I'm clearly no attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night......but I do know that I'm allowed to freely express my religious beliefs without being reprimanded by my employer. Broussard wasn't trying to use his workplace to convert others to his religion, nor did his opinion prevent him from doing his job as a basketball reporter. The Jason Colllins story was the story of the day and was what everyone was talking about.
Admittedly, if Broussard just randomly out of the blue starting talking about his views on homosexuality in a way that was out of context with his job as a reporter (eg if the Jason Collins story had not been broken, and no one else was talking about homosexuality that day), then the timing of his points of view might be interpreted differently, as if he were using his job inappropriately in a way to convert others to his religion. That would seemingly be a problem, but not what happened here.
<< <i>Broussard and others are entitled to their opinions on the issue, be they pro, con or indifferent. Borussard, however, is employed to provide his opinion and as such, is at the mercy of his employers and their determination with regard to the potential backlash or support for his public statements and said responses will weigh greatly when his contract comes up for renewal.
>>
Scott- This is not correct. An employer does not legally have the right to tell any of their employees that they can't express an opinion if that opinion is part of their religion. Furthermore, if his contract was not renewed by ESPN and part of the reason for the non-renewal was due to ESPN's not liking Broussard's statement, then that too would be an infringement on Broussard's rights under the US Constitution. I guess I'll be the Religious Liberties police on the thread from here on because there seems to be much confusion about it. >>
ESPN can renew/cancel/let expire Broussard's contract for virtually any reason including issues with sponsorship and/or advertisers because of his commentary or opinions. Let's not start pointing to the Constitution or the "Rule Book" and haphazardly making assumptions and/or misapplications because it sounds good.
ESPN can renew/cancel/let expire Broussard's contract for virtually any reason
LOL...If that was true, then we should all be very very afraid, and recognize that all of our religious liberties have been taken away from us. >>
Civil Rights Act, protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I believe age, disability and union activity are the only other protections. So I would agree saying virtually any reason is correct
Obviously, though, we all agree that whenever he is no longer working for ESPN it will be for something other than expressing his religious beliefs
As I understand it, a person is NOT protected explicitly by the Constitution/Bill of Rights to express or practice their religious views in the workplace. The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech, the press, the practice of religion and to petition and redress government, but does not specifically warrant protection in public and private sectors with regard to any of these "rights." Several amendments have been added to protect certain groups from being discriminated against, but those amendments provide protection from discrimination, not for exercising their beliefs.
Most states consider employees as "at will" employment and even those under contract are subject to renewal and/or extension.
If ESPN were to void or not renew Broussard's contract, he may have legal recourse, but to suggest that he is protected and can espouse any sort of rhetoric based upon religious conviction without potential consequence is a falsehood.
We are all free to express our opinions and share our beliefs, but there are many venues where, despite the belief in protected "Freedom of Speech," there is no protection and such commentary is subject to censorship or other repercussions.
<< <i>As I understand it, a person is NOT protected explicitly by the Constitution/Bill of Rights to express or practice their religious views in the workplace. ... >>
Ture, but the Bill of Rights also doesn't explicitly limit one's practice of religion to any specific venue and doesn't prohibit one from exercising those rights in the workplace. I think its safe to say that those rights were intended to be broad, not limited.
<< <i>If ESPN were to void or not renew Broussard's contract, he may have legal recourse, but to suggest that he is protected and can espouse any sort of rhetoric based upon religious conviction without potential consequence is a falsehood. >>
I don't think anyone has implied that. Freedom of speech and being held accountable for said speech go hand in hand. However, assuming he was brought on the subject due to his religious convictions and they specifically asked for his perspective, only to terminate him for said comments, I know plenty of lawyers that would absolutely love to take that case.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< Scott, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some sort of agenda. I mean why is he coming out now and announcing he is gay after all this time? In my opinion gays have come a long way and have little discrimination to deal with in this day and age. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that his mediocre career is winding down is I think he or his agent thinks this publicity stunt will get him attention that might become profitable. >>
The remark above is spot on. This "revelation" just got him millions of dollars in free publicity, as the media in particular laps up stories like this. And IMO given today's uber-PC society some team will pick him up even if he's a mediocre player- if nothing else, to show how wonderfully diverse they are... along with the appropriate media releases for maximum PR exposure. A savvy agent will turn this into a nice contract for him. IMO After a year or two he'll quietly fade out of the picture once everyone realizes it wasn't a big deal.
As to Broussard, last time I checked this was still America, and whether certain people like him-or his religion- he has every right to state his opinion based on his beliefs, particularly if/when he's asked. It's not like he was yelling "fire" in a theater.
And since it's been brought up...If I might hop up on the soapbox for a minute...I'm not exactly a devout Christian by any means, but I find it sad how Christianity in particular in recent times has seemingly had a target on its back, getting ripped apart, insulted and/or made fun of in media and other areas like pop culture, at a time where one wouldn't dare to say such things about, say, Islam. For example, cartoons that even show Mohammed get censored or pulled, but shows like South Park or Family Guy have shown Jesus drinking/drug using/excreting feces. And don't get me started on the media bias when it comes to reporting tragedies. This is why I have to chuckle when the media talking heads get all arrogant and self righteous over "tolerance, acceptance, respect" when the reality is that it's only brought up when there's a certain agenda that needs pushing.
I'm not sure how someone 'uses' the Bible, but I do think that any appeal to the Bible to justify a particular belief or action is intellectually immature, . >>
Am I intellectually immature if I use the verse "Love thy neighbor as thyself" to help those in need ? Is the fallen war hero intellectually immature if he uses the verse "There's no greater love then this, to lay down one's own life for another" when he fell on that grenade to save his troops and give up his own life ? Is Mother Teresa intellectually immature if she uses the verse, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the Kingdom of God", when she helps orphans and widows ? Is Barack Obama intellectually immature when he quotes scriptures after mass killings ? Was Abraham Lincoln and George Washington intellectually immature when they quoted scriptures hundreds of times during their presidencies ?
