Dolphins Don Jones suspended for tweeting about Michael Sam

[Villain]

Can we stop saying this is a fellow employee. It's not. It would be like Bill calling some new hire over at the Verizon call center horrible.

:ukiddingme:

They both work for the same company, retard.

 

[ram29jackson]

well..all I know is some Rams fans on forums I go to are just as dumb. Because I'm not like everyone else with politically correct bull or saying " me and my girlfriend are ordering Sam jerseys". They are efing with my cookies and making it hard to get to the forums. So called liberals are such dumb hypocrits. How dare I say its going to be hard as hell to make the team when its already obvious most players, especially most black players don't want no gay in their locker rooms. He is a last round charity case and will be lucky to make it past week 3 of camp/preseason cuts. Not because he is gay but because he will suck at the pro level.

Tebow had more talent then this guy and couldn't make the league......

 

[Fappin Raptor]

I hate myself for having read this thread.

 

[buckeye]

Best post in the entire thread.... we should have a warning label on it. "May cause loss of brain cells"

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Youk]

Best post in the entire thread.... we should have a warning label on it. "May cause loss of brain cells"

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Posted in the Suggestions forum.

 

[bucky]

Taking your example a step further, Person A's comments about Person B's actions can be seen as harrassment.

Disagreeing with someone's lifestyle is not harassment. Harassment would have to be an inflammatory or hateful remark. "Horrible" doesn't qualify.

If the Company does not address the polarizing and unprofessional comments, then it will appear that the Company either endorses the comments or doesn't find them offensive. All the while, the lack of action by the Company is making Person A feel vulnerable and alienated.

Who said anything about "not addressing". The question is how does and should a company address something that happens outside of the work site during an employees non working hours.

Rounding back to this case, the NFL must do something - at least superficially - to address the situation. That's what happened here. It is not unethical for a company to outline what it will and will not accept from its employees at all times. These employees are not being forced to work for this company. They are agreeing to work for, and represent, the NFL under the terms that the NFL has laid out.

The something they must do doesn't necessarily have to include oppressing someone's beliefs/personal opinions. It's not the only route the NFL would have to address the situation.

Since Bucky loves the term ethical so much, I want him to pick which of these synonyms he would deem acceptable to describe the NFL's action towards Don Jones:
Is it immoral to enforce an agreed-upon code of personal conduct? Try the other adjectives and see how many times the answer is "yes."

If the terms of the code of personal conduct are immoral and unethical to start off with, then enforcing them is also immoral and unethical.

 

[Argath]

:ukiddingme:

They both work for the same company, retard.

Orly

I didn't realize the Dolphins and Rams were owned by the same people :duh:

 

[Youk]

Orly

I didn't realize the Dolphins and Rams were owned by the same people :duh:

They're under the NFL entity.

 

[Argath]

They're under the NFL entity.

But they're not employed by the same company..

http://yunkerpark.blogspot.com/2011/04/nfl-players-are-employees-of-their.html

In the course of determining that Minnesota's drug-testing statute (providing substantive and procedural rights to employees) was not preempted under LMRA §301 (29 U.S.C. §185) by the NFL-NFLPA* collective bargaining agreement, the Eighth Circuit gathered cases in an aside about who is an NFL player's employer. The answer — the team —is not surprising. What is surprising is that the issue appears to have been directly addressed by the federal courts only in a workers comp context.

We note that the matter of who is the employer of an NFL player was addressed in Brown v. Nat’l Football League, 219 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). There, a former NFL player brought a personal injury action in state court against the NFL, seeking damages for a career-ending eye injury he sustained during a game when a referee threw a penalty flag that struck the player in the eye. Id. at 375. The district court observed, “At the time of his injury, Brown worked not for the NFL, but for the Cleveland Browns Football Company, a Delaware limited partnership and an entirely separate entity which happens to be a member of the NFL.” Id. at 383. The owners of NFL teams “own franchises in the NFL and employ the nion members as football players.” Id.; see also Clarett v. Nat’l Football League, 369 F.3d 124, 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Because the NFL players have unionized and have selected the NFLPA as its exclusive bargaining representative, labor law prohibits Clarett from negotiating directly the terms and conditions of his employment with any NFL club[.]”); White v. Nat’l Football League, 41 F.3d 402, 406 (8th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (“The settlement agreement [at issue] purports to end a six-year dispute between the NFL member teams and their player-employees.”); Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265, 1269 (3d Cir. 1979) (“This appeal presents several interesting questions growing out of the employment by the Philadelphia Eagles Football Club (‘the Eagles’) of a former professional player, Don Chuy (‘Chuy’).”). We do not address the impact of this on the Players’ ability to prevail on their DATWA claim against the NFL.
​

Williams v. NFL, Nos. 09-2247/2462/2249 (8th Cir. Sep. 11, 2009), slip op. at 18-19 n.12, cert. denied, No. 09-1380 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2009).


*The NFLPA's website, www.nflplayers.com, is appropriately blank (given the decertification decision) and redirects the viewer towww.nfllockout.com/, where — among other delights — there is a clock showing to the second the length of the lockout.

 

[Youk]

But they're not employed by the same company..

http://yunkerpark.blogspot.com/2011/04/nfl-players-are-employees-of-their.html

You're not employed by the same company.

 

[Argath]

You're not employed.

Do we really wanna go there? :dd:



:troll:

 

[Youk]

Do we really wanna go there? :dd:



:troll:

Oh, I went there girlfriend.

 

[Youk]

But they're not employed by the same company..

http://yunkerpark.blogspot.com/2011/04/nfl-players-are-employees-of-their.html

Well :duh:

The Browns aren't a real NFL team.

 

[ram29jackson]

Well :duh:

The Browns aren't a real NFL team.

and the Rams came from Cleveland..oh wait

 

[mgoblue2290]

So the next time a guy kisses his girlfriend on TV, I expect all of you to take a stand and rally against it. Because it's definitely not that it was two guys right?

 

[Youk]

So the next time a guy kisses his girlfriend on TV, I expect all of you to take a stand and rally against it. Because it's definitely not that it was two guys right?

I'm going to take a stand and whip it out.

:whoner:

 

[Hitman]

Please stop redacting shit from threads. Thank you.

 

[Senser81]

I hate myself for having read this thread.

I hate you, too.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

So the next time a guy kisses his girlfriend on TV, I expect all of you to take a stand and rally against it. Because it's definitely not that it was two guys right?

Of course it was because it was two guys, watching guys kiss is awkward & gross for most people. People are going to need time to get used to shit like that.

The problem isn't that people found it awkward, the problem is that people who preach sensitivity & acceptance expect these things to be accepted RIGHT NOW. It doesn't work like that. Society needs time. It was pretty shocking to see. Some people won't accept it ever.

And yes, the cake shit went too far. That would be mocked if it was a hetero couple 100%. Relax fruitcake, you got picked in Round 7 by a team with the deepest collection of DE's in the league. How about we make the team before we smash cake in each others faces?

 

[NAHSTE]

Surprised VSN is so anti-Sam. You'd think a guy who doesn't have sex with women and is not guaranteed employment beyond next month would fit right in around here.

:badjoke: