Posted on 06/17/2018 9:17:15 AM PDT by TaxPayer2000
Justice Antonin Scalia ? Is he still voting? I thought he was dead.
Didn’t his pillow jump off the bed, onto his face, and smother him?
While the courts have said you can burn the flag IIRC they also said a private business has a right to set and enforce workplace rules.
The NFL had a rule: no political protests and no political messages.
All they had to do was enforce that rule.
But they didn't. They caved to the demands of the mob and now the mob is running the business and destroying it.
No thinking person has questioned the right of anyone else to take a knee during the national anthem. What we have done is to question their wisdom, their patriotism and their morality. Additionally, since at least the football players doing so are employees of the various football teams, they can be forced by their teams to stand respectfully during the national anthem as a condition of employment. If the teams refuse to force the players to do that, in the same way that they force them to wear the same uniform on the field, then we can be fully justified in boycotting the teams. Ditto for the NFL as a whole.
This isn’t about rights. This is about being grateful for all the good things that this nation provides, despite some of the manifest imperfections in our nation. The only thing we have going for us is our unity - and the people pushing four players to kneel I know this very well. They are interested in destroying the unity of this country. Therefore, in my view, they are interested in destroying this country. Again, it is not about right, it is about the very basis of this nation’s existence.
Here is a word for you, urinalist .... “relevance”.
Your article has ZERO relevance to the NFL kneeling protests.
Go find a PUBLIC sidewalk somewhere and kneel all you want. Just not too long or you will be arrested for loitering.
From article:
“Those in uproar over anthem should know about high court ruling on flag burning”
In other words, when the high court rules in favor of same sex marriage, I am somehow obligated embrace the new truth?
The kneelers have a right of protest and dissent and the court must obligate all the rest of us to comply?
They still banned cross burning though, if it was meant to intimidate. All flag burning is A-OK though.
Nor does he understand that the public also has the right to be outraged over what it finds to offensive acts and to speak out or act out, as in boycotts or speech, against those committing the offensive acts.
The author is just another apologist for these fools, probably because he thinks the same as them.
An absolute right? They have NO "right" to do it at all - they are in the workplace and the opening ceremonies of a game are part of the product being offered to the customers of that product. Them being able to do so was privilege, not a right, which the NFL could prohibit, just like the NBA and other organizations do in their workplaces.
This is ridiculous. Not liking something being made part of a product of something you don't like - this writer somehow finds an equivalence to a law passed by government being deemed unconstitutional?
This Court ruling has nothing to do with the NFL or the people not supporting a bunch of athletes trying to ruin the sport of football. It is a ruling on what the Government can or can not do. Neither the NFL or we the people are the “Government”. If we chose to not spend our dollars if these athletes keep screwing around that is our business and has nothing to do with the courts!
No kidding. Liberal thought is not very logical.
Holy cr@p, burning a flag is a physical act resulting in its destruction; why is it speech?
Someone can hold up a sign saying “The U.S. Flag is a symbol of racism, sexism, islamophobia etc etc” all day long. That’s freedom of expression. It doesn’t destroy anything.
Then how can California pass a law forbidding counselors from from converting homosexuals to normal, functioning human beings? How can calling a fag a "fag" be construed as "hate speech?" How can telling a muslime to go back to his goat-shed be constrained? How can pro-live advocates be barred from telling potential victims about the horrors of abortion?
As long as the ideas being expressed are only offensive to white males, apparently they ARE protected. Not so much in reverse.
And don't even get me started on college campuses ...
To Knee..
Or Not to Knee.
That is the Question.
Right on the mark. Obviously Mr Estwistle, if that is his real name, is confused about the authority of the government vs employer rights. While on your own property or away from work you may certainly voice your opinion about police oppression (I think that was their original excuse?) but while on your employer's time you have a responsibility to adhere to their wishes as to speech and behavior.
And the writer has a pretty strange notion about deceased Justice Scalia. He was a staunch defender of the constitution and not a fan of judges creating new law from the bench. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he would defend the 1st Amendment right of free speech in that 1989 decision. Some folks like the opinion writer automatically associate defending the Constitution as a conservative idea, which in truth it is. Liberals wish to expand their freedom of speech and limit the right to speech by those who disagree with them. That is contrary to the Constitution and liberals all seem to choose that means of limiting contrary free speech.
Let’s see, I think I will go to my work tomorrow and burn a flag. Will I have a job on Tuesday???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.