Was Princeton University intellectually immature when they wrote, "Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the cross of Jesus Christ" in their original beliefs statement ? How about Harvard, Yale, Rutgers, and many other northeastern universities that have founding beliefs in Christianity ?
Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.
Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”
Surprised we haven't heard more made of this in the media. Stern is probably doing fist pumps knowing the activists are too busy with the whole Redskins issue...
<< <i>Surprised we haven't heard more made of this in the media. Stern is probably doing fist pumps knowing the activists are too busy with the whole Redskins issue...
<<<Or maybe people by and large realize that Collins just isn't skilled enough at this point in his career to catch on with an NBA team?>>>
I agree, but I just assume at some point we'll see another case of the media not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story. When the next big man goes down with an injury and that team doesn't pick up Collins, I expect this to gain steam.
He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly.
<< <i>He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly. >>
Right. The only reason people come out is for attention, and it has nothing to do with them wanting to be able to lead their lives without fear.
<< <i>He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly. >>
Right. The only reason people come out is for attention, and it has nothing to do with them wanting to be able to lead their lives without fear.
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds. >>
It's his opinion. Instead of respectfully disagreeing with him, you decide to state he has ignorance.
You're never going to win an argument by calling people bigots, ignorant, or any other kind of bullying name.
There is a slight chance that this player tried this for those reasons. It is within the realm of possibility.
Your opinion could also be correct. But we do not know for sure, do we ?
You continue to bring shame to yourself for reasons you are quite aware of, but you've yet to try a new approach.
<< <i>He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly. >>
Right. The only reason people come out is for attention, and it has nothing to do with them wanting to be able to lead their lives without fear.
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds. >>
Right... because he was SO cowering in fear before this...lol. His own twin brother and former fiance' didn't know anything about it before the big reveal. So- If it wasn't designed to get people talking about him, why was it timed to coincide with his sudden free agency? And frankly this possible-publicity-stunt topic has been discussed at length in the media for some time so spare us the righteous indignation as if I just pulled this out of the air. I really like how you take something and try to twist the argument as though the person is generalizing about a larger group. You've (unsuccessfully) tried the same tactic on other threads as well...I say this might have been a publicity thing, you try to twist it into how I think ALL people who come out want attention. Standard topic deflection 101. And anyone with reading comprehension skills can tell that wasn't what I said or meant.
<< <i> Right... because he was SO cowering in fear before this...lol. His own twin brother and former fiance' didn't know anything about it before the big reveal. >>
You both want to mock him for not supposedly cowering in fear, but then validate those fears by saying his own brother didn't know about it. Don't you think those two statements lie in direct opposition to one another? How is that line of reasoning even possible? He was the first active professional athlete in America to come out, and instead of people being happy for him for finally being able to live his life, he has to hear doubters question the timing of it.
<< <i> So- If it wasn't designed to get people talking about him, why was it timed to coincide with his sudden free agency? >>
If it was about free agency, he would have done it sooner, or maybe he realized his professional career was nearing the end, and he had nothing to lose if no team wanted to sign him he would be able to be free of the burden of having to hide his personal life.
<< <i> And frankly this possible-publicity-stunt topic has been discussed at length in the media for some time so spare us the righteous indignation as if I just pulled this out of the air. >>
Publicity stunt? I'm glad you see someone being free to live their life without fear as a 'publicity stunt'.
<< <i>I really like how you take something and try to twist the argument as though the person is generalizing about a larger group. You've (unsuccessfully) tried the same tactic on other threads as well...I say this might have been a publicity thing, you try to twist it into how I think ALL people who come out want attention. Standard topic deflection 101. And anyone with reading comprehension skills can tell that wasn't what I said or meant. >>
No, what you said and meant is that Collins' true motivation for coming out was money oriented. I will quote you so your words aren't missed:
<< <i> I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. >>
But continue on being the pessimist, the negative one, the one always considering the downside. I guess that's working for you.
I guess I was wrong with my first thoughts, I thought this guy would get a book deal, a movie deal and be the talk of the country. Looks like nobody gives a rats a$$ who this guy lays down with at night and thats great, seems to me he really didnt accomplish anything except throw out his personal bussiness which was completely unessesary.
<< <i><<<Can a pro athlete really answer to the contrary without being punished?>>>
As Chris Broussard is finding out, NOBODY can say anything that even remotely suggests something negative about a person that is gay. I agree every player will publicly "toe the company line", all the while hoping some other team signs him, so he won't have to do box-out drills in practice with Collins. >>
This is an interesting post, if only because the subtext (at least to my reckoning) appears to be that "The PC police would vilify anyone who spoke out against having a homosexual teammate, and this is yet more evidence that this country of ours is going to the dogs'. Do I have this right? Is the subtext here, essentially, that those pesky liberals are (or were, in this case) unfairly muzzling Chris Broussard?
<< <i>Just common sense. No team will want the scrutiny and accusations when they cut him. BTW what difference where my opinion came from? Isn't this thread about nothing being wrong about what anyone pulls out of his backside? >>
How's this prediction working out for you? Please share.
<< <i><< Scott, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some sort of agenda. I mean why is he coming out now and announcing he is gay after all this time? In my opinion gays have come a long way and have little discrimination to deal with in this day and age. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that his mediocre career is winding down is I think he or his agent thinks this publicity stunt will get him attention that might become profitable. >> >>
I can't believe I missed this comment before. Sitting there suggesting that there's 'little discrimination' they face is so blatantly ignorant I don't know where to begin. To begin with, how about the fact that they aren't allowed to marry? This is the same type of discrimination that used to be levied against interracial couples.
<< <i>The remark above is spot on. This "revelation" just got him millions of dollars in free publicity, as the media in particular laps up stories like this. And IMO given today's uber-PC society some team will pick him up even if he's a mediocre player- if nothing else, to show how wonderfully diverse they are... along with the appropriate media releases for maximum PR exposure. A savvy agent will turn this into a nice contract for him. IMO After a year or two he'll quietly fade out of the picture once everyone realizes it wasn't a big deal. >>
How's that prediction working out for you?
