haven't heard about Manti, then we know the real reason.
Players (including Denard) were asked at the combine whether they're straight
I heard Manti Te'o's answer to the question of whether or not he was straight was, (laughs) "Yes, very near to it."
Whether or not they were fishing for sexual orientation, it is also illegal to ask someone's marital status in a job interview situation.
They asked a Nick Kasa (Tight end from Colorado) if he liked girls. I know what you mean, but there's definitely no getting around it. They're wrong on every way imagineable to ask these questions.
it's just stupid. Don't they have better questions to ask? It's a waste of the short time they have to interview players.
I personally think the teams shouldn't be allowed to ask. Also what does it really matter. If you can play football you can play whether you're gay or straight.
Well, actually, I think they should be able to ask those questions of Tight Ends and Wide Receivers....
Hm, what you personally think jives very well with what the law dictates.
While I agree that teams should not be able to ask a question like that, they are likely looking for something other than their sexual orientation. They are looking for their reaction to the question. If a player says "Fuck you, man! Hell naw!" in a situation that requires tact (as open interviews in the combine do), then they will know that they may have a PR problem in the future.
This line of questioning is common, no matter the field. It's not the actual answer that is analyzed, but the response to the question. That being said, I'm sure they could get the same result by asking something else that throws off or offends the players.
EDIT: To further reinforce my point, players that have not come out yet are unlikely to do so with a split second decision at the combine. So if a player has been saying "I am straight" his entire career, it is very unlikely that he will change his tune in an interview. I don't think the intent is to get an answer to the question, only to see how the player reacts. In a way, they could actually use that question to decide not to draft someone who will get the team in trouble by going all John Rocker at some point. If a player responds "I ain't no INSERT HOMOPHOBIC SLUR" they may be turned away from that play.
Doesn't change the fact that you cannot inquire about someone's sexual orientation in a job interview without opening yourself to legal recourse.
Let's all step back from ledge. This isn't a job interview. Oh sure, maybe de facto it is but by the letter of the law it most definitely is NOT.
I think they could accomplish the same thing by asking something like "how do you feel about playing with [or rooming with] a teammate who has revealed himself to be gay?" That is enough to find out which kids have a low sense of diplomacy about sensitive questions. Your John Rockers will reveal themselves.
I wish we were at a place in society where these questions were just coaches being interested in a player's life or, better yet, that they were just asking these questions to measure the commitment of a player in general.
It's important to correct you a bit. Denard at least (not sure about the others) never said he was asked whether he was gay. He was asked if he was married, engaged, or had a girlfriend. Now, yeah there's a lot of reason to assume the worst when it comes to that like they were fishing to see if he was gay while not directly asking.
HOWEVA! Isn't it slightly possible to ask those questions as a measure of maturity? I think it's legitimately fair to argue that people in committed relationships are more mature or taking life seriously whatever you want to call it. Not that I agree but I think a lot of people would argue that.
You might well have a better claim for employment discrimination if that discrimination was based on marital status (as RakeFight noted) than if it was based on sexual orientation...though this is not legal advice.
Please explain how you would argue that.
More stable environments than us single folk. They wouldn't argue about maturity levels.
Since 50% of marriages end in divorce, I can easily argue that single people are in a more stable environment than married people (especially when you throw money in there).
Say a coach had a number of good experiences drafting guys out of BYU (many of whom happen to be married when drafted) because they had a good work ethic.
Maybe they ask a guy if he goes to Church regularly because they have found in the past players who are dedicated to going to Church weekly are better leaders.
I would assume the worst but coaches can be weird. I mean this is still a process that has people drafted higher for running 0.05 second faster in a 40 yard dash and "measures" people on the Wonderlic test.
You continue to pull things out of your ass and hope to find something that doesn't smell like shit.
Your examples aren't instances of mutual exlcusiveness. Teams would need to prove that those players who went to church and were hard workers were hard workers because they all went to church. Assumptions don't hold up.
but I think you are gving NFL coaches and GMs too much credit. I should state that I'm not lumping all into this group, but there are many NFL gm's that would pick a guy for far c=razier reasons than the above poster offers. I mean come on...Matt Millen anyone?
Again, I think what you say is absolutely true, but I don't believe all GM's are as smart as you are and believe many of them make assumptions when choosing whether to draft players.
I have known many people who were not mature enough or secure enough as an individual to manage their life as a single person. In essence, they required a partner due to their own insecurity, so no, I don;t see single/married status as representative of maturity. Some guys may be mature enough to know they aren't ready to settle down... still have some wild oats to sew, and all that. The contrast is settling down too young, then cheating, etc. Now, having multiple kids out of wedlock may be a sign of immaturity, imo. Paying your bills on time and staying out of legal trouble provide much better indications of maturity in my mind.
This makes for entertaining discussion, however.
This is where I probably differ from most of the board, and this certainly borders on politics, but this is a situation where teams should be allowed to ask these guys whatever they want. They will be investing millions of dollars and risking very limited draft picks on these guys, and if they think their aunt's religion might have an impact on their ability to prodice, they should be able to ask.
I don't think most employers should be able to ask, but in the cases where extremely large amount of money is involved, the rules should change. A movie studio should have the right to be more inquisitive of an actor or director, same with a large company and their top executives.
This argument makes no sense. It would be one thing if the investment were somehow dependent on the person's response, but whether an actor or an athlete, sexual orientation, marital status or other personal details are completely inconsequential when it comes to their performance on the job. This is why it is illegal to ask those questions.
But they aren't inconsequential. Don't say the argument makes no sense just because you disagree (and I conceded that most here probably would). What if a guy was an over racist? Or a gambling addict? I'm not comparing these to homosexuality, just that many things about who a person is can affect them as an employee.
What if you knew that you star players were homophobic and would have a major problem with a gay player on your team? I agree that the homophobic players would be in the wrong, but they are already on the team, under contract, and are the stars. Wouldn't you, as a coach/GM/owner want to try your best not to draft someone who, for whatever reason, would cause a problem in your locker room, whether or not it was really their fault?
I'm sure that's what many would argue, and I do understand the logic in it. What I ultimately think of, though, is the baseball players who wouldn't have been comfortable with Jackie Robinson on their team. Someone needed to put Robinson's right to play above their comfort.
comparison is not apples to apples. Not because one is a trait and the other is a choice, that question is well above my pay grade, but because there are aspects of an athletes profession that homosexuality could interfere with to a certain degree with regard to the functioning of a team. Some people did not want Jackie Robinson to play because he was black, and they had an inherest and completely irrational dislike of black people. They felt black people "did not deserve" to play. With an openly gay athlete, there are practical reason why it could have a very real impact on team chemistry and the functionality of team roles. "Don't ask don't tell" was a very unpopular policy but there was rationale behind it. It is a difficult issue, but athletes are a big investment and pro sports are a huge business. If it could be a non-issue it would be all the better, and perhaps this is a reason for teams to steer away from the question completely.
Please explain how homosexuality could be relevant to the profession.
not saying that it is relevant to an athlete's performance, I am saying that you cannot say that it would not impact a player's relationship with his team and possibly his role on the team. In a perfect world should it be a relevant consideration, no. Is this a perfect world, no. Are organizations agreeing to pay players tens of millions of dollars to make their team better. Yes. Is homosexuality a red flag that a particular player may not fit into the mold of a certain team or certain locker room. Yes. I am not talking what should be. I am talking what is. I am not commenting on whether teams should be able to ask, only that it is perfectly reasonable they would have an interest.
How could Jackie Robinson being black not be something that you could have made the exact same reply to back in the day?
For the record, I agree with you 100%, but to make the case... you can hide being gay a lot easier than you can hide being black. You don't have to ask Jackie Robinson is he's black. In that sense it's not apples to apples. If all of a sudden a player comes out, it creates controversy, and it could disrupt the locker room a couple of different ways. And on the ideal team where your entire team could be okay with it, the media circus that would ensue could be an unwanted distraction.
Just some thoughts.
The problem with this argument is that the only way it would impact the team is if people on the team have problems with homosexuality. To cater to that kind of prejudice is not reasonable.
It could certainly be a problem if an NFL player hit on one of his teammates, but that's no different than a situation in which a straight man hits on a female co-worker. The problem is the act, not the orientation.
One irrational dislike is just like another. Robinson being black affected the functioning of a team filled with racists. Doesn't make it a good reason.
You know these "practical reasons why it could have a very real impact on team chemistry and the functionality of team roles" you mentioned? Those are some of the EXACT SAME REASONS PEOPLE GAVE TO KEEP BLACKS OUT OF BASEBALL. And to keep schools and the military segregated. Your argument boils down to the idea that some people are bigoted against a group, and therefore the solution is to keep that group out to the extent possible. And holy fuck does that piss me off. It's twenty-fucking-thirteen.
BiSB, your points are absolutely correct but I think you are misinterpreting ijohnb's point.
I think the statement is "I am not conding bigotry, I am merely acknowledging its existence and the reality that it would impact the dynamic of the team. It would likely cause a rift amongst the homophobics and the non-homophobics (which is exactly what happened with racist whites and non-racist whites during integration in baseball and the movie Remember the Titans starring Denzel Washington). This statement should not be interpreted as my opinion on whether gays should be in the NFL or out while in the NFL or anything of the like."
ijohnb even mentions that he is talking about reality, not necessarily the way things are:
"I am not talking what should be. I am talking what is."
Just to put it out there, no, I have no dog in this fight (zing, but that's because niether one of you are making negative statements, unless I totally invented my own interpretation of ijohnb).
It's a tacit acceptance/codoning of bigotry when you're basically saying let's not rock the boat.
BTW, have you guys heard of this goddamn rabblerouser down in Alabama named Rosa Parks? Apparently she had the nerve to tell a hard working, WHITE, bus driver that she would not move to the back of the bus. Couldn't she have done what she was politely and kindly asked to do instead of causing such a fuss? Geeze.
I agree that saying "don't rock the boat" is condoning bigotry but that was not the point of my post at all and if your Rosa Parks joke is at my expense then you missed my entire point.
There is a difference between making commentary on the current state of affairs and endorsing the status quo. My post makes no reference to reinforcing the current culture of bigotry in the NFL.
What my post is saying, is that because there is a culture of bigotry it would make sense that when gay players do start coming out, team chemistry may take a hit as the lockerrom could be split.
Personally, I welcome the day where people don't have to put up a front because a portion of our population can't identify or understand their experience and has to resort to fear and hatred.
"I'm not condoning bigotry, I'm just recognizing and attempting to cater to it in the largest extent possible" is not a reasonable response.
I recognize that ijohnb isn't trying to enable bigotry, but the fact is that he is. Walls aren't broken down without shaking things up a bit, and that's going to upset some people, but that's their problem.
"Not because one is a trait and the other is a choice"
I didn't think the people stupid enough to believe this discovered the internet yet.
Wrt your second paragraph:
The same argument could be made for any workplace, though. Think about a restaurant, where everybody needs to be able to work well together to provide the best service. Or even an office complex, where if someone is disruptive and people dont get along as well productivity drops. If I run an Office Max and some of my workers are homophobic, is that a good enough reason to discriminate against hiring a gay worker? Because that argument could apply to any workplace with more than 1 worker. Fact is, the law is the law for a reason.
workers do not shower together on a daily basis (unless this is a very bizarre Office Max that I am not aware of. I agree it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but you have to admit that your comparisons are flawed in this regard.
Pretty freeking close? You bet.
Really? Showers? Just drive home and take a shower at your house if it matters to you.
Protip: not every gay dude wants to bang every guy they see. You're not going to suddenly look over and see the starting MLB with a boner in the shower.
That's an especially silly concern when you consider that any player that's going to be drafted has been in locker rooms and showering with other dudes for at least the last 4-8 years. Whatever an individual player's feelings are, there is no way he hasn't learned to deal with them by now. It's not like he's going to turn pro and discover some new creepy urges.
TL;DR: homophobes really haven't thought this one through.
Please tell me how a player's aunt's religion should have any bearing on whether or not that player can produce.
I don't think that it does, but if an NFL owner does, he should be able to ask it.
No, he shouldn't.
Based on what? Your argument that the investment owners make makes it appropriate is completely flawed. Owners of every company, big and small, take a certain amount of risk on the hiring of employees, yet they still comply to the rules. The level of investment made on a single employee is irrelevant, as it is ultimately the owners choice to make the investment. Subjecting prospects to such questioning undermines their inalienable right to act as a free agent until they sign with a team, not to mention the civil right to not be judged on their sexuality. It is even more inappropriate for a team to ask such questions BEFORE a player signs with them than after. And it's illegal for good reason in both instances.
Well, if she's a follower of the People's Temple, that might raise some questions.
1) They should only be allowed to questions that have a bearing on the position for which they are being hired. Being gay has nothing to do with one's ability to play football. The law of large numbers suggests that there have been literally hundreds of gay professional athletes.
2) Some of these questions violate federal law. Large investment or no, they are simply out of bounds.
But who decides what really has a bearing on on the position? These guys are are being drafted for more than just their ability to play football, otherwise their off the field behavior wouldn't be taken into account, but it certainly is.
But also - what if a team wants to draft an openly gay player? Can they ask then? Sometimes minorities are hired on purpose, and I'm OK with that as well. I think Jerry Montgomery should be replaced by a young-ish black coach. That is both ageist and racist (and I suppose sexist as well) but I think a younger black man is important on a college football coaching staff. I purposely picked a Jewish primary care physician and accountant. They're typically good at those professions.
I was having a conversation with a gay friend of mine after the Te'o thing came out - if he was drafted as the first openly gay NFL player, his jersey sales and endorsements would be on par with Tebow, even bigger if he turns out to be any good. This might be a draw, especially for teams in cities like SF, NY or Miami.
My only point is, it could be a factor, both positively and negatively, and therefore should be fair game to ask.
The problem with that is that most Brooklyn Dodger fans (presumably) would have said that they didn't want a black player if the Dodgers had asked before they brought on Jackie Robinson. We can imagine a world in which another city wouldn't/didn't want white players, so it would all balance out, but that of course just is not and was not the way things are.
I appreciate you making these arguments, though. This would be boring and pointless if everyone agreed.
I guess it's fair to point out here that UM alum (LLB ) Branch Rickey "got it" when it came to the importance of overcoming "locker room discomfort" derived from players' xenophobia or outright racism. I entirely get that locker room / chemistry may be issues at some level, but it seems like the right answer here is you've got to do the right thing in the bigger picture. Even if it's difficult.
I'd love to see an NFL owner come out and say their players "had better get used to having some openly gay players on the team - we don't discrimi-hate". Better yet Roger Goodell could man-up and give a strong statement of intolerance of gay-screening by teams, even if it's not prohibited by federal law.
But mostly this is an excuse to underscore that Branch Rickey was a Michigan grad and a pretty great one at that.
But the NFL is nowhere near even the "somewhat accepting of gays" point. Once it becomes more commonplace (like, for example, when there has been at least ONE openly gay player), I think it might seem less nefarious. For now, Occam's Razor suggests that these questions are being asked to weed out gays.
"And it would disrupt the unit."
"I agree. I also think the military wasn't designed to be an instrument of social change. Funny thing, though - fifty years ago, that's what they said about me. 'Blacks can't serve - it would disrupt the unit.' It did disrupt the unit. You know what? The unit adapted. The unit changed, got stronger. I'm a black man and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick."
One of my favorite episodes - "Let Bartlett be Bartlett" I think, from the first season.
At any rate, the NFL has to know it is already employing gay players, and that in this day and age the last thing they want is a federal lawsuit that they will look horrible while losing. This has to be someone being dumb and I hope the NFL cuts this off at the pass.
RIP Fitz. :(
Wife and I are going through all the seasons of that show, right now; nearly done. So excellent, and it's fun to see things that Sorkin railed on in TWW coming back up in The Newsroom.
Pick a doctor and accountant because they were Jewish?
I did. Is that bad?
He was actually my second doctor after I moved out here. My first doctor spoke very poor English, which wouldn't bother me if he was a specialist and I'm sure didn't affect his ability to practice medicine, but it made it hard for me to communicate with him and I like to be able to talk to my doctor, in person as well as over the phone, when I have any issues.
So I chose a doctor with a Jewish last name. My pediatrician growing up was Jewish, so maybe that had some impact, I'm not sure.
I did. It's my PCP, so it's not like I have a lot to go on. If I was picking a heart surgeon I would do a little more research, but for my primary doc I just want someone with a medical degree who I feel comfortable talking to.
EDIT: The funny thing is, I don't see that guy anymore because I moved. My current PCP is Asian, and I picked him because he's my neighbor's doctor and he likes him. I think this got blown out a little bit, it was meant to be an example. I'm sure I'm not the first person to choose a _____ because he was Jewish.
I'm being a little silly, but I don't see THAT big a difference between saying "I picked my accountant because he's Jewish" and saying "I didn't want him as a lawyer because he's black" (because, you know, most black guys are like rappers or hoods and stuff). I mean, it's not quite as bad to stereotype on positives, but it has a lot of the same problems.
Just to be fair, my accountant is Jewish, and he's tremendous. I didn't pick him out for that reason, but hey, mazel tov!
Oh, don't worry. It's good racism.
Sounds like, from this and your other comments, that you chose him because he wasn't Asian...
Your argument seems to be that the NfL should not be subject to the same laws as other companies because the NfL has more money on the line... That is a very slippery slope.
Yes, I agree it is, and I'm not saying I know where the line should be drawn. But I think an hourly worker making little money should have fewer rights on this stuff than a pro athlete. I will certainly concede that this may be the minority opinion.
I also don't think an hourly worker should lose their job if they get an injury that keeps them from doing their job for some period of time, but obviously that happens in pro sports and I'm OK with that too.
If there were exceptions, I'd make them the other way. Sure, there are millions of dollars on the line, but I won't feel sorry for Jerry Jones if he loses millions of dollars because the next superstar turned out to be a bust. If someone has enough money to afford an NFL team, they have enough money to lose millions of dollars.
If anyone was going to have an exception, it should be a little mom-and-pop business that could actually go out of business if they put an investment into training a new employee and have that person disappear.
Fortunately, there's an easy compromise: let's just not let anyone discriminate.
You think NFL teams should be allowed to ask more questions, but that wage slaves should have fewer rights than pro athletes. What exactly do you think hiring managers at retail stores should be allowed to ask?!
I must have typed something wrong because people keep saying that.
I think normal workers should not be allowed to be asked these questions. More rights for them.
I think athletes should have fewer rights, they get the questions.
Sorry if I wasn't clear before.
But putting a sliding scale on the right to not be discriminated against is a terrible idea. They're called "rights" for a reason. I got a raise last year,, so do I deserve a little less privacy?
Come clean BiSB. Is your dog gay?
Sir, I commend you for voicing your opinion and we should all welcome dissenting opinions that are expressed in an intelligent way, such as yours.
However, I totally disagree with you in the notion that pro athletes (and movie stars, etc) are more "important" due to strictly monitary reasons.
Their off field behavior is taken into account since when? How many ex-cons and murder suspects play in the NFL now? Te'o might have gained a following, but it's just not the same when someone is outted or caught by deadspin in a stupefying series of lies. I only hope that when it does happen, it's cause the athlete decides to be a role model for gay youth or something.
The cynical side suspects that GMs are asking so they can kick off the team anyone who comes out after the draft because "he lied." This is the problem with asking a question like that, aside from it's unspeakably rude, none of their business, and totally irrelevant to playing football.
I'm not sure the law of large numbers applies here. The law of large numbers needs the players to be chosen randomly. The players are not really random. They are genetically bigger, faster, stronger, competitive, and probably testosterone driven than most of the rest of us. If sexual orientation is based on genetics as many argue, we are looking at a portion of the population that shares quite a few genetic traits and probably doesn't represent the full spectrum of genetic possibilities.
Likely there have more than a few though.
In order to argue that the atheletes in question weren't chosen essentially at random, you'd have to show a correlation between high physical performance and homosexuality (either negative or positive). Unless you have access to research that I'm not aware of, no such correlation has ever even been suggested, so in this instance it's probably safe to assume that the incidence of homosexuality among atheletes is similar to that in the population at large.
It's hard to believe people actually upvote crap like this (Wolvin Comment).
Hey, you're free to you opinion as I am to mine. I shouldn't be hard to believe that there are people who stand on both sides of a devisive issue. If everyone thought the same way, it wouldn't really be an issue, would it?
Your argument is essentially that NFL coaches should be allowed to screen players for homosexuality in order to protect the homophobia that exists within the locker room. It's absolutely no different than excluding a black player because people in the locker room might not like that race. Sure, you're entitled to the opinion, but it's stupid, offensive, and in violation of the CBA.
You're right, but he has a different opinion. So shoot him, geez.
I don't think he's coming from a mean-spirited place. This thread is better because he's voiced his opinion in a thought-out way.
Maybe not, but either way, he's clearly condoning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Let the record show that I'm not anti-gay, at all. I'm not saying that I don't think gays should be allowed in the NFL or that I think an NFL owner should base his decision on sexual orientation. What I am saying, is that if an owner feels that, with his particular team, he'd like to know before he drafts a player whether or not he's gay, then he should be able to ask the question.
Is that discrimination? You bet. As bad as it sounds, I'm in favor of discrimination in many areas. As I said above, I'd prefer that Michigan hire a young, black man to replace Jerry Montgomery. In fact, those characteristics ( I feel) are more important to our staff than what position the guy coaches. That is absolutely discrimination. There are jobs I think a woman does a better job than a man, and vice versa. My wife had a male OB, and she was comfortable with that, but many women aren't and I can understand that.
The reality is people are different, and those differences can make us more or less appealing for certain jobs (or can have almost no effect, depending on the job).
But the only reason these kinds of differences are "less appealing" in the first place is because of the prejudice that exists in society. Your conclusion is inevitable because you've already accepted the premise of discrimination. You may not be anti-gay, but you're ok with an employer giving a gay less money or not hiring him at all because he's gay. Not cool man.
But prejudice exists in society, like it or not. I work in sales, and I would be received differently with a mohawk, tattoos and piercings. Is that right? I'd still be just as knowledgeable and just as hard-working. It's also common for pharmaceutical reps to be good looking, young women, because most doctors are older men who will listen to a pitch from a cute girl before they would from someone like me.
My wife is a woman who speaks Spanish. Some of her firms' clients are women (who prefer working with a woman attorney) and some are Spanish speakers (and some are both, obviously). She is more of an asset to her firm because of her gender and her race, and although I believe she would have the job based on merit alone, I'm sure those two factors helped. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. A white male with her same qualifications wouldn't have gotten the job since the firm already has a lot of those.
This is not necessarily right, but it's the way the world works.
I'm arguing about its acceptability, not its existence.
And that's a fair argument, just one I don't agree with.
Many people on here would agree not to hire a person with neck tattoo and holes in their ears for a job that works with clients. That's discrimination. Or not to hire a woman football coach. Alabama is probably not going to hire a Muslim as their recruiting coordinator. Everyone draws their line in a different spot, and that's OK.
That said, I'm gonna be done here, since I've gotten into neg-on-sight territory, and though I care little able the negs themselves, it tells me my viewpoint is no longer welcome so I'll leave this one alone from here.
... You've said plenty I disagree with, but made no personal attacks or nonsensical arguments, so no negs from me.
You made an argument in a way that shows you've thought things through, participated in the discussion and didn't disrespect the other side. We could use more of that even if the argument/opinion is unpopular.
I appreciate that.
To the job. If she was hired in part because she speaks spanish because part of her job function is to speak Spanish that is a personally reasonable requirement. Since being straight is not in fact a prerequisite for being a football player, I don't see how your comparison is remotely relevant.
It's not the language part, it's the ethnicity part. A white person who can speak perfect Spanish still isn't going to make a Latin client comfortable. It's because she's Latin, which happens to include speaking Spanish well.
" A white person who can speak perfect Spanish still isn't going to make a Latin client comfortable."
Um, what? Granted, it's been a while since I spoke Spanish on the regular, but I was semi-fluent back when I was working in retail, and I had a number of devoted clients who spoke exclusively spanish. They kept coming back to me because I was able to communicate with them on their terms, and provide them a level of service that they couldn't get anywhere else in town.
Now, granted, I could've totally misunderstood them, and they were simply less uncomfortable with me than they were with everyone else, but by the third or fourth time they came back and waited an hour or more to work directly with me (and to be clear, it wasn't just spanish speaking clients who did this), it seemed like they were pretty comfortable.
Your argument seems to assume an awful lot about Latinos that likely isn't true.
This has become an entirely different argument, but I'm not assuming anything. That post was written by my first-generation Guatemalan wife, and I think she's pretty dialed in to how Latin people think and feel.
I'm sure your Latin clients loved you, but that's a little anecdotal, right? They may have preferred you because you were the best option available, or because of your positive qualities in addition to speaking semi-fluent Spanish. But all things held equal, most Latin people, especially in important matters, would like to work with another Latin person when available, all other things held equal.
One Guatemalan woman, any less anecdotal than his experiences?
And I don't think you can say definitively that most Latin people would like to work with another Latin person (ATBE). I think there might be a case for recent immigrants of any group being more comfortable with their own because they haven't had a chance to fully assimulate, but that's a far cry from MOST.
Hers is less anecdotal because she grew up in the community and has interacted closely with them for her entire life. It's like the difference between my knowledge of Michigan versus someone who has visited there once. Both of us are just one person, but one of us lived there for 20+ years, so their experiences will be much more broad, and their knowledge far greater. I cannot speak for everyone in Michigan on any topic, but having lived there for most of my life I can speak well on the general sentiment of a lot of things.
Are you really arguing that a guy who took Spanish in college and helped some hispanic clients has as good of a knowledge on the habits and desires of Latin people as a whole as a person who grew up in an immigrant family is a hispanic neighborhood? Obviously not everyone in the community is the same, but there are some common thoughts and beliefs that I think she has a pretty good handle on.
Now I think people are disagreeing with me just for the sake of disagreement.
There's a big difference between judging a salesperson on their mohawk/tattoos/piercings and juding them on their race or sexual orientation. Someone with body modifications CHOSE to get those, so their decision to do so reflects upon their character and decision-making skills, which are relevant to a business relationship. Someone who is gay/black/Jewish/whatever didn't choose to have that characteristic, and having that characteristic has no bearing on their business abilities or competence.
Speaking Spanish is a skill, and one that obviously has some bearing on a person's value to certain businesses. Being straight is not a skill, and would matter in a NFL locker room only if other employees of that team perceive gay people as something that they aren't.
I certainly can see an argument that the freedom to discriminate should be something that is allowable. Just as there should be every freedom to condemn such behavior. But that's a little different than saying in real world practices a team should be able to do it with the current structures and laws.
NO, there's no way he's condoning this. Don't misconstrue his words just becuase you don't agree with his opinion.
When you make a lot of money?
It's not so much that you lose your rights when you make a lot of money, his argument is more that if you have lots of money you're investing you get more rights (or get to do things that are illegal for everyone else). Have a lot of money? Sure, do whatever the hell you want, after all, you're rich as hell!
He kind of said the reverse: "But I think an hourly worker making little money should have fewer rights on this stuff than a pro athlete." Not sure what's going on here.
Let's see if I got this:
Hourly wages: less rights
Rich guy investing (movie producer/football team owner): more rights
NFL draftee: less rights
BUT...if you become a star and are homophobic we'll cater to your homophobic wishes and not draft gay player. If you're not a star then who cares about you.
Also, it's important to sterotype based on religion/ethnicity when picking doctors and accountants.
Did I get it all?
I think that about covers it.
Here are my corrections. Hourly wage earner (and I just mean normal income earner) - more rights. If I said it the other way, I misspoke (or mistyped).
As far as catering to a star, I don't think that's right, I just think that's the way it is. Stars get catered to. Owners make decisions based on those stars, sometimes when it's not the right thing to do. This happens, and if the owners want it that way, I think they should be allowed to do it.
And I never said it's important to stereotype. I never said all Jewish doctors or acocuntants are better at their jobs. There are no laws on how I can choose my physician. I can pick a hot blonde if I want to. I chose to pick a Jew because it makes me feel more comfortable and that's what I'm used to and there's nothing wrong with that.
Here's what I'm going off of:
1) "But I think an hourly worker making little money should have fewer rights on this stuff than a pro athlete." This may be a mistype on your part or misunderstanding on my part. The way I took it was hourly workers should have fewer rights than pro athletes, exactly as it's typed.
2) Catering to stars is fine, as long as it's not done at the expense of someone else based on race/ethnicity/sexual orientation etc.
3) "I purposely picked a Jewish primary care physician and accountant. They're typically good at those professions." If that's not stereotyping based on religion/ethnicity I'm not really sure what is...picking based on what you feel comfortable with I have no problem with. Picking because they're "typically good at those professions" is not something I can agree with and I assume (at least hope) you understand why.
Yeah, I typed that first part backwards, and someone replied so I can't change it. Now I understand why people got upset. That was meant to say that an hourly worker should have more rights on this stuff than a pro athlete.
That's because typical workers are much more replaceable than an athlete. If one team passes on an athlete, other teams will take him. If a regular person gets passed over for a job because of a question like this, they might not be able to find another one.
The NFL is only 25 years behind the times regarding the acceptability of these types of questions during a job interview.
Like Marcus Ray said on WTKA the other day, "There will be a blind, one-handed monkey playing QB for msu and will QB them to a national championship before gays are accepted in the NFL".
Multiple members of the Ravens, for example, have said that there would be no problem with a gay player on their team.
If a homophobic player was asked that in an interview you'd better believe they'd say that they would have no problem with it. It wouldn't be worth the risk of bad publicity to say what they actually believe. They've gotta think of the fans and endorsement deals.
Chris Culliver of the 49ers said he wouldn't want a gay teammate.
People getting jumped on for being anti-gay is the reason many of those who are don't speak about it publicly. They are entitled to their belief, but people just blow up and freak out if they don't agree with it.
I don't doubt that a great many NFL players would either prefer not to have a gay teammate or would be downright hostile to the idea. I think the tide is turning, though, because we're starting to see players preemptively say that they'd be okay with it - and I bet there are a number of players who don't say that they'd be okay with it because they, too, fear a backlash of some sort or because they just aren't the speaking-out type.
People may have a right to have bigoted viewpoints, but they don't have a right to have those opinions respected. We don't have to respect everyone's ideas, we just have to acknowledge them, at which point we have the moral obligation to call out bigots for being small-minded ass holes.
I agree with you 100% that bigots are small minded assholes. That said, what if your star player who makes 15 mil a year is a small minded homophobe (but one that everyone likes because, let's face it, that probably isn't a big issue on most teams) and the player in question is a 3rd or 4th rounder.
What is stronger - the owner's moral obligation to call out his bigot, or his obligation to run his team? Ideally, most would probably say the former, but in reality I highly doubt that's more important than the latter. As much as I would love for every business move to also be the "right" move, it's not.
I don't care how strong the owner's desire is. He still cannot ask because it is ILLEGAL!!!
Well, it was my understanding that it is not illegal, but the discussion was about whether or not it should be illegal, not whether or not it is.
Asking "are you married? (which Denard says they did)" is illegal. Asking "are you gay?" is a bit more gray, but no Fortune 100 company would risk asking it.
OK, I was referring to the question in the title about "are you straight." So yes, asking if someone is married it illegal.
However, my stance doesn't change on that. I think that should be a fair question. So is asking about kids. I changed a lot as an employee when I got married and had kids, in positive and negative ways, and I think it's fair for an employer to know that stuff. It has as much to do with me as an employee as some of the things on my resume.
So my stance on this has little to do with sexuality specifically, but more about how morality and business co-exist, and I'm OK with there being less of it. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but from a business perspective, I want to do what generates the most money, and that's by hiring the best people and you do that by knowing as much about them as possible.
Should businesses be subject to regulations that require them to adhere to moral codes rather than pursue maximum profits. Currently, they do.
I think the question is more how far those regulations should go, not just should there or should there be any at all. I agree with some of said regulations, and disagree with others. The question is where the line should be drawn.
And while some immoral business behavior might be in the interest of maximizing profit, some of it probably has more to do with the people running the business not having very good morales
Then I guess those who have these bigoted viewpoints don't have to respect the opinions of those not respecting theirs?
It's been highly documented Fielding Yost was what people deem racist and a bigot noawdays. Does that make him a bad person and an asshole? No, I don't think so. He was raised that way.
He didn't like Catholics, and I'm Catholic. Can't hold it against him because he was raised that way. Just like some people were raised to reject gays. Doesn't make them bad people or assholes.
People aren't good or bad. The part of Yost that was racist was bad. When he acted to prevent Michigan from recruiting black players, or when he scheduled teams against whom we'd have to sit that player, he was being a bad person. And an asshole to use your language.
Does that mean everything about him was a bad person or an asshole? No, but in fairness, it means a lot.
Yost was a great coach, and I'm glad he won many national titles for Michigan, but I absolutely hold it against the man that he was racist. Of course I disrespect him for being anti-Catholic. I don't care who his dad was or how he was raised: he judged another person for the stupidest and most biggoted of reasons, and I hold that against him.
It seems bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.
People just need to let things go. If anyone should think he was bad for that, it should be me, a Catholic. I mean, unless he killed someone in the name of his views, then that's a different story.
But it was a different time back then and I understand that.
Dude, don't you even start. Remember when you posted these tweets???
Yep. I do. I'll own up to it. And I've learned since then not to post things like that on the internet. The hard way.
Nearly lost my job over that stunt.
You learned the wrong lesson.
Exactly. This is the epitome of the "I'm sorry I got caught, I'm not sorry for what I did" thought process.
If you don't like what I tweet, don't follow me. Simple as that.
Don't get mad when people call you out on it.
Do what you need to do. Proofs right there I said it. Fret over something someone you don't know said over the internet.
Whose getting mad? I'm flattered I matter enough for someone to screenshot tweets from November which were taken down shortly after and pulled it out several months later. On a site that is unrelated to twitter, and before I linked my twitter account in my sig..
The best part is, the guy (bdsisme) probably checks my twitter every day. I have a fan club.
I'd be against people saying and retweeting slurs wishing death on other.
And I'd hope people feel sorry for it rather than sorry they got in trouble for saying it. Maybe if you had lost your job you'd have gotten the point, but I doubt it. I don't wish you had, but even if I did, at least I don't want you dead for what you think. Disagreement is fine; hate never is.
Unless it's a Buckeye.
WD-there's some irony in using Harry Newman, a player who faced all sorts of hell in his playing days for being a minority, as your avatar.
Newman was dogged his entire pro career by people saying he was greedy to have such a high salary, or to have a liquor business in Detroit while playing for the Giants. There was a priest on the radio (that era's version of Valenti if Valenti was literally a Nazi sympathiser) who was always accusing Newman (as well as Benny Friedman and Hank Greenberg) of destroying morale in his locker room and forcing his religion down everyone's throats.
Lycanthropes, that is. "Dogged" indeed.
...could u explain history of that for those that may not know? Thx!
No context needed. See the hate?
For saying that having an openly gay teamate would be difficult and uncomfortable for him. Didn't say anything other than that.
Pretty sure any player either will lie or avoid mentioning the issue. It shouldn't matter
20 years ago, the idea that gay marriage would be legal in some places was considered impossible, even within the gay community. Even sociologists are incredibly bad at predicting future trends; I wouldn't put much stock in Ray's prediction.
LZ Granderson wrote once (c. 2004 or some such) that he personally knows of several gay athletes then on pro rosters, but that none of them wished to be remembered as the queer Jackie Robinson--that they much preferred to have their achievements recognized on their own merit.
As much as everyone is thankful to Robinson today, it sucked to be Jackie. Sports aren't just a random sampling of Americans--there's a lot of bigotry mixed in with religion and a locker room atmosphere that's more misogynistic than an SEC fraternity. The first guy to be out is going to have a hellish time.
It shouldn't matter, but it probably does anyway: it needs to be a player on the upper echelon of the sport, who will play or has played a long time. So many NFL players are in and out of the NFL so quickly, and generate such strong negative passions, that, say, a USC quarterback coming out would just attach that to the rest of the baggage such players carry. If he can't stand as flag-bearer on his athletic abilities, my fear is he'll only end up a polarizing figure for those of us who've made up our minds already.
My guess is that acceptance will start with FORMER players coming out. The "gays can't play" argument would be blunted if a few accomplished former players said, "yeah, won rushing titles/Super Bowls/MVPs, and I was SOOOO gay the whole time." Jackie didn't have that option, because he couldn't very hide his race.
If I were a gay pro athlete, I think I would come out.
Sure, I understand that pro sports carry a culture of masculinity, and that many pro athletes are homophobes. But would it really be that much worse to hear your teammates talk about how gay people "gotta get up out of here" (Chris Culliver's comment) and sit and suffer silently than to let them know that you are gay and show them how you're really no different? There would certainly be tough parts, but there are tough parts to being a gay athlete anyway. For instance, read some of the stuff John Amaechi has written about being a closeted gay NBA player.
On the other side, I think it would be an amazing opportunity, in two ways. First of all, you could make amazing progress for gay rights and social justice. People like Culliver, both inside the locker rooms and in the stands, would see that the reality of having a gay person around doesn't match up with their fears. And second of all, you would get incredible endorsement deals. Besides the obvious gay-friendly products, I would bet dollars to donuts that Nike, Pepsi, and a bunch of other companies would be clambering over each other to sign you as an example of a groundbreaker, leader, individual, or whatever their current campaign is. Even a mediocre player would make millions.
I realize this is an incredibly personal decision, and these factors would apply differently to every individual. But that's just what I think.
Orienatation aren't illegal under federal law, right? However, some states have passed laws against such questions, correct?
You're right but when the organization itself has decided something is illegit then it is okay.
It's exactly like a lot of steroids and PEDs which aren't illegal by state/federal law based on their legit uses but many of the pro sports leagues ban them for obvious reasons.
The EEOC did rule last year that discrimination by employers or potential employers based on gender identity is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here is the Commission's ruling - (LINK). Based on some further research, this is not a binding decision on courts.
This is what we were talking about last time. The conclusion I came to, anyway, is that federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation (though the EEOC tries to argue that it does). Many states and/or cities have laws that do, though.
It isn't against federal law to ask about sexual orientation like it is with ethnicity, pregnancy status, etc. Some states do make it illegal, though Michigan is not one of them. Actually, the "work-around" question they asked about marital status WAS probably a violation of federal law.
I thought that, per federal law, marital status was only off-limits when it came to federal employees (per the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978). I didn't think it applied to everyone (though many states have such a protection), but I'm no employment lawyer.
