Can someone tell me what one thing has to do with the other? I don't think Tyree will commenting on his personal views in a public forum under his new job. Not saying I agree with Tyree or even disagree, but this is a story made by ESPN commentary.
Can someone tell me what one thing has to do with the other? I don't think Tyree will commenting on his personal views in a public forum under his new job. Not saying I agree with Tyree or even disagree, but this is a story made by ESPN commentary.
What do his comments in a public forum have to do with anything? What if we signed Michael Sam, as we were rumored to be interested in doing if he slipped out of the 7th round? Would Tyree try to convert him?
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
No. It is wrong to prohibit people from working a job. It is not wrong from prohibiting people from working particular jobs.
on the subject, whether he's on the wrong side of the issue or not, but it would have been much better for him and the Giants had he just kept that personal belief, you know, personal.
But as soon as he expressed it publicly, he opened himself up to criticism for it, and given the position he's been hired for, I think it's reasonable to question whether or not that belief will interfere with his ability to perform that job.
Maybe I'm seeing this with blue shades on, but I have to think that the Giants addressed this during their vetting process and he gave them some indication that he wouldn't let his beliefs interfere with the job should such an occasion arise. Who knows, maybe he's had a change of heart. I certainly hope so, at least.
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
No. It is wrong to prohibit people from working a job. It is not wrong from prohibiting people from working particular jobs.
That's true, but the "there's no scientific evidence that you're born gay" is beyond moronic.
I'm decidedly not on Tyree's side on this whole issue, but he's actually probably got a point in the most literal sense -- there probably isn't one scientific study that empirically demonstrates a cause of gayness present at birth.
Sure, the lack of that study or piece of proof isn't license to believe "gay can be cured" or what have you, but still, he's probably technically right.t
The bottom line is that you can't have a job like this Â
If you're prejudiced against homosexuals. Not in 2014. Not in New York.
Would anyone who had publicly made similarly insensitive comments about race even be considered for this position? Not unless they profusely and sincerely apologized and probably not even then.
if it were his beliefs and he kept to himself, he'd be fine i think Â
it's that he used the biggest stage he could to speak against others, and the momentum of acceptance and legalization of gay marraige stands directly in opposition to what he said. the fact that it's a player development position, i cant speak with absolute certainty to what that entails but, i'd think it's ultimately about preparing each and every player in the organization for success. it's going to be tricky... although I do think Tyree is a good person to try and inspire confidence in young players who need to prove themselves in their craft on the biggest stages. but football isn't everything....
Tyree has explained his views by citing his religious beliefs, which is an excuse a lot of people use and is, in my opinion, a crummy reason for treating fellow human beings poorly. You believe what you want to believe, but once you start using it as a weapon with which to mistreat other people, you have lost me.
he's far beyond just "religious" and deep into brainwashed robot territory. For those who don't know, he literally said he would give up the Super Bowl ring to stop gay marriage.
Quote:
“The catch was a gift, it’s not like I’d try to do it. I couldn’t do it again so that was a miracle,” Tyree told Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News. “There’s nothing worth more than [maintaining heterosexual marriage] right here for me.”
So we he trade the catch for, um, a block? “Honestly, I probably would.”
Tyree then elaborated on his point. “Nothing means more to me than that my God would be honored,” Tyree said. “Being the fact that I firmly believe that God created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that that’s something that should be fought for at all costs.
“So I’ll lay down everything I am to preserve the honor and integrity of the God that I serve.”
Forget how crazy this makes him sound, shouldn't the Giants (and fans) be concerned that he doesn't necessarily prioritize winning? Bad hire.
Holding and stating a religious belief is "medieval"?
Muslims would not be able to hold Tyree's new job because under the Koran and Sharia, being gay is not only a sin but a crime and they should also be disqualified from holding a job like Tyree's because of their beliefs?. Giants and other sports teams not able to hire someone to hold supervisory or managerial jobs because of their beliefs?
Now, if Tyree's beliefs are translated into anti-gay actions, then I believe he and anyone like him should be fired. But to hold a religious belief and publicly say so disqualifies you from holding a job? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Discriminate against someone holding a job based on their beliefs?
Graziano is barely able to report on sports and yet he feels qualified to comment on someone else's beliefs and opine that someone should not hold a job based on their beliefs?
Holding and stating a religious belief is "medieval"?
Muslims would not be able to hold Tyree's new job because under the Koran and Sharia, being gay is not only a sin but a crime and they should also be disqualified from holding a job like Tyree's because of their beliefs?. Giants and other sports teams not able to hire someone to hold supervisory or managerial jobs because of their beliefs?
Now, if Tyree's beliefs are translated into anti-gay actions, then I believe he and anyone like him should be fired. But to hold a religious belief and publicly say so disqualifies you from holding a job? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Discriminate against someone holding a job based on their beliefs?
Graziano is barely able to report on sports and yet he feels qualified to comment on someone else's beliefs and opine that someone should not hold a job based on their beliefs?