<< <i>As to Broussard, last time I checked this was still America, and whether certain people like him-or his religion- he has every right to state his opinion based on his beliefs, particularly if/when he's asked. It's not like he was yelling "fire" in a theater. >>
And because this is America, we can blast Broussard for having hopelessly out of date and willfully ignorant comments.
<< <i>And since it's been brought up...If I might hop up on the soapbox for a minute...I'm not exactly a devout Christian by any means, but I find it sad how Christianity in particular in recent times has seemingly had a target on its back, getting ripped apart, insulted and/or made fun of in media and other areas like pop culture, at a time where one wouldn't dare to say such things about, say, Islam. For example, cartoons that even show Mohammed get censored or pulled, but shows like South Park or Family Guy have shown Jesus drinking/drug using/excreting feces. And don't get me started on the media bias when it comes to reporting tragedies. This is why I have to chuckle when the media talking heads get all arrogant and self righteous over "tolerance, acceptance, respect" when the reality is that it's only brought up when there's a certain agenda that needs pushing. >>
Oh boy, this 'Christianity is under attack!' nonsense that certain right-wing media outlets have been reporting for years now, and is much ado about nothing. It's the same foolish argument made about the supposed 'attack on Christmas!' I like how you suggest its ok for Broussard to exercise his right to state his opinion, but when it comes to others expressing their same right in criticizing Christianity, it's 'sad'. Hypocrite, much?
<< <i><< Scott, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some sort of agenda. I mean why is he coming out now and announcing he is gay after all this time? In my opinion gays have come a long way and have little discrimination to deal with in this day and age. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that his mediocre career is winding down is I think he or his agent thinks this publicity stunt will get him attention that might become profitable. >> >>
I can't believe I missed this comment before. Sitting there suggesting that there's 'little discrimination' they face is so blatantly ignorant I don't know where to begin. To begin with, how about the fact that they aren't allowed to marry? This is the same type of discrimination that used to be levied against interracial couples.
? >>
He was making a comment about the lack of discrimination they get "ONCE THEY COME OUT". They already face the non-marriage issue before they "COME OUT". That issue that you mentioned is there whether they stay silent, or whether they come out. He was saying that they don't get any extra problems today when they come out.
BTW, you still aren't living by your rules that you copied and pasted in another thread.
This is a sports talk forum. You are talking about who has the right to marry. When is the last time you ever watched a sporting event and the announcers were talking about who has the right to marry ????
<<<This is an interesting post, if only because the subtext (at least to my reckoning) appears to be that "The PC police would vilify anyone who spoke out against having a homosexual teammate, and this is yet more evidence that this country of ours is going to the dogs'. Do I have this right? Is the subtext here, essentially, that those pesky liberals are (or were, in this case) unfairly muzzling Chris Broussard?>>>
No subtext, just stating a fact. I believe that Broussard had the right to state his opinion, and everyone that disagreed had the right to object to his opinion. Where I draw the line is when people demand that Broussard be suspended or fired for his comments. He is paid by ESPN (in part) to give his opinion on current topics. To turn around and take pay from him for doing his job is ridiculous and hypocritical. Nevermind the fact that on a scale of 1 to 10, the level of offensiveness in Broussard's comments was maybe a 2 at best.
This country of ours IS "going to the dogs", but the "PC police" has nothing to do with it.
<< <i><<<This is an interesting post, if only because the subtext (at least to my reckoning) appears to be that "The PC police would vilify anyone who spoke out against having a homosexual teammate, and this is yet more evidence that this country of ours is going to the dogs'. Do I have this right? Is the subtext here, essentially, that those pesky liberals are (or were, in this case) unfairly muzzling Chris Broussard?>>>
No subtext, just stating a fact. I believe that Broussard had the right to state his opinion, and everyone that disagreed had the right to object to his opinion. Where I draw the line is when people demand that Broussard be suspended or fired for his comments. He is paid by ESPN (in part) to give his opinion on current topics. To turn around and take pay from him for doing his job is ridiculous and hypocritical. Nevermind the fact that on a scale of 1 to 10, the level of offensiveness in Broussard's comments was maybe a 2 at best.
This country of ours IS "going to the dogs", but the "PC police" has nothing to do with it. >>
No-- that's not what you said. The post I quoted had nothing to with Broussard's right to an opinion, or the right of others to disagree with him. You may have said that later, but in the post I quoted you said "As Chris Broussard is finding out, NOBODY can can say anything that even remotely suggests something negative about a person that is gay".
So, just to be clear. You're arguing that there's no subtext here? Because I think even a casual reader would infer that what you're getting at here is that there's some kind of power structure (be it the 'liberal media', or whatever) at work that's successfully marginalizing anti-gay voices, and that people who are foolish enough to defy that power structure run the very real risk of losing their careers or reputations.
There are really only two interpretations here. Either what I've described above is, in fact, the subtext, and you're now backtracking away from that because you have (correctly) recognized how silly this sounds, or we are meant to take your words literally: i.e, you really do believe that nobody, at any time and in any context, can ever say anything even remotely negative about a homosexual. So which is it? Or is there a third possibility that I haven't recognized?
He was making a comment about the lack of discrimination they get "ONCE THEY COME OUT". They already face the non-marriage issue before they "COME OUT". That issue that you mentioned is there whether they stay silent, or whether they come out. He was saying that they don't get any extra problems today when they come out. >>
Exactly how are they facing marriage discrimination if they haven't even come out? /shakes head
<< <i>BTW, you still aren't living by your rules that you copied and pasted in another thread. >>
This topic is about Collins and his coming out. These posts are absolutely on point. Just because YOU don't like the topic doesn't make it any less relevant to the discussion at hand.
