- Thread starter
- #121
Careful with the explanations. I don’t think it was a violation of rights.THis has nothing to do with the constitution. An employer doesn't have to consult the constitution when deciding if someone should be terminated or not. NFL coaches get fired all the time, so it is strange you guys are so hellbent on acting like this is some sort of violation of his rights. It isn't, but if it is, then should every NFL coach be allowed to complete their contract no matter what?
I think there are pretty obvious reasons why some words are acceptable if said by some people, and not by others yes, but obviously this is a very nuanced conversation.
my issue is with the 10 year approval of him breaking their user agreements and accidentally (maybe, still to be determined how much of the WFT investigation actually involved him specifically) finding it later and forcing him into resignation when that is not a consistent effort across the board.
as I posted earlier, why not scour emails from the last couple decades or snail mail or anything else that likely would have unfavorable public opinion and oust them from NFL history?
OJ still in the Hall and ring of honor in Buffalo.
Bruce smith and his record setting DUI count still HoF and ring of honor.
What about Joe Namath publicity going overboard with Suzy Kolber on live TV? No repercussions there.
so the biggest question in all of this is where is the line, who does it actually apply to, and who is deciding where these imaginary and movable lines are?