2024-25 NFL Thread

[wadesworld]

NFL has no business taking any sides in butkers commencement speech issue and Kansas City (the city)better get ready for some backlash.  really?  harrison has been a diplomat of sorts for KC for 7 and they dox him? 
    I'd love to see the reaction if a Muslim spoke at a Muslim university touting Muslim beliefs-and what about LGBTQ+ etc.al.??  could you speak a little more clearly in to that microphone Omar?

I don't think you understand what doxing means/is.

[Jockey]

Butker has the right to say what he says. The Chiefs fans have the right to pressure the team to cut him. The Chiefs have the right to cut him.

So strange that people don't understand how this works.

It would be even stranger if "people" actually understood how this works.

[Hards Alumni]

I don't think you understand what doxing means/is.

Add it to the expanding list.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Harrison has a lot of pent up emotion and desires.

https://x.com/nikicaga/status/1791254908571631859?s=46&t=G2FhP_F2kWewaBOpvRv5lg

[WhiteTrash]

It would be even stranger if "people" actually understood how this works.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people do understand, they are just unapologetic hypocrites.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Butker has the right to say what he says. The Chiefs fans have the right to pressure the team to cut him. The Chiefs have the right to cut him.

So strange that people don't understand how this works.

I'm actually not sure that the Chiefs have the right to cut him.  Absent other legitimate reasons for cutting him,  he would likely have grounds for a discrimination suit

[The Sultan]

I'm actually not sure that the Chiefs have the right to cut him.  Absent other legitimate reasons for cutting him,  he would likely have grounds for a discrimination suit

I think the CBA allows teams to cut for whatever reason they want. Or it gives enough leeway to cut for all sorts of reasons.

[Hards Alumni]

I think the CBA allows teams to cut for whatever reason they want. Or it gives enough leeway to cut for all sorts of reasons.

Yep.  You can go as far as saying like, "actions detrimental to the team".  He could probably sue and would... but by then he'd likely have been signed by another team and the case would get tossed.

[Uncle Rico]

Yep.  You can go as far as saying like, "actions detrimental to the team".  He could probably sue and would... but by then he'd likely have been signed by another team and the case would get tossed.

Anyway you cut it, the nfl will never recover from this PR nightmare.  Millions more will quit watching like when Kaepernick was silenced

[WhiteTrash]

I think the CBA allows teams to cut for whatever reason they want. Or it gives enough leeway to cut for all sorts of reasons.

There is no contractual/employment/CBA language or agreements that provide for allowable discriminatory actions by an employer. They can shift the burden of proof to the claimant, but discrimination is never allowed.     

[The Sultan]

There is no contractual/employment/CBA language or agreements that provide for allowable discriminatory actions by an employer. They can shift the burden of proof to the claimant, but discrimination is never allowed.     

Thank you. Effectively they can release without stating a reason however.

Not that they would or should.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Thank you. Effectively they can release without stating a reason however.

Not that they would or should.

Thank you. Effectively they can release without stating a reason however.

Not that they would or should.

Caveat, I've never worked with a CBA like this so i may be missing something.

They can...but if it happens shortly (i.e. three weeks) after this hoopla, he can still bring a case and they will have to provide a non discriminatory reason for the decision. Staying silent would not be an option. That being said, i would imagine yet would be a plethora of reasons they could give and disproving them would be a very difficult bar for HB to clear.

[The Lens]

Inserting IVF into the conversation is hilarious.

[jficke13]

Thank you. Effectively they can release without stating a reason however.

Not that they would or should.

I suspect the Chiefs don't want the smoke that would come from releasing him (and probably don't want to need to find a replacement kicker), but I would find Butker's discrimination suit to be highly amusing.

"You discriminated against me for my beliefs?"

"Your belief in transubsantiation?"

"No not that one."

"What beliefs, then?"

"You know the ones..."

[WhiteTrash]

Thank you. Effectively they can release without stating a reason however.

Not that they would or should.

The NFL sounds like they are similar to employers in any "At Will" states are not required to give a reason for termination.