<<<Because I think even a casual reader would infer that what you're getting at here is that there's some kind of power structure (be it the 'liberal media', or whatever) at work that's successfully marginalizing anti-gay voices, and that people who are foolish enough to defy that power structure run the very real risk of losing their careers or reputations.>>>
OK, you got me, there was that exact subtext....so, what is your point? Your subtext seems to suggest that I WANT to hear more anti-gay voices, and that couldn't be further from the truth.
You both want to mock him for not supposedly cowering in fear, but then validate those fears by saying his own brother didn't know about it. Don't you think those two statements lie in direct opposition to one another? How is that line of reasoning even possible?
Hmmm. Since you are impaired in the reading comprehension department I'll explain it. The fact that his own brother and fiance' didn't know about it has led some writers to speculate that this ties in well with the publicity angle and infer that the whole deal smelled bad.
Oh boy, this 'Christianity is under attack!' nonsense that certain right-wing media outlets have been reporting for years now, and is much ado about nothing. It's the same foolish argument made about the supposed 'attack on Christmas!' I like how you suggest its ok for Broussard to exercise his right to state his opinion, but when it comes to others expressing their same right in criticizing Christianity, it's 'sad'. Hypocrite, much?
Hardly. I realize you've been snorting the PC lib gorilla dust with a straw in each nostril but even you certainly realize the difference between simply criticizing something and going out of one's way to denigrate and demean it. I have no issue with someone writing an article simply criticizing something, as I feel it's simply an exercise in free speech and/or freedom of the press. That doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it, of course, but I respect the rights of the person doing it. But free speech works both ways- and there is a double standard when it comes to Christianity versus other religions.
Going back to the previously mentioned example-If it's OK to air a cartoon showing JC getting wasted and engaging in scatological activities then it should be OK to do it with Mohammed, Allah, Krishna, Buddha, et.al. right? ...But the reality is that anyone doing such a thing would be instantly vilified and labeled a bigot, hatemonger, etc. and it would get squashed before it ever aired. So why do haters of Christianity get a pass? THAT, my friend, is hypocrisy.
<< <i><<<Because I think even a casual reader would infer that what you're getting at here is that there's some kind of power structure (be it the 'liberal media', or whatever) at work that's successfully marginalizing anti-gay voices, and that people who are foolish enough to defy that power structure run the very real risk of losing their careers or reputations.>>>
OK, you got me, there was that exact subtext....so, what is your point? Your subtext seems to suggest that I WANT to hear more anti-gay voices, and that couldn't be further from the truth. >>
My point, in sum, is that this dynamic isn't actually at work. You (and others, to be fair-- I'm not singling you out by any stretch) are convinced that there is such a power structure, and that it wields this kind of enormous influence over our public discourse. And yet to me eye I see no such thing.
Let's unpack this notion that 'nobody is allowed to say anything remotely anti-gay', which carries the embedded assumption that anyone who violates this dictate could suffer very significant personal losses. Who is an example of someone who has suffered as such? Last I checked, Chris Broussard was still on the air. And who, exactly, were in this cacophony of voices calling for his ouster? Were there calls on the editorial page of the NYT for his dismissal? In the WaPo? No- or at least not as a remember it. From what a remember, a few bloggers and fringe journalists (op-ed writers for 'vibe. com', and so forth) were screaming for his dismissal, but that's par for the course in the Internet. You certainly can't look at the work disseminated by a few dozen snarky bloggers, or an editorialist for Salon, and declare that there's this enormous swell of national opinion demanding Chris Broussard get fired. He offered up some fairly measured criticisms of homosexuality, a few shrill voices got hysterical, and the whole thing blew over in a week. How can you look at that and say 'this is exhibit 'A' of how the PC thought police have come to dominate our national discussion of homosexuality. No dissenting voices allowed!'
So then: Who are these people who have lost their reputations or livelihoods by offering up anti-gay remarks? I don't know of a single person. Certainly not Ann Coulter; her career seems safe. Chris Culliver kept his job with the 49ers. Chris Brown is still making records. Mel Gibson hasn't disappeared from view. Adam Carolla hasn't missed a beat. Tell me- who are they?
Hmmm. Since you are impaired in the reading comprehension department I'll explain it. The fact that his own brother and fiance' didn't know about it has led some writers to speculate that this ties in well with the publicity angle and infer that the whole deal smelled bad. >>
So according to you he isn't really gay and only came out for publicity's sake?
<< <i> Hardly. I realize you've been snorting the PC lib gorilla dust with a straw in each nostril but even you certainly realize the difference between simply criticizing something and going out of one's way to denigrate and demean it. I have no issue with someone writing an article simply criticizing something, as I feel it's simply an exercise in free speech and/or freedom of the press. That doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it, of course, but I respect the rights of the person doing it. But free speech works both ways- and there is a double standard when it comes to Christianity versus other religions. >>
Double standard? You mean Christians don't go out if heir way to blast atheists for example?
<< <i> Going back to the previously mentioned example-If it's OK to air a cartoon showing JC getting wasted and engaging in scatological activities then it should be OK to do it with Mohammed, Allah, Krishna, Buddha, et.al. right? ...But the reality is that anyone doing such a thing would be instantly vilified and labeled a bigot, hatemonger, etc. and it would get squashed before it ever aired. So why do haters of Christianity get a pass? THAT, my friend, is hypocrisy. >>
Either post specific examples of it or you're simple making up strawmen.
So according to you he isn't really gay and only came out for publicity's sake?
No, I'm saying that there are articles inferring that. Personally I do think he's likely gay but the timing of the announcement was just a bit too coincidental with his free agency imo. And IF it was a publicity thing to try to get him a contract, it failed. Miserably.
Double standard? You mean Christians don't go out if heir (sic) way to blast atheists for example?
I assume you are using "blast" as a synonym for criticize. Again, Big difference between criticism and denigration of a religion.
Either post specific examples of it or you're simple (sic) making up strawmen.
I don't make up strawmen. Two words...South Park. Look it up for yourself.
<< <i>So according to you he isn't really gay and only came out for publicity's sake?