I think you're right. Worst. Lawyer. Ever.
Stuff like this is why I initially answer almost every question Brady Hoke style. "Well...I'll have to get back to you on that, but there are some issues there."
As the NFL is a federally subsidized organization, thus the recipient of federal big money hustla gravy, might they or the teams be held to that standard?
I ask because in my experience hiring in healthcare, due to our receiving money from CMS we had to avoid asking about marital status, and were subject to other federal regulations. Perhaps just an overly cautious HR department.
coming from someone that works in HR I can say that its not an overly cautious HR department, it's that it's illegal.
Plus, case law largely supports the employer in regards to sexual orientation. State law varies.
In this case, I don't know how any player could prove discrimination simply because they are drafted at a given spot and think they should go higher. How do you show a team should have drafted him at #136 instead of another team at #147?
If the question itself doesn't violate employment law, then the outcome seems inconclusive.
Were they asked whether they were planning on getting pregnant any time soon?
Is it OK to ask how many baby mamas a playa has?
How would you feel if you were playing center and you knew your QB was gay and hits on you?
If he was gay: Okay, dude.
If he hit on me: Ummm, not gay dude. Here, starting quarterback of a major university, let me introduce you to, oh, THE ENTIRE GAY POPULATION OF OUR SCHOOL WHO WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU.
If he sexually harassed me while under center: Oh shit did I forget to block that 320 pound defensive tackle who just landed on you? I did, didn't I. Gee, sorry about that.
What are the odds that the starting QB is going to be interested in your 300 pound sweaty offensive lineman ass? Odds are pretty good that he can do better, no matter how funny you are.
Any time I've been asked "aren't you worried they're going to be checking you out?" my answer is always, "no, I don't think I'm THAT cute." I mean, I don't assume every woman I meet is just looking for the chance to see me naked, so why would the guys be that different? I mean, even guys have some standards.*
*alcohol quantity pending
If that issue were to somehow arise, there's an easy solution. Just swing by the Taco Bell drive thru on the way to the game. Even the sexiest person in the world loses appeal if they have gordita farts.
Scott Mitchell sexually harassed Lomas Brown?
they were asked, essentially, whether they were gay or straight during the combine
I've heard several players said that they were gay during the combine, but when the combine ended, they were straight
What horribly inappropriate questions. If I'm running a football team, it wouldn't matter to me if they were gay (or anything else) or not. If you can play football and you are about the team, why should it matter?
(Yes, I did read WolvinLA2's reasoning above.)
Why dumbass? Do you think he would want you? Don't flatter yourself.
to this BS line of questioning was something like the 2:07 mark in this clip:
...during the interview process (and have) to see if candidates can think on their feet...if u like girls is not one of them. It is illegal in the real world to ask that type of question and should be illegal for the NFL...and I imagine that after all of this publicity...there will be some changes to the permissible questions teams can ask of potential draft picks when all is said and done.
And yes...feel free to down vote me b/c I am an attorney...should have gone to Ross instead!
Sexuality is not a protected class...yet. So they can ask or discriminate if they want to deal with the ramifications.
...they can "deal with the ramifications"....which is a lawsuit because as an employer in the real world (not NFL) it is illegal to ask a candidate their sexual preference. I did not raise a constitutional law issue about protected classes, this is an employment law issue. Clearly you are not an employer, or if you are, you just haven't been sued yet.
Sexual orientation is a protected class in your state, California. However, it is not a protected class federally and in many other states and local jurisdictions. So, he may actually be an employer, but in one of those unprotected states. I understand the passion... but, man, get your facts straight before laying down the wood on someone like that!
...basis of sexual orientation in DC and California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Other states also have laws against sexual discrimination in the work place. When you get sued by an individual job candidate you are usually getting sued in State Court unless there are other jurisdictional issues at hand. As an employment attorney in California and now general counsel for a corporation...I wouldn't advise anyone in today's political climate,, unless they like being sued, to ask someone if they are gay when interviewing. And how do u think those laws, especially employment laws, got passed in those states above? ...someone in a state that didn't have a law on sexual orientation discrimination asked a stupid question during an interview and got sued. Thanks, but my facts are straight...which is why I am a successful attorney.
Sexual orientation is not a "protected class" for employment discrimination at the Federal level. It's up to the individual states to add it if they choose to. Many have, so teams in those states are in violation. Teams in the states where it has not been added as a protected class (Michigan is one) are not in violation of Federal or State law asking these questions. It might not be ethically correct, but it's not illegal if their state law hasn't included sexual orientation as a protected class.
All of these posts, and nobody has raised the perfectly legitimate concern that maybe straight men want to have sexual privacy, just like women do, which is why we have opposite sex bathrooms and opposite sex locker rooms. I wonder if everyone here screaming "homophobia! Grrr!" would be perfectly allright getting naked in a locker room with an openly gay man every day. At the very least, it would probably make you feel uncomfortable. And you might be a little resentful of some sanctimonious asshole who forces you to do this because it is politically correct and then labels you a "homophobe" if you object . Maybe it's something you could get used to. Maybe not. But you're not some kind of bigoted homophobe for feeling this way. It's natural, and it's universally accepted with women in their attitudes towards heterosexual men. Which is why, as I said, we have separate facilities for men and women.
Every argument that can be made for integrating locker rooms for sexual orientation can be made for integrating locker rooms for gender. A heterosexual man is just as likely to ogle an attractive woman as a homosexual man is to ogle an attractive man. And by all accounts, professional athletes are some of the most sexually desireable people in the world. A gay man is no more or less able to control who he is attracted to than a straight man. A gay man is no more or less likely to be able to restrain his sexual impulses and act in a professional manner than a straight man.
If I wanted a job that would require me to get naked on a daily basis with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, you wouldn't label somebody who obejcted to this as a "heterophobe" or a bigot, because it would be fucking stupid. You would side with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, because it isn't taboo for women to want sexual privacy from men, no matter what the reason. But it is taboo for men to want sexual privacy from gay men, and I guarantee that I'm not the only person thinking of this right now, but nobody wants to say it, because it's taboo. It's one of things that you can't say anymore.
I'm agnostic when it comes to the concept of integrating institutions like the military and professional sports. I don't love it, but I'm open to it. The sexual privacy issue is one that can be managed, but to manage it, you first have to address it. And to address it, you have to stop being a fucking slave to political correctness and pretend that it is not a legitimate issue.