[Jockey]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people do understand, they are just unapologetic hypocrites.

I put 'people' in quotes as I believe Sultan was referring to Roqqet when he used the term. I also was referring to Roqqet.

[Jockey]

The NFL sounds like they are similar to employers in any "At Will" states are not required to give a reason for termination.

Free country. I wouldn't support releasing him for his beliefs. Good to know who these nuts are, though.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Maybe he knows he's a high turnover positional player and is just jockeying for his post football career of shaking down reactionary morons for subscription money.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I suspect the Chiefs don't want the smoke that would come from releasing him (and probably don't want to need to find a replacement kicker), but I would find Butker's discrimination suit to be highly amusing.

"You discriminated against me for my beliefs?"

"Your belief in transubsantiation?"

"No not that one."

"What beliefs, then?"

"You know the ones..."

Claims of religious discrimination don't require the complainant to adhere to every single tenet of a religion. Religion itself isn't necessarily required, it just requires a "sincerely held religious belief".

[jficke13]

Claims of religious discrimination don't require the complainant to adhere to every single tenet of a religion. Religion itself isn't necessarily required, it just requires a "sincerely held religious belief".

Right, and it would require the complainant to identify the sincerely held religious beliefs they believe they are being discriminated against for holding. In this case, it would require Butker to acknowledge (or at least allege in a complaint) that the beliefs that triggered his dismissal were his beliefs regarding the role of women in society (etc). The NFL/KC would be able to pin him down and force him to either acknowledge that misyogny is his "sincerely held religious belief" or lose.

He, like everyone who wants to run to the rooftops to claim they are being cancelled, is holding up a shiny innocuous object and saying "look at how censorious and unreasonable everyone is being, silencing me for my beliefs" while refusing to acknowledge that the reason they are facing social consequences for expressing themselves is because the specific thing they expressed is worthy of social scorn.

Edit: Just to be clear, what my original point was is that it would be fun to watch Butker try to bring the discrimination claim because it would open him up to scrutiny that he does not want any more than the Chiefs want to answer the allegations. It would be amusing because he'd have to face, head on, the fact that the opinions that he is being criticized for are regressive, hateful, and not shared by the majority of society. He would fail in the effort that succeeds on twitter of conflating "I'm being canceled for being Catholic" with what he is actually being criticized for.

[MU82]

Among his other winning attributes, Butker is in the "Jews Killed Jesus" camp.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Right, and it would require the complainant to identify the sincerely held religious beliefs they believe they are being discriminated against for holding. In this case, it would require Butker to acknowledge (or at least allege in a complaint) that the beliefs that triggered his dismissal were his beliefs regarding the role of women in society (etc). The NFL/KC would be able to pin him down and force him to either acknowledge that misyogny is his "sincerely held religious belief" or lose.

He, like everyone who wants to run to the rooftops to claim they are being cancelled, is holding up a shiny innocuous object and saying "look at how censorious and unreasonable everyone is being, silencing me for my beliefs" while refusing to acknowledge that the reason they are facing social consequences for expressing themselves is because the specific thing they expressed is worthy of social scorn.

Edit: Just to be clear, what my original point was is that it would be fun to watch Butker try to bring the discrimination claim because it would open him up to scrutiny that he does not want any more than the Chiefs want to answer the allegations. It would be amusing because he'd have to face, head on, the fact that the opinions that he is being criticized for are regressive, hateful, and not shared by the majority of society. He would fail in the effort that succeeds on twitter of conflating "I'm being canceled for being Catholic" with what he is actually being criticized for.

Ah, i understand what you were saying now.

[The Lens]

People do understand that the 1st amendment protects ones from persecutution from the GOVERNMENT with regards to their freedom of speech right?

It doesn't mean your friends or employers have to agree / acquiesce.   

[WhiteTrash]

Among his other winning attributes, Butker is in the "Jews Killed Jesus" camp.

I honestly didn't even think Jews dispute that.

[The Sultan]

I honestly didn't even think Jews dispute that.

It's often used as a reason for antisemitism