O-Line and ST questions

Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.

Next you are going to tell us that business can smack all the female employees on the ass, and not be charged with sexual harrasment... A business can not use sex, religion, nationality, or color as gounds to hire or fire a person. If they do it is called discrimination.

Also, this idea that the catholic church "hires" their priests is insane. The catholic church does not hire their priests, these men are ordained in to the faith. A life of poverty is what they accept when they are ordained as priests. I hate to burst your bubble but the U.S. Gov has no say as to who can or can not be priests. Like you said, "separation of church and state."

Let's settle down fellas or else let's lock this thread.

Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.

First off, I've seriously had enough of your bad mouthing members of this board. You're asking people what they are smoking and referring to their arguments as stupid simply because you don't agree with them. Either learn how to discuss matters as a rational adult or get the hell off this site. Tone it down and learn how to act. Anyone can be ballsy in a chat room.......but it doesn't prove anything.

As to you're argument, I guess I'll have to repeat what I said since you seem to have a hard time listening to what people are saying.

"While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions."

I thought that statement was self-explanatory, but I guess not. What I said there is that I fully support placing restrictions on players' actions on and off the field. Pro atheletes are professionals, and they should be expected to act as such. HOWEVER, you are talking about an athelete agreeing to be penalized without ANY finding of wrongdoing whatsoever. I am well aware that the constitution does not apply to private contracts, but I seriously doubt that any athelete would voluntarily enter into a contract that penalizes him for doing absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that the constitution guarantees due process should tell you something about just how serious a right it is that you think players will be so willing to contract away. Being arrested is a far cry from being guilty of a crime.

Same analysis applies for the right to bear arms. Can a business restrict you from carrying a gun to work? Absolutely. But no business, occupation, profession, etc. that I know of has ever restricted an individual from exercising his or her constitutional right to bear arms outside of the work environment. Regardless of whether two private individuals can contract for that restriction (which they can), I simply cannot imagine players or the NFLPA agreeing to such clauses.

As to your arguments:
1. There is no constitutional right to not be fired for a rumor. In fact, I assume that your job was not subject to an employment contract. As such, it would be an "employment at will". In an employment at will, an employer may fire you for any reason or for no reason at all, as long as that reason is not discriminatory or violative of a constitutional right. If they had fired you because of your age, race, religion, sex, etc. (one of the inalienable rights), then you would have had a cause of action against them.

2. While a business may maintain a certain dress code, that right is not without limitations. For example, an employer can not restrict you from wearing what you must for religious reasons. They can not require you to remove religious garb to comply with the dress code.

3. The fact that you actually said: "Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely" only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. The first scenario involving religion is a blatant violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second scenario could be a violation of of the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) if the employer is refusing to hire, or is firing an individual over the age of 40 in favor of a younger person. If you are referring to the NBA's policy, then yes, an employer can discriminate based on age if the age is under 40 because an individual is not part of a protected class until reaching the age of 40.

4. As to the catholic church: It has already been correctly stated that governments cannot restrict the free practice of religion. As such, the catholic church is free to exclude women from the priesthood ONLY BECAUSE it is a religious institution. If it was IBM or Comcast refusing to hire or promote women, again, you'd be setting forth a scenario where the law would step in and punish the employer.

Trust me when I say you should not assume that you know more about the constitution or employment law than me or anyone else on this site. If you need me to go down the hall and have one of our labor and employment partners confirm the accuracy of my above statements, just let me know.

And in the future, if you don't want people telling you "Why havent we gone after Scott Gragg or Ross Verba?" and "Why dont we renegotiate ST's contract to pay for any additions?", the I suggest you don't ask the question. What exactly was the point of starting this thread with those questions if you are not going to be open to a host of reasonable explanations by the members of this site? And you call other people "stupid"? I have a kettle I'd like to introduce you to.

Sorry Tafkas, I submitted the message before seeing your post. I just don't like the tone he was using with the other members of this board and myself.

1. They can void the contract and re-do it that way. No penalty.
Ummmm...no they can't. The CBA specifically forbids reworking a rookie's contract until one year from signing. Besides simply voiding the contract is not reworking his deal...it is cutting him which makes him a free agent so he could sign anywhere. There is no way they are going to cut their first round draft pick from last year. Also they'd have to have pretty strong contract language to cut him BEFORE he has been found guilty of any crime.

Daaaaamn. Testosteron-y! :)

Sorry MC, but did you see his response to jrocx69? Totally uncalled for.

Not to mention numerous members of this board have tried explaining to this kid that OT and OG are different positions, but he doesn't seem to understand that.:banghead: Apparently anbody who plays on the line is an "o-lineman" and therefore completely interchangeable........news to me. Maybe somebody should call Buges and let him know too.:rolleyes:

I love the smell of napalm in he morning. Smells like...like...victory.

Sorry MC, but did you see his response to jrocx69? Totally uncalled for.

Not to mention numerous members of this board have tried explaining to this kid that OT and OG are different positions, but he doesn't seem to understand that.:banghead: Apparently anbody who plays on the line is an "o-lineman" and therefore completely interchangeable........news to me. Maybe somebody should call Buges and let him know too.:rolleyes:
Yeah he seems a little high on the horse but in the end he could be right about our o-line. I just don't think he is clearly right at the moment. Only time will tell.

Sam, Dock, Rabach, Thomas, and Jansen are all ok to great. If Aprius point is that we need depth, we have Wilson, Molinaro, 92 yr. old R. Brown, Friedman, and all! Probably a couple of our own NFLE or FAs already on the roster may make it over Brown. The position I felt was most suspect, was Brown! But we have Jansen back!

I feel we have fewer questions on the OL than as does Aprius, apparently.

On the S. Taylor situation, we cannot lower his salary. Period. End of subject.