No, I'm saying that there are articles inferring that. Personally I do think he's likely gay but the timing of the announcement was just a bit too coincidental with his free agency imo. And IF it was a publicity thing to try to get him a contract, it failed. Miserably. >>
Likely gay? So he'd do all that just to cash in? You really are something!
<< <i>
I assume you are using "blast" as a synonym for criticize. Again, Big difference between criticism and denigration of a religion. >>
"FULL QUOTE: "Information and time are on the side of nonbelievers. Every single day that the idea of a god persists, more will disbelieve in His existence. There is simply nothing we can do about it but accept the inevitable and hope they do not treat Christians the way Christians have treated them."
Likely gay? So he'd do all that just to cash in? You really are something!
"All that"? It's not that hard to make a news release. I used the word "likely" because the only ones who know for sure are him and any partner he might have. His family doesn't even know for sure; that's been made plain.
Comments
Admittedly, if Broussard just randomly out of the blue starting talking about his views on homosexuality in a way that was out of context with his job as a reporter (eg if the Jason Collins story had not been broken, and no one else was talking about homosexuality that day), then the timing of his points of view might be interpreted differently, as if he were using his job inappropriately in a way to convert others to his religion. That would seemingly be a problem, but not what happened here.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
<< <i>Broussard and others are entitled to their opinions on the issue, be they pro, con or indifferent. Borussard, however, is employed to provide his opinion and as such, is at the mercy of his employers and their determination with regard to the potential backlash or support for his public statements and said responses will weigh greatly when his contract comes up for renewal.
>>
Scott- This is not correct. An employer does not legally have the right to tell any of their employees that they can't express an opinion if that opinion is part of their religion. Furthermore, if his contract was not renewed by ESPN and part of the reason for the non-renewal was due to ESPN's not liking Broussard's statement, then that too would be an infringement on Broussard's rights under the US Constitution. I guess I'll be the Religious Liberties police on the thread from here on because there seems to be much confusion about it. >>
ESPN can renew/cancel/let expire Broussard's contract for virtually any reason including issues with sponsorship and/or advertisers because of his commentary or opinions. Let's not start pointing to the Constitution or the "Rule Book" and haphazardly making assumptions and/or misapplications because it sounds good.
<< <i>
ESPN can renew/cancel/let expire Broussard's contract for virtually any reason
<< <i>
LOL...If that was true, then we should all be very very afraid, and recognize that all of our religious liberties have been taken away from us.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
ESPN can renew/cancel/let expire Broussard's contract for virtually any reason
LOL...If that was true, then we should all be very very afraid, and recognize that all of our religious liberties have been taken away from us. >>
Civil Rights Act, protects against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. I believe age, disability and union activity are the only other protections. So I would agree saying virtually any reason is correct
Obviously, though, we all agree that whenever he is no longer working for ESPN it will be for something other than expressing his religious beliefs
Most states consider employees as "at will" employment and even those under contract are subject to renewal and/or extension.
If ESPN were to void or not renew Broussard's contract, he may have legal recourse, but to suggest that he is protected and can espouse any sort of rhetoric based upon religious conviction without potential consequence is a falsehood.
We are all free to express our opinions and share our beliefs, but there are many venues where, despite the belief in protected "Freedom of Speech," there is no protection and such commentary is subject to censorship or other repercussions.
But then again, that's just how I see it...
<< <i>As I understand it, a person is NOT protected explicitly by the Constitution/Bill of Rights to express or practice their religious views in the workplace. ... >>
Ture, but the Bill of Rights also doesn't explicitly limit one's practice of religion to any specific venue and doesn't prohibit one from exercising those rights in the workplace. I think its safe to say that those rights were intended to be broad, not limited.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>If ESPN were to void or not renew Broussard's contract, he may have legal recourse, but to suggest that he is protected and can espouse any sort of rhetoric based upon religious conviction without potential consequence is a falsehood. >>
I don't think anyone has implied that. Freedom of speech and being held accountable for said speech go hand in hand. However, assuming he was brought on the subject due to his religious convictions and they specifically asked for his perspective, only to terminate him for said comments, I know plenty of lawyers that would absolutely love to take that case.
The remark above is spot on. This "revelation" just got him millions of dollars in free publicity, as the media in particular laps up stories like this. And IMO given today's uber-PC society some team will pick him up even if he's a mediocre player- if nothing else, to show how wonderfully diverse they are... along with the appropriate media releases for maximum PR exposure. A savvy agent will turn this into a nice contract for him. IMO After a year or two he'll quietly fade out of the picture once everyone realizes it wasn't a big deal.
As to Broussard, last time I checked this was still America, and whether certain people like him-or his religion- he has every right to state his opinion based on his beliefs, particularly if/when he's asked. It's not like he was yelling "fire" in a theater.
And since it's been brought up...If I might hop up on the soapbox for a minute...I'm not exactly a devout Christian by any means, but I find it sad how Christianity in particular in recent times has seemingly had a target on its back, getting ripped apart, insulted and/or made fun of in media and other areas like pop culture, at a time where one wouldn't dare to say such things about, say, Islam. For example, cartoons that even show Mohammed get censored or pulled, but shows like South Park or Family Guy have shown Jesus drinking/drug using/excreting feces. And don't get me started on the media bias when it comes to reporting tragedies. This is why I have to chuckle when the media talking heads get all arrogant and self righteous over "tolerance, acceptance, respect" when the reality is that it's only brought up when there's a certain agenda that needs pushing.
/soapbox
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I'm not sure how someone 'uses' the Bible, but I do think that any appeal to the Bible to justify a particular belief or action is intellectually immature, . >>
Am I intellectually immature if I use the verse "Love thy neighbor as thyself" to help those in need ?
Is the fallen war hero intellectually immature if he uses the verse "There's no greater love then this, to lay down one's own life for another" when he fell on that grenade
to save his troops and give up his own life ?
Is Mother Teresa intellectually immature if she uses the verse, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the Kingdom of God", when she helps orphans and widows ?
Is Barack Obama intellectually immature when he quotes scriptures after mass killings ?