...gay marriage? I kid...it is hard to discount the way some people feel...particularly NFL players on a close team. However, when I lived in the dorms at Michigan there were gay students that shared the same bathroom, as well as girls, nobody seemed to care. If u belong to a gym and use the locker room, believe me you are sharing the gym with some gay men. Who cares?
Ever been in a Big Ten football locker room? Gay/straight/bi doesn't enter in to it. "Some dudes be CRAZY!" Stuff happens every day that would make most men uncomfortable. I have heard stories of, "naked football" games breaking out in the showers with balls of tape. Hell, "Freshmen Cock Day" was one of our hazing rituals and those aren't even as bad as some of things I've seen or had happen to me. It's always the straight guys who are the perpetrators. I would bet most gay players would do their best to hide from those antics. Any hockey players or big time football players on this board have seen this kind of stuff. Most of the time it's pure bullying/hazing but it looks awfully gay.
...try pledging a fraternity. Ever heard of the elephant walk?
I liked your post as well. And yes, a Yale baseball player told me about his elephant walk.
I used to know some Ukranian hockey players who were hazed by their teammates in the, I believe, OHL? The deal was, they had to strip nude, go to the front of the team bus and tell a joke. All the rookies who didn't get enough laughs had to go in the bus bathroom together, still nude, and put a scattered deck of playing cards in order within a time limit. I kid you not, straight kids thought of and executed this. I wish I was out of sports team hazing stories at this point but Im not. Just by virtue of playing school and summer sports I have seen a lot of stupid shit.
Who would even want to be associated with people like that?
Would make more sense if we already pretty much know that there are gay players currently in the league.
But your whole point is political correctness--you're basically asking everybody to take dramatic action (e.g. have a separate locker room for the gay guys or ban them from the sport entirely) to protect the justifiable sensitivities of a few.
The most non-P.C. answer to all of this is to tell the straight man who is okay being naked in front of other straight men but not gay men to grow a fucking pair. I managed to make it okay through middle school and high school playing sports every semester without showing my junk to everyone. Put up a screen over a couple stalls in the shower room, face your locker, and be quick about it if it bothers you.
There's no solution that makes everybody happy. The best answer if someone has to make a sacrifice is to screw whoever it's least onerus for. The right to sexual privacy for straight men isn't nothing, but we can all certainly agree it ought to be valued less than anybody's right to be a full participant on an athletic team. The only way you couldn't be able to make that value judgment quickly is if you're of a mind to say "screw the homos" every time, so yeah if someone's out there saying "the gays need to be put in a separate locker room to protect a straight guy's right to shower with just other straight guys" then I think that's strong evidence of either bigotry, homophobia, or rampant selfishness.
Thank you for sharing. I think you raise fair questions but I believe the NFL is past it. I believe that the NFL is already in a don't ask don't tell environment for the most part. Clearly not everyone is onboard as some organization was asking at the combine but I bet MOST organizations see it this way: if we ask, the gay kid will lie. We will never get the truth from just asking, neither will teammates. We would rather draft the best player and hope nobody, especially us, ever knows he's actually gay. Not knowing means it never became an issue. The case study for this in pro sports is the Phillies. The Phillies had an every day starter who was gay. Teammates, "knew" but he never brought any evidence in front of the team and teammates never wanted to have that awkward conversation for fear of "rocking" the metaphorical boat of the pennant race and possibly their own careers. Think about it, if starter, All-Star is gay, and worth millions to the franchise, then you are an idiot if you threaten that. You would have to be really valuable to the organization to raise a fuss and not get yourself traded or cut. So everyone pretended. That player is now retired and I really don't think the media ever knew. To think this hasn't happened (isnt happening) in the NFL is naive. It's not just gay either. Rex Ryan's foot fetish certainly makes conservative Christians very uncomfortable. But he survived being outed and anyone on his team who publicly spoke out against him didn't. I would bet a lot of money that more than a few somebodies in NFL have sexual submissive fetishes that other NFL players would find deeply offensive to their Christian values. They all seem to get along well enough though that we never hear about, except for Rex Ryan.
Yeah, I think the don't ask, don't tell policy works best. If the issue never comes up, it never becomes an issue. And you're right - most of this argument is moot because most kids will lie (unless they're openly gay, which would be such a big deal that the team wouldn't need to ask).
10. Have you ever tried to Wonderlic a metal post when the temperature outside was under 10 degrees Fahrenheit?
9. Would you like to see a tweet that’s longer than 140?
8. Has Bill Belichick ever secretly taped you?
7. Have you been fully inoculated for measles, mumps and kabeer gbajabiamila?
6. Would you have any problem wearing USC Trojans elastic bands?
5. Do you like movies about gladiators?
4. Would you enjoy being sequestered with your school’s cheerleaders?
3. Have you ever been treated for a serious case of houshmandzadeh?
2. Has your sleep ever been interrupted by WikiLeaks?
1. Does this thong make me look fat?
On #3: No, but I've been exposed to laurinitis.
They are not advised/ allowed to ask if potential employees are gay, or not. They are allowwed to ask if they have girlfriends, are married, or like girls. The onus is on the candidate to sue if they find those questions descimainatory.
I'm all for equal opportunity and employment. I'm agaist sexual descrimination and sexual orientation descrimination. But, just for a second, consider the difference in marketabbility, and profitability, between a gay and hetero NFL employee.
If their net value to a corporation is more, or less, should they not be compensated same?
Just as an example: An openly gay superstar could become an icon in San Francisco. Such a person should not be hindered in doing so.
But, an openly gay player in a less tolerant market may be of less value to the parent corporation.
Equal is equal. You cannot have it both ways. The EEOC and it's rules already amply protect those who could be descriminated aginst. And, I have no doubt, ample legal power will be brought to bare to continue to protect gays and transgenders who choose to maintain privacy with regard to their orientation.
Personally, I'm shocked a female kicker has not successfully sued for lack of equal opportunity and access. That's more likely a front burner issue, as many soccer players seek to prolong their career and generate revenue.
No politics means no politics.
This shouldn't even be a discussion if we're honest with ourselves. By letter of the law, this is not a job interview. Therefore, they can ask whatever the hell they want. Period.
If you consider this politics, then you must consider any remotely controversial issue politics. This is about a current event involving sports and a current Michigan student, and doesn't involve any politician or political party. It's really just about whether the questions the NFL is using to evaluate players are legal and/or ethical.
handled well. If things had gone all, "this is why I love/hate Obama" it would have gone away a while ago, but the discussion was very good for the most part. Also, like you say, it involved Denard's combine experience, so it was a little relevant.
Apparently they got away with asking Bryant that question a few years ago...I imagine the "investigation" into the sexuality questions will again be much ado about nothing.