Quote:
Originally Posted by eweissenbach
It occurs to me that many of the same people who would like to deny protesters their freedom of speech are the same people who defend the second amendment with absolutely no restrictions. The protesters I have heard from have consistently stated that it is not about disrespect for the country or the military, but simply to bring attention to some specific issues in the only way they know to get people's attention. Is it the best or even the only way? That is debatable, but it isn't illegal, and it doesn't harm anyone. The question of being employed so they must follow the employer's direction without question is just wrong. The employer can require one to do many things but if he/she tries to require you to do something that is morally or legally wrong, you refuse, and he fires you, he will most likely be defending himself, likely unsuccessfully, in a wrongful termination suit. It is my opinion that the players will not let this stand, and will demand it be mediated at the next collective bargaining agreement. I personally would prefer the players protest in a more socially acceptable way, but I understand the argument that no one listens when not confronted in an uncomfortable way.
|
At least, some people will notice that the football players are taking a stand about something.
This commissioner did not handle the sexual assault mess with various players very well either if memory serves.
How Roger Goodell mishandled domestic violence and what NFL has changed since - NY Daily News