Was Abraham Lincoln and George Washington intellectually immature when they quoted scriptures hundreds of times during their presidencies ?
Was Princeton University intellectually immature when they wrote, "Cursed is all learning that is contrary to the cross of Jesus Christ" in their original beliefs statement ?
How about Harvard, Yale, Rutgers, and many other northeastern universities that have founding beliefs in Christianity ?
Harvard was named after a Christian minister. Yale was started by clergymen, and Princeton’s first year of class was taught by Reverend Jonathan Dickinson. Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”
Link
<< <i>Surprised we haven't heard more made of this in the media. Stern is probably doing fist pumps knowing the activists are too busy with the whole Redskins issue...
Link >>
Or maybe people by and large realize that Collins just isn't skilled enough at this point in his career to catch on with an NBA team?
I agree, but I just assume at some point we'll see another case of the media not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story. When the next big man goes down with an injury and that team doesn't pick up Collins, I expect this to gain steam.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly. >>
Right. The only reason people come out is for attention, and it has nothing to do with them wanting to be able to lead their lives without fear.
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
<< <i>
<< <i>He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly. >>
Right. The only reason people come out is for attention, and it has nothing to do with them wanting to be able to lead their lives without fear.
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds. >>
It's his opinion. Instead of respectfully disagreeing with him, you decide to state he has ignorance.
You're never going to win an argument by calling people bigots, ignorant, or any other kind of bullying name.
There is a slight chance that this player tried this for those reasons. It is within the realm of possibility.
Your opinion could also be correct. But we do not know for sure, do we ?
You continue to bring shame to yourself for reasons you are quite aware of, but you've yet to try a new approach.
That's kind of sad, but to each their own.
<< <i>
<< <i>He was mediocre at best before the announcement and he's still mediocre after. I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. It failed. Badly. >>
Right. The only reason people come out is for attention, and it has nothing to do with them wanting to be able to lead their lives without fear.
Your ignorance truly knows no bounds. >>
Right... because he was SO cowering in fear before this...lol. His own twin brother and former fiance' didn't know anything about it before the big reveal. So- If it wasn't designed to get people talking about him, why was it timed to coincide with his sudden free agency? And frankly this possible-publicity-stunt topic has been discussed at length in the media for some time so spare us the righteous indignation as if I just pulled this out of the air.
I really like how you take something and try to twist the argument as though the person is generalizing about a larger group. You've (unsuccessfully) tried the same tactic on other threads as well...I say this might have been a publicity thing, you try to twist it into how I think ALL people who come out want attention. Standard topic deflection 101. And anyone with reading comprehension skills can tell that wasn't what I said or meant.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
Right... because he was SO cowering in fear before this...lol. His own twin brother and former fiance' didn't know anything about it before the big reveal. >>
You both want to mock him for not supposedly cowering in fear, but then validate those fears by saying his own brother didn't know about it. Don't you think those two statements lie in direct opposition to one another? How is that line of reasoning even possible? He was the first active professional athlete in America to come out, and instead of people being happy for him for finally being able to live his life, he has to hear doubters question the timing of it.
<< <i> So- If it wasn't designed to get people talking about him, why was it timed to coincide with his sudden free agency? >>
If it was about free agency, he would have done it sooner, or maybe he realized his professional career was nearing the end, and he had nothing to lose if no team wanted to sign him he would be able to be free of the burden of having to hide his personal life.
<< <i> And frankly this possible-publicity-stunt topic has been discussed at length in the media for some time so spare us the righteous indignation as if I just pulled this out of the air. >>
Publicity stunt? I'm glad you see someone being free to live their life without fear as a 'publicity stunt'.
<< <i>I really like how you take something and try to twist the argument as though the person is generalizing about a larger group. You've (unsuccessfully) tried the same tactic on other threads as well...I say this might have been a publicity thing, you try to twist it into how I think ALL people who come out want attention. Standard topic deflection 101. And anyone with reading comprehension skills can tell that wasn't what I said or meant. >>
No, what you said and meant is that Collins' true motivation for coming out was money oriented. I will quote you so your words aren't missed:
<< <i> I think this whole 'coming out' thing was done for effect to try to publicize and generate interest in an otherwise unremarkable player. >>
But continue on being the pessimist, the negative one, the one always considering the downside. I guess that's working for you.
<< <i><<<Can a pro athlete really answer to the contrary without being punished?>>>
As Chris Broussard is finding out, NOBODY can say anything that even remotely suggests something negative about a person that is gay. I agree every player will publicly "toe the company line", all the while hoping some other team signs him, so he won't have to do box-out drills in practice with Collins. >>
This is an interesting post, if only because the subtext (at least to my reckoning) appears to be that "The PC police would vilify anyone who spoke out against having a homosexual teammate, and this is yet more evidence that this country of ours is going to the dogs'. Do I have this right? Is the subtext here, essentially, that those pesky liberals are (or were, in this case) unfairly muzzling Chris Broussard?
<< <i>Just common sense. No team will want the scrutiny and accusations when they cut him. BTW what difference where my opinion came from? Isn't this thread about nothing being wrong about what anyone pulls out of his backside? >>
How's this prediction working out for you? Please share.
<< <i><< Scott, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some sort of agenda. I mean why is he coming out now and announcing he is gay after all this time? In my opinion gays have come a long way and have little discrimination to deal with in this day and age. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that his mediocre career is winding down is I think he or his agent thinks this publicity stunt will get him attention that might become profitable. >>
>>
I can't believe I missed this comment before. Sitting there suggesting that there's 'little discrimination' they face is so blatantly ignorant I don't know where to begin. To begin with, how about the fact that they aren't allowed to marry? This is the same type of discrimination that used to be levied against interracial couples.
<< <i>The remark above is spot on. This "revelation" just got him millions of dollars in free publicity, as the media in particular laps up stories like this. And IMO given today's uber-PC society some team will pick him up even if he's a mediocre player- if nothing else, to show how wonderfully diverse they are... along with the appropriate media releases for maximum PR exposure. A savvy agent will turn this into a nice contract for him. IMO After a year or two he'll quietly fade out of the picture once everyone realizes it wasn't a big deal. >>
How's that prediction working out for you?
