picking a side simply cause the social environment deems one side wrong while making excuses as to why its fine while ignoring the hypocrisy of such a stance since it also applies to the other partys rights. essentially its the hypocrisy of one group trying to protect rights while taking rights

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yep. You clearly don't understand how it works.

Have you seen the contract of one of these players? I would put a great deal of spare cash into betting, their contracts are mostly concerned with ability to play and being fit to do so. Whether they kneel down for a song, or not, that is not time spent playing

As pointed out too you, there is no over time. Professional sports players tend to work more than just game time. Training, rehabilitation, etc. Again, no where in there, is standing for a song, part of that. Unless of course you have access to their contracts. Perhchance in the preserved word of God you trumpet?

a reply to: TheScale

I still can't make any sense out of that statement. Who's rights are the players infringing upon?

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale
Employees have no rights? Like slaves?

wow talk about going straight to the deep end phage. maybe u keep missing "within the law." if your hired to provide a service as an employee and while on the clock u portray anything that your employer looks at in a negative way or as a detriment to the company then they have every right to put a stop to it within the law. on the flip side the employee has every right to up and walk away from the job albiet with some caveats on both sides depending on if their was a contract and what is within it. again though im not saying anything should be done outside the law on either side. if the nfl wants to tell their players to stand and if they dont there will be repercussions then thats their own prerogative. if the consumer of their product doesnt like that stance the free market will take care of it. if the players want to strike thats their prerogative. im for all sides having their rights not picking and choosing cause of the social environment at this second in history

edit: also as an employer i am in no way obligated to provide a platform for my employees to protest.

No, the employer only has the right to fire you. They can not put a stop to your protest unless it is on their premises and they remove you. You could then still continue your protest outside their premises. They have absolutely no right at all to stop you saying what you want to say.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yep. You clearly don't understand how it works.

Have you seen the contract of one of these players? I would put a great deal of spare cash into betting, their contracts are mostly concerned with ability to play and being fit to do so. Whether they kneel down for a song, or not, that is not time spent playing

As pointed out too you, there is no over time. Professional sports players tend to work more than just game time. Training, rehabilitation, etc. Again, no where in there, is standing for a song, part of that. Unless of course you have access to their contracts. Perhchance in the preserved word of God you trumpet?

this is up to the nfl. the moment those cameras turn on and people tune in or show up at the stadium those players are on the clock and the nfl can dictate whatever they want to them within the law. if they want them putting on a song and dance up until the national anthem then theyd have to do it or they can quit if they dont want to if thats what the nfl wants. these guys have far more on their plate then just being good at the sport itself. they are all required to put in so much community service, show up at certain events etc. every second they are under contract they are representing the team and their contracts go in depth on what they can and cant do. this is common place in this country and while on the clock or under contract your rights change quite abit if u want to keep that job.

a reply to: TheScale

if they want them putting on a song and dance up until the national anthem then theyd have to do it

I don't think so.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale
Employees have no rights? Like slaves?

wow talk about going straight to the deep end phage. maybe u keep missing "within the law." if your hired to provide a service as an employee and while on the clock u portray anything that your employer looks at in a negative way or as a detriment to the company then they have every right to put a stop to it within the law. on the flip side the employee has every right to up and walk away from the job albiet with some caveats on both sides depending on if their was a contract and what is within it. again though im not saying anything should be done outside the law on either side. if the nfl wants to tell their players to stand and if they dont there will be repercussions then thats their own prerogative. if the consumer of their product doesnt like that stance the free market will take care of it. if the players want to strike thats their prerogative. im for all sides having their rights not picking and choosing cause of the social environment at this second in history

edit: also as an employer i am in no way obligated to provide a platform for my employees to protest.

No, the employer only has the right to fire you. They can not put a stop to your protest unless it is on their premises and they remove you. You could then still continue your protest outside their premises. They have absolutely no right at all to stop you saying what you want to say.

you realize firing the player would be putting a stop to the protest while on the clock. not sure if u realize it but your agreeing with the same things ive been putting forth. an employer has every right to dictate what u can and cant do while on the clock, yes u can F off and do what u want but you can be fired for it, then u can do whatever u want on your own time.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

if they want them putting on a song and dance up until the national anthem then theyd have to do it

I don't think so.

ever seen cheerleaders phage? i honestly dont know what reality people live in but yes if your hired to do a job and u agree to that job then people expect you to do the job and if u dont theyd expect u to be fired

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Grambler

You could be right. I haven't seen anyone saying that they should be forced by law, at least here on ATS.

But yeah like you said people want them fired.

And again I try to be consistent in That I am almost never for calling for someone's job, including in this case.

But that is a private decsion for employers, not a first amendment issue.

a reply to: TheScale

Yes. They are hired to dance. The are not hired to play football.

a reply to: TheScale

There is a difference between working an hourly wage job, and contract work, if hourly..there you might have a point, as a contract worker, you fullfill the contract..ie, in this case..play football, as long as you play the game when directed to and put points up, you are not accountable the same as an hourly wage worker.
Thats my take on it.

a reply to: TheScale

Yet it appears that they still have Jobs. QED the NFL is not concerned. I know a number of professional sports people (mostly in Rugby), it is not uncommon to have a community, and media component to their contracts. None the less they are there to play a game, that is the primary concern.

