You could also say that there is a real fear for people who are looking for work that they may need to conceal part of their beliefs or lifestyle just to hold down a job. Just because someone is giving you a paycheck does not mean that you sacrifice your constitutional rights just to maintain employment.

True, one should not affect another. If a person doesn't bring their activism to their job, there shouldn't be an issue. The problem is when the two start to co-mingle. Employers likely don't care what cause or causes one champions in their own time, but those employers also want it to be checked at the door when that employee comes to work. I don't think such a request is unreasonable.

 

This thread is a great example. The Vikings hired that guy to punt a football. That's all that they cared about concerning the employment of this person. They contend that his employment was terminated because he didn't meet expectations. Now, this has turned into something other than that.

 

See where the lines get blurred here?  They can't fire their punter because he sucks, and why? Because he has championed a cause unrelated to his job and HE has made it something other than what they hired him to do

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

True, one should not affect another. If a person doesn't bring their activism to their job, there shouldn't be an issue. The problem is when the two start to co-mingle. Employers likely don't care what cause or causes one champions in their own time, but those employers also want it to be checked at the door when that employee comes to work. I don't think such a request is unreasonable.

 

This thread is a great example. The Vikings hired that guy to punt a football. That's all that they cared about concerning the employment of this person. They contend that his employment was terminated because he didn't meet expectations. Now, this has turned into something other than that.

 

See where the lines get blurred here?  They can't fire their punter because he sucks, and why? Because he has championed a cause unrelated to his job and HE has made it something other than what they hired him to do

 

I see that blurred line and I agree that it is a bad situation. What further blurs that line is that there was a Minnesota employee who participated in generating a hostile environment. Now who is to say why the team wants to release the player? Was it simply due to poor performance, or was there a culture in place there that was designed to exclude people who did not think like management and that added to his release?

 

It's all murky now and it's going to be a mess to straighten it all out, but I think that with the oncoming exposure due to Minnesota hosting a Super Bowl we are destined to hear / read more about this situation in the coming months.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I see that blurred line and I agree that it is a bad situation. What further blurs that line is that there was a Minnesota employee who participated in generating a hostile environment. Now who is to say why the team wants to release the player? Was it simply due to poor performance, or was there a culture in place there that was designed to exclude people who did not think like management and that added to his release?

 

It's all murky now and it's going to be a mess to straighten it all out, but I think that with the oncoming exposure due to Minnesota hosting a Super Bowl we are destined to hear / read more about this situation in the coming months.

Agree 100%. They also hired that coach to coach football. So there's that in the player's defense. The whole thing is ugly, but IMO, the punter got cut because he wasn't what the Vikings wanted in a punter. They did draft one with a fifth round pick after all. That is in itself very telling.

 

Plus, didn't this coach allegedly say this in 2012? Why is it now a problem after a year and a half?

 

That is more telling than anything.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

If an employee has the right to voice their opinions (no matter what they are), does an employer have the same right? If we're protecting "Constitutional Rights", the employer has them too. Like someone else said, they hired him to kick a football, and they paid him handsomely to do it. By all accounts, his performance was decreasing and he was subsequently fired. Who decides which activists are OK? If Kluwe was staunchly homophobic and against the gay cause, is his right to be political no less protected? What if he was in the locker room handing out fliers talking about the damnation for all those that disagree with him? Where does it stop?

 

This is ridiculous. 

---

If an employee has the right to voice their opinions (no matter what they are), does an employer have the same right? If we're protecting "Constitutional Rights", the employer has them too. Like someone else said, they hired him to kick a football, and they paid him handsomely to do it. By all accounts, his performance was decreasing and he was subsequently fired. Who decides which activists are OK? If Kluwe was staunchly homophobic and against the gay cause, is his right to be political no less protected? What if he was in the locker room handing out fliers talking about the damnation for all those that disagree with him? Where does it stop?

 

This is ridiculous. 

 

There are still laws against hate speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I can say what I want, when I want, to who I want without consequences.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

If an employee has the right to voice their opinions (no matter what they are), does an employer have the same right? If we're protecting "Constitutional Rights", the employer has them too. Like someone else said, they hired him to kick a football, and they paid him handsomely to do it. By all accounts, his performance was decreasing and he was subsequently fired. Who decides which activists are OK? If Kluwe was staunchly homophobic and against the gay cause, is his right to be political no less protected? What if he was in the locker room handing out fliers talking about the damnation for all those that disagree with him? Where does it stop?

 

This is ridiculous. 

 

If the employer is an individual they have the same rights as an individual employee.  If the employer is a corporation, then no, they should not hold equal or greater right to free speech.

 

Political/ religious activism is usually forbidden on company property.  Could be a fireable offense dependent on the nature/ frequency.

---

The longer this goes, the more Chris Kluwe looks stupid.  He has a point and I think the Vikings may have fired him for speaking out, but I don't see how he can prove that.  They already disciplined the coach that made derogatory jokes....except Kluwe made them himself about little kids.

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/07/21/chris-k...penn-state

---

The longer this goes, the more Chris Kluwe looks stupid.  He has a point and I think the Vikings may have fired him for speaking out, but I don't see how he can prove that.  They already disciplined the coach that made derogatory jokes....except Kluwe made them himself about little kids.

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/07/21/chris-k...penn-state

 

He's never been a very good activist. His writing and interviews usually come of buffoon-ish rather than serious IMO.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

He's never been a very good activist. His writing and interviews usually come of buffoon-ish rather than serious IMO.

 

I think he's more interested in seeing his name in the papers than actually helping a cause.  Luckily for us, after this case is done he should wither away into obscurity.  Nobody will hire him for anything after watching the way he's handled himself.

---

True, one should not affect another. If a person doesn't bring their activism to their job, there shouldn't be an issue.


 

 

Well said. 

 

One shouldn't be discriminated against in terms of being hired or not, but then once hired, that same person also shouldn't be using work time for their activism. 

 

Uh, oh....I know THATS not going to go over well....it makes too much sense...

---

If an employee has the right to voice their opinions (no matter what they are), does an employer have the same right? If we're protecting "Constitutional Rights", the employer has them too. Like someone else said, they hired him to kick a football, and they paid him handsomely to do it. By all accounts, his performance was decreasing and he was subsequently fired. Who decides which activists are OK? If Kluwe was staunchly homophobic and against the gay cause, is his right to be political no less protected? What if he was in the locker room handing out fliers talking about the damnation for all those that disagree with him? Where does it stop?

 

This is ridiculous. 

 

Not only was his job performance "decreasing"....it flat out was horrible by the end....

 

but but but.... that doesn't matter. ...to some....

---

Not only was his job performance "decreasing"....it flat out was horrible by the end....

 

but but but.... that doesn't matter. ...to some....

 

Flat out horrible by the end? How so?

 

Make the argument that they got similar production for a cheaper price, fine. Happens all the time in the NFL, especially to punters. But don't go pretending that he got cut because "he was flat out horrible by the end."

 

You'd be laughed out of court.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.