<< <i>As to Broussard, last time I checked this was still America, and whether certain people like him-or his religion- he has every right to state his opinion based on his beliefs, particularly if/when he's asked. It's not like he was yelling "fire" in a theater. >>
And because this is America, we can blast Broussard for having hopelessly out of date and willfully ignorant comments.
<< <i>And since it's been brought up...If I might hop up on the soapbox for a minute...I'm not exactly a devout Christian by any means, but I find it sad how Christianity in particular in recent times has seemingly had a target on its back, getting ripped apart, insulted and/or made fun of in media and other areas like pop culture, at a time where one wouldn't dare to say such things about, say, Islam. For example, cartoons that even show Mohammed get censored or pulled, but shows like South Park or Family Guy have shown Jesus drinking/drug using/excreting feces. And don't get me started on the media bias when it comes to reporting tragedies. This is why I have to chuckle when the media talking heads get all arrogant and self righteous over "tolerance, acceptance, respect" when the reality is that it's only brought up when there's a certain agenda that needs pushing. >>
Oh boy, this 'Christianity is under attack!' nonsense that certain right-wing media outlets have been reporting for years now, and is much ado about nothing. It's the same foolish argument made about the supposed 'attack on Christmas!' I like how you suggest its ok for Broussard to exercise his right to state his opinion, but when it comes to others expressing their same right in criticizing Christianity, it's 'sad'. Hypocrite, much?
<< <i>
<< <i><< Scott, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have some sort of agenda. I mean why is he coming out now and announcing he is gay after all this time? In my opinion gays have come a long way and have little discrimination to deal with in this day and age. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that his mediocre career is winding down is I think he or his agent thinks this publicity stunt will get him attention that might become profitable. >>
>>
I can't believe I missed this comment before. Sitting there suggesting that there's 'little discrimination' they face is so blatantly ignorant I don't know where to begin. To begin with, how about the fact that they aren't allowed to marry? This is the same type of discrimination that used to be levied against interracial couples.
? >>
He was making a comment about the lack of discrimination they get "ONCE THEY COME OUT".
They already face the non-marriage issue before they "COME OUT". That issue that you mentioned is there whether they
stay silent, or whether they come out. He was saying that they don't get any extra problems today when they come out.
BTW, you still aren't living by your rules that you copied and pasted in another thread.
This is a sports talk forum. You are talking about who has the right to marry.
When is the last time you ever watched a sporting event and the announcers were talking about who has the right to marry ????
No subtext, just stating a fact. I believe that Broussard had the right to state his opinion, and everyone that disagreed had the right to object to his opinion. Where I draw the line is when people demand that Broussard be suspended or fired for his comments. He is paid by ESPN (in part) to give his opinion on current topics. To turn around and take pay from him for doing his job is ridiculous and hypocritical. Nevermind the fact that on a scale of 1 to 10, the level of offensiveness in Broussard's comments was maybe a 2 at best.
This country of ours IS "going to the dogs", but the "PC police" has nothing to do with it.
<< <i><<<This is an interesting post, if only because the subtext (at least to my reckoning) appears to be that "The PC police would vilify anyone who spoke out against having a homosexual teammate, and this is yet more evidence that this country of ours is going to the dogs'. Do I have this right? Is the subtext here, essentially, that those pesky liberals are (or were, in this case) unfairly muzzling Chris Broussard?>>>
No subtext, just stating a fact. I believe that Broussard had the right to state his opinion, and everyone that disagreed had the right to object to his opinion. Where I draw the line is when people demand that Broussard be suspended or fired for his comments. He is paid by ESPN (in part) to give his opinion on current topics. To turn around and take pay from him for doing his job is ridiculous and hypocritical. Nevermind the fact that on a scale of 1 to 10, the level of offensiveness in Broussard's comments was maybe a 2 at best.
This country of ours IS "going to the dogs", but the "PC police" has nothing to do with it. >>
No-- that's not what you said. The post I quoted had nothing to with Broussard's right to an opinion, or the right of others to disagree with him. You may have said that later, but in the post I quoted you said "As Chris Broussard is finding out, NOBODY can can say anything that even remotely suggests something negative about a person that is gay".
So, just to be clear. You're arguing that there's no subtext here? Because I think even a casual reader would infer that what you're getting at here is that there's some kind of power structure (be it the 'liberal media', or whatever) at work that's successfully marginalizing anti-gay voices, and that people who are foolish enough to defy that power structure run the very real risk of losing their careers or reputations.
There are really only two interpretations here. Either what I've described above is, in fact, the subtext, and you're now backtracking away from that because you have (correctly) recognized how silly this sounds, or we are meant to take your words literally: i.e, you really do believe that nobody, at any time and in any context, can ever say anything even remotely negative about a homosexual. So which is it? Or is there a third possibility that I haven't recognized?
<< <i>
He was making a comment about the lack of discrimination they get "ONCE THEY COME OUT".
They already face the non-marriage issue before they "COME OUT". That issue that you mentioned is there whether they
stay silent, or whether they come out. He was saying that they don't get any extra problems today when they come out. >>
Exactly how are they facing marriage discrimination if they haven't even come out? /shakes head
<< <i>BTW, you still aren't living by your rules that you copied and pasted in another thread. >>
This topic is about Collins and his coming out. These posts are absolutely on point. Just because YOU don't like the topic doesn't make it any less relevant to the discussion at hand.
OK, you got me, there was that exact subtext....so, what is your point? Your subtext seems to suggest that I WANT to hear more anti-gay voices, and that couldn't be further from the truth.
Hmmm. Since you are impaired in the reading comprehension department I'll explain it. The fact that his own brother and fiance' didn't know about it has led some writers to speculate that this ties in well with the publicity angle and infer that the whole deal smelled bad.