So again, I do not see the NFL shedding players who have knelt to your anthem.

All that aside, what you replied too, was me replying to someone, who has no idea of how salary vs wage works, as evidenced by his replies

So while you and others have an issue, the NFL (or more correctly their clubs) don't appear too.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

Yes. They are hired to dance. The are not hired to play football.

and football players are hired to do far more then play football and again the NFL is within their right to dictate what they want. if the nfl wants them all to do cartwheels during the national anthem its within their rights to make the players do it just as its within the rights of the players to refuse and not work for them. u seem to think they are only paid to play football, well imagine what would happen if players refused to show up for media conferences, community service they agreed to in their contract, public appearences, etc. these are all things written into their contracts allready, but for some reason people are losing their # over thinking they may have to stand for the national anthem. i swear i fell in a rabbit hole

a reply to: TheScale

if the nfl wants them all to do cartwheels during the national anthem its within their rights to make the players do it

I don't think so.
Of course, I haven't seen their contracts.
I'm pretty sure the players' attorneys have though. I have a hunch that the contract does not say "you must do whatever we tell you to do."

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You may find that we agree on more things than we disagree on.

That's quite possible. I'm just pointing out that being patriotic has nothing to do with the rituals involving a flag or national anthem.

ften times the route to arrive is the bone of contention as often times there is no one answer solution. Angering people is not the best way to advance a message.

That's literally the point in the nonviolent resistance theory. The whole point is literally to wake the complacent masses from their slumber so they'll stop ignoring the issue(s) of contention. Because no changes happen as long as the majority of people are comfortable with the norm.

From wikipedia

Nonviolent resistance (NVR or nonviolent action) is the practice of achieving goals such as social change through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, satyagraha, or other methods, while being nonviolent.

On Gandhi's nonviolent defiance of British laws (HERE):

Gandhi’s act defied a law of the British Raj mandating that Indians buy salt from the government and prohibiting them from collecting their own. His disobedience set off a mass campaign of non-compliance that swept the country, leading to as many as 100,000 arrests.

That's why nonviolent resistance leaders pushed for sit-ins in segregated stores & other refusals to adhere to racial segregation laws. That's why labor unions picket instead of simply staying home when "on strike". That's why many other groups have used tactics like blockades, graphic art/displays of protest, etc.

Don't dilute the message by stunts and making martyrs out of individuals that resisted arrest after committing crimes no matter if they were petty.

Care to explain where I did that? However it's ironic that you say those exact words when I see you also say this:

I have also spoken with the family of a man that did a similar thing during the Civil Right Era when racism was far more rampant.

You do realize that the Civil Rights Movement largely consisted of my grandparents' generation being arrested for petty crimes, right? The sit-ins in racially segregated stores were illegal. Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white man was illegal (and she was arrested for it). It was illegal when Muhammad Ali refused to report for duty for the Vietnam War & he was arrested for that too. And you know Dr & Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr? He was arrested for his actions and wrote one of his most memorable works while in jail (it's now known as the "Letter From A Birmingham City Jail").

Go back and look at the protests, marches, and sit-ins from that time period. I'm sure you'll notice that in a lot of them, it's the law enforcement that's spraying them down with high pressure water hoses, beating them, having their dogs bite them, etc. Just like with the Gandhi example I listed earlier, nonviolent resistance often involves a massive amount of arrests for seemingly petty crimes.

So it seems like your last paragraph is contradicting itself. And in all honesty, I'd prefer the players simply kneel during the anthem than for them to return to the methods used by other nonviolent resistance groups.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheScale

if the nfl wants them all to do cartwheels during the national anthem its within their rights to make the players do it

I don't think so.
Of course, I haven't seen their contracts.
I'm pretty sure the players' attorneys have though.

do a quick google search. youll find plenty of them out there. they have tons of stuff in their contracts. look up rothwells. not allowed to ride a motorcycle. most of them are required to do so much community service. the list keeps going and again its up to the company to dictate whatever they want. if the nfl wanted to change the game to football on ice in disney outfits they could do that. not sure why u think a company is set in stone for what it can and cant do. the nfl has evolved greatly over the years just like every other business in the world and sport.

a reply to: TheScale

It actually is dependent on what their contracts state. You will find, that people paid a hefty sum, to do a sports related task, are very picky when they are negotiating contracts. Its sort of their thing

So again, they are hired to play football. Or more specifically play in a certain position. Similarly I am pretty sure the National Anthem is not currently specifically covered by contracts.

But the final word is: They appear to be employed, and playing (unless injured). Thus their "employer" appears unconcerned, as far as any of us can tell.

I think Trump tried to exploit the racial component of the protest to placate his base and further his administrations agenda.
It blew up in his face when the members of the teams, owners and managers of the clubs weren't as racist as he is.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ahabstar

Was what Rosa Parks did a stunt?
Were the Vietnam war protests stunts?


Were they pointless? Fruitless?

Well can we also compare right wing free speech rallies where violence is used to silence people to Rosa parks.

Yet some call these rallies publicity stunts.

So I guess it is the eye of the beholder.