Should US National Team Players Be Required To Stand For The National Anthem?

Good. Then you won't be surprised when someday a US soccer player pursues a case in court and is vindicated.

 

It is quite obvious for anyone who can parse a text.

 

And if the asked for all present to rise?

 

Nah, I can parse a test, and I agree with him.

 

The judge gets his or her way in the courtroom, regardless whether he or she is right. So you are spinning your wheels.

 

You can read Sunil Gulati's mind?

 

The mental gymnastics you engage in to reach your desired conclusion are quite entertaining. Please continue.

 

Does FIFA have laws? I'm not trying to be snide but this is a group that answers to few and has a never ending level of lies, thievery and general scumbaggery. They do have the authority to suspend Croatians from the World Cup, ban poppies on team uniforms, fine federations or threaten World Cup bids over travel bans while they turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Qatar. No doubt they suck but it's their show.

The rule is redundant but USSF feels it is necessary. This is probably for publicity reasons and because of the contract talks with USWNT. Going forward, a player can no longer claim it is their right to protest that way. No one is forcing a player to sign the contract.

Rapinoe being an uppity lesbian is not an issue. It's a silly attempt to make her heroine and martyr.

 

If you believe her at face value. Considering the claims she was making during the contract talks it's safe to call her a liar.

 

Below is a link to an interesting discussion, on a well-regarded conservative law professors' blog (Eugene Volokh teaches at UCLA Law School), concerning the limits to which a trial judge can make demands on attorneys or other courtroom participants. The issue concerns the requirement that headgear be removed but the discussion would be applicable to someone who cannot stand due to disability, for example. In either case, a reasonable accommodation is in order, even if the law gives the judges extra latitude.

Especially of note is this quote from Frank Easterbrook, the highly respected conservative judge on the Chicago-based federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Obeisance differs from respect; to demand the former in the name of the latter is self-defeating." (Emphasis added). This single elegant sentence concisely captures the stupidity of US Soccer's anthem policy.

http://volokh.com/2011/05/06/georgia-judge-not-getting-the-message-on-religious-headgear-in-court/

 

Again instead of actually discussing the issue, you're offended that somehow you can't be discriminated if I haven't listed it prior. I'm gonna chalk this up to "agree to disagree"

Trust me. I have experienced discrimination. It's not fair at all. It's a sin and something that continues to exist in this country despite the claims of the contrary.

 

They're basically telling you, "we're right because we outnumber you."

Which does work in real life, where an angry mob can hang you for a tree for daring to say that 2+2 does not equal 5.

Doesn't quite work online, though.

 

Maybe it's because a flash in the pan year doesn't make up for a hefty salary cap hit on a QB who got beat out by Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder at various points.

Until he magically turns into a pocket passing QB that makes intelligent decisions, yet retains the ability to scramble and avoid hits, he's a backup QB at a starter's price tag. 30 picks, 37 fumbles, 171 sacks since 2012. Not terrible, but certainly not good.

 

Why? The only people who want to make anything more out of this than it is are those like you trying to stir division for the sake of stirring.

 

Creating a hypothetical that supports your own point of view does not uncover any lie, it simply makes you feel better about your own stance. No, good appellate judges don't deal in hypotheticals and conjecture.

 

We can deduce that sanctioning disrespect for the anthem is not the sole motivation for US Soccer's anthem policy from its poor wording, which as I've explained is both over-inclusive (punishing kneeling even when not intended to be disrespectful) and under-inclusive (allowing offensive salutes made while standing when not intended to be disrespectful). We can further intuit that US Soccer is angry with Megan Rapinoe from its public remarks after she knelt last fall. And of course there is the curious fact about the timing of the announcement of the policy, on the eve of a USWNT game at which, I understand, Rapinoe was to be honored. So, we can logically conclude from its language and circumstances that the anthem policy is engendered by animus to her rather than general concern about rampant disrespect for the anthem, the flag or the country.

Your assumption that I am "trying to stir division for the sake of stirring" is wrong, and ironically involves you making purely conjectural assumptions about my motivations. I, on the other hand, have tried to make deductions about US Soccer's motivations based on objective facts. And, even if for sake of argument, my motivations are impure (they are not), that does not relieve you of the duty to employ reason instead of ad hominem.