Oh boy, this 'Christianity is under attack!' nonsense that certain right-wing media outlets have been reporting for years now, and is much ado about nothing. It's the same foolish argument made about the supposed 'attack on Christmas!' I like how you suggest its ok for Broussard to exercise his right to state his opinion, but when it comes to others expressing their same right in criticizing Christianity, it's 'sad'. Hypocrite, much?
Hardly. I realize you've been snorting the PC lib gorilla dust with a straw in each nostril but even you certainly realize the difference between simply criticizing something and going out of one's way to denigrate and demean it. I have no issue with someone writing an article simply criticizing something, as I feel it's simply an exercise in free speech and/or freedom of the press. That doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it, of course, but I respect the rights of the person doing it. But free speech works both ways- and there is a double standard when it comes to Christianity versus other religions.
Going back to the previously mentioned example-If it's OK to air a cartoon showing JC getting wasted and engaging in scatological activities then it should be OK to do it with Mohammed, Allah, Krishna, Buddha, et.al. right? ...But the reality is that anyone doing such a thing would be instantly vilified and labeled a bigot, hatemonger, etc. and it would get squashed before it ever aired. So why do haters of Christianity get a pass? THAT, my friend, is hypocrisy.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i><<<Because I think even a casual reader would infer that what you're getting at here is that there's some kind of power structure (be it the 'liberal media', or whatever) at work that's successfully marginalizing anti-gay voices, and that people who are foolish enough to defy that power structure run the very real risk of losing their careers or reputations.>>>
OK, you got me, there was that exact subtext....so, what is your point? Your subtext seems to suggest that I WANT to hear more anti-gay voices, and that couldn't be further from the truth. >>
My point, in sum, is that this dynamic isn't actually at work. You (and others, to be fair-- I'm not singling you out by any stretch) are convinced that there is such a power structure, and that it wields this kind of enormous influence over our public discourse. And yet to me eye I see no such thing.
Let's unpack this notion that 'nobody is allowed to say anything remotely anti-gay', which carries the embedded assumption that anyone who violates this dictate could suffer very significant personal losses. Who is an example of someone who has suffered as such? Last I checked, Chris Broussard was still on the air. And who, exactly, were in this cacophony of voices calling for his ouster? Were there calls on the editorial page of the NYT for his dismissal? In the WaPo? No- or at least not as a remember it. From what a remember, a few bloggers and fringe journalists (op-ed writers for 'vibe. com', and so forth) were screaming for his dismissal, but that's par for the course in the Internet. You certainly can't look at the work disseminated by a few dozen snarky bloggers, or an editorialist for Salon, and declare that there's this enormous swell of national opinion demanding Chris Broussard get fired. He offered up some fairly measured criticisms of homosexuality, a few shrill voices got hysterical, and the whole thing blew over in a week. How can you look at that and say 'this is exhibit 'A' of how the PC thought police have come to dominate our national discussion of homosexuality. No dissenting voices allowed!'
So then: Who are these people who have lost their reputations or livelihoods by offering up anti-gay remarks? I don't know of a single person. Certainly not Ann Coulter; her career seems safe. Chris Culliver kept his job with the 49ers. Chris Brown is still making records. Mel Gibson hasn't disappeared from view. Adam Carolla hasn't missed a beat. Tell me- who are they?
<< <i>
Hmmm. Since you are impaired in the reading comprehension department I'll explain it. The fact that his own brother and fiance' didn't know about it has led some writers to speculate that this ties in well with the publicity angle and infer that the whole deal smelled bad.
>>
So according to you he isn't really gay and only came out for publicity's sake?
<< <i>
Hardly. I realize you've been snorting the PC lib gorilla dust with a straw in each nostril but even you certainly realize the difference between simply criticizing something and going out of one's way to denigrate and demean it. I have no issue with someone writing an article simply criticizing something, as I feel it's simply an exercise in free speech and/or freedom of the press. That doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it, of course, but I respect the rights of the person doing it. But free speech works both ways- and there is a double standard when it comes to Christianity versus other religions.
>>
Double standard? You mean Christians don't go out if heir way to blast atheists for example?
<< <i>
Going back to the previously mentioned example-If it's OK to air a cartoon showing JC getting wasted and engaging in scatological activities then it should be OK to do it with Mohammed, Allah, Krishna, Buddha, et.al. right? ...But the reality is that anyone doing such a thing would be instantly vilified and labeled a bigot, hatemonger, etc. and it would get squashed before it ever aired. So why do haters of Christianity get a pass? THAT, my friend, is hypocrisy. >>
Either post specific examples of it or you're simple making up strawmen.
No, I'm saying that there are articles inferring that. Personally I do think he's likely gay but the timing of the announcement was just a bit too coincidental with his free agency imo. And IF it was a publicity thing to try to get him a contract, it failed. Miserably.
Double standard? You mean Christians don't go out if heir (sic) way to blast atheists for example?
I assume you are using "blast" as a synonym for criticize. Again, Big difference between criticism and denigration of a religion.
Either post specific examples of it or you're simple (sic) making up strawmen.
I don't make up strawmen. Two words...South Park. Look it up for yourself.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>So according to you he isn't really gay and only came out for publicity's sake?
No, I'm saying that there are articles inferring that. Personally I do think he's likely gay but the timing of the announcement was just a bit too coincidental with his free agency imo. And IF it was a publicity thing to try to get him a contract, it failed. Miserably.
>>
Likely gay? So he'd do all that just to cash in? You really are something!
<< <i>
I assume you are using "blast" as a synonym for criticize. Again, Big difference between criticism and denigration of a religion.
>>
"FULL QUOTE: "Information and time are on the side of nonbelievers. Every single day that the idea of a god persists, more will disbelieve in His existence. There is simply nothing we can do about it but accept the inevitable and hope they do not treat Christians the way Christians have treated them."
"All that"? It's not that hard to make a news release.
I used the word "likely" because the only ones who know for sure are him and any partner he might have. His family doesn't even know for sure; that's been made plain.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012