 

Frank Easterbrook is generally regarded as a good appellate judge. His observation should supply the last word on US Soccer's stupid anthem policy: "Obeisance differs from respect; to demand the former in the name of the latter is self-defeating." (Emphasis added). In other words, you cannot order people to show respect. It will backfire. Megan Rapinoe may capitulate, but the day will come when US Soccer will deeply regret its actions.

 

Here's a hypothetical for you:

An employee made a public statement and performed a public protest that had a detrimental effect on her employer (which happens to be sanctioned by the US Government) while on the job. The employer responded by issuing a policy that specifically denotes behaviors that have a detrimental impact are prohibited and gave guidelines on some things that are specifically prohibited for any of its employees regardless of color, creed, or gender. I guess my hypothetical proves that you theory is full of $%#.

 

Employers every day have discussions with employees about their behavior. They certainly can demand respect. Maybe not actual respect but the observance of respect. If an employee kneels during the weekly meeting they certainly tell them to sit in a chair normally or leave or be fired for insubordination.

 

No, he hasn't. In fact, @LouisianaViking07/09 is correctly acknowledging that racism in the United States is a feature, not a bug. The flowery words of the Declaration certainly did not apply to blacks and native peoples, and arguably not even to white women and poor white men, all of whom could not vote at at the time. It was a document written by elite men chiefly concerned with the impact of taxes on their profits, not with protecting civil rights or promoting freedom and equality as we would understand those concepts today.

Similarly, the bluster of the anthem and its celebration of the violent triumph over tyrannical England rings hollow when at the time of the American revolution, England had effectively abolished slavery exactly while the Colonies were, uniquely, preparing to double-down on it. Abolitionism in England was causing all kinds of problems in the US, where blacks even tried to defect to and fight for England, and was one of the tensions leading to the break for independence.

So. Asking us to sing the national anthem, which is something most people do unthinkingly, is asking us to participate in the retelling of a popular myth (lie). It's ironic at best and mean-spirited at worst when the reality is that the United States was forced at several turns to recognize the freedom and humanity of people within its borders because of activism, civil disobedience and popular uprisings. The people who freed me didn't wield muskets and fight Red Coats, they fought against the most powerful people in their own country. I'd happily sing along with a song about that.

The legacy of the fight for civil rights in this country is worth lauding by all Americans and something we can all be proud of, so why not have an updated anthem that reflects that? Why is it important to hold on to the foundational myths of what the US is?

 

There are limitations on employers' ability to discipline their employees. Employment discrimination laws limit employer latitude. The U.S. Constitution, where applicable is another. State laws are another. Employers are not free to do as they please when they infringe employees' free speech or religious rights.

 

Even more so, it appears that the Star Spangled Banner celebrates slavery, and the deaths of slaves who fought for the British during the War of 1812 in hopes of winning their freedom. I posted this earlier, but it is worth re-posting:

http://www.theroot.com/star-spangled-bigotry-the-hidden-racist-history-of-the-1790855893

I don't mind the anthem as a vestigal patriotic ceremony that we voluntarily participate in, but if you are going to force participation, then you are going to engender scrutiny that the anthem simply cannot withstand. On further examination, it's an ugly racist ditty, far worse that the p*to chant. US Soccer will come to regret its integral role in inevitably doing away with the song and the ceremony altogether.

 

Employers have great latitude in restricting free speech for private companies and their employees. Most private-sector workers are "at-will" employees and may be fired for any reason other than race, gender, exercising rights provided by statutes such as workers' compensation or truthfully testifying in court. Public-sector employers generally cannot discipline, demote or fire employees unless there is "cause," such as the violation of work rules, dishonesty, misconduct or poor performance. Violation of work rules and misconduct are pretty broad and wide ranging options.
The only path to success seems that Rapinoe may be able to show that her 'speech' has no impact on the business needs of the USSF and USSF would have to prove that her speech negatively impacts the practical and legitimate business needs of USSF. You'd be surprised what the courts have allowed to fall under legitimate business needs. Its pretty broad.

 

Wow, didn't even know that much. Your bolded point is incredibly astute.

 

Point of fact, the anthem is about the bombardment of Ft. McHenry during the War of 1812, not the revolution. Along with many other "facts" in your statement, you are off by a little bit. But hey, while let actual reality cloud your version of things. Continue.