Does someone who believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion be denied a job because it is a minority viewpoint? Does it mean they are disqualified from working for a WNBA team? Will it reach the point that affiliation with a particular political party is the basis for rejection from employment?
I think you have to look to how he does his job. If he discriminates, or tries to "cure" a gay player, it would be a firing offense. If he spends most of his free time at anti-gay marriage rallies it might affect his ability to do his job. But merely holding an unpopular belief should not be a disqualifying act.
Yeah, 'tone deaf' was how it struck me, as well. Â
This hire during this off-season? It almost feels like the Giants are trolling. Talk about a potential distraction that doesn't seem worth it. Not sure what makes Tyree so special (beyond his obvious moment, which really doesn't seem like a qualifier for this job).
but preventing people from taking jobs due to their views on this subject is simply not acceptable. You can make whatever jokes or arguments you want about applying the first amendment, but holding particular political views that are not aberrantly out of the mainstream shouldn't lead to professional damage. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union in its later days under Brezhnev typically suppressed dissident speech not by sending people to the Gulag but by banning them from working. So now we have a situation where public organizations like the Giants are being asked to enforce adherence to certain views, because of how it looks. That view sure looks a lot like the later Soviet approach.
I have an alternative approach: how about Tyree be instructed by the Giants on their workplace policy towards gay people and how about he adheres to it? And how about any gays who object to Tyree write him a personal letter explaining why he is wrong in hopes of changing his mind? Persuaion instead of coercion?
That I don't understand why they made. It's going to be worse too if they back peddle and take the job away from him, which I suspect might happen.
You can't have a job like this with those types of views. Why would a potential gay player on the Giants feel okay about telling the organization with someone like Tyree and his views as the go-between?
RE: Yeah, 'tone deaf' was how it struck me, as well. Â
I don't think it's so mysterious. Tyree is a guy who overcame drug problems to have a successful football career amidst the temptations of playing in NY.
Tyree has worked for the NFL for the past two years. Â
Obviously, his well-publicized personal beliefs didn't prevent the NFL from hiring him, nor did they have a negative impact on his job performance (which I'm pretty sure we would have heard about if they did). Clearly, the Giants felt comfortable hiring him to do a similar job with their team. Good for them, and good for him.
Wuphat: I've been criticized a lot on BBI so please don't worry about Â
“If they pass this gay marriage bill ... this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward — it’s a strong word — but anarchy. The moment we have, and if you trace back to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society itself loses its grip with what’s right. ... Marriage is the backbone of society, so if you redefine it, it changes the way we educate our children, it changes the perception of what is good, what is right, what is just,” Tyree said in a videotaped interview.
Or here….
Quote:
Tyree continues his crusade against same-sex marriage, telling the New York Daily News that he’d be inclined to trade one of the greatest plays in Super Bowl history to prevent men from legally marrying other men.
“The catch was a gift, it’s not like I’d try to do it. I couldn’t do it again so that was a miracle,” Tyree told Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News. “There’s nothing worth more than [maintaining heterosexual marriage] right here for me.”
And definitely here….
Quote:
‘I don’t want my kids to think homosexuals are normal.’”
he does not say he opposes civil unions that grant gay couples the same legal protections as marriage.He also does not say anything about mistreating gheys because they think they are fabulous.
More PC nonsense. Another thought crime for the perpetually offended.
I wasn't suggesting that you can't handle criticism. Â
I don't think it's so mysterious. Tyree is a guy who overcame drug problems to have a successful football career amidst the temptations of playing in NY.
If that's the criteria, LT would have been a better choice.
I think some of those comments are nuts and idiotic. Let's not dilute the issue by waving away how oddball they are. Should someone be professionally harmed for holding non-mainstream views on a subject?
I think some of those comments are nuts and idiotic. Let's not dilute the issue by waving away how oddball they are. Should someone be professionally harmed for holding non-mainstream views on a subject?
having the benefit of knowing Tyree as well as they do simply feel he has the ability of doing the job well and equally the ability of being tolerant of others regardless of his personal views. The reality is those that are criticizing the Giants don't really know Tyree at all and have no idea how well he may preform the job. The Giants ownership have a pretty good track record for making wise decisions and also being fair to their players. I am thinking they put a lot of thought into this prior to offering him the position.
As long as he doesn't use those opinions to treat any player or person in the org negatively and does a good job, I couldn't care less. The reality is we don't know how most folks feel beyond the facade anyway.
I think some of those comments are nuts and idiotic. Let's not dilute the issue by waving away how oddball they are. Should someone be professionally harmed for holding non-mainstream views on a subject?
Definitely not. Westboro Baptist Church should have snapped him up years ago.
It's a glorified sweetheart position for a former player that you want to stay involved in the organization.
I don't understand how the otherwise sensible Giants organization could hire a guy who makes comments that he doesn't want his kids thinking that homosexuals are normal and that he would trade the Giants winning the Super Bowl to stop gay marriage to become the director of player personnel in the summer that the first openly gay football player was drafted and is trying to make a team.
try not to be flip about this issue. You're equating an extremist annhilationist view with Tyree's more mainstream views. There's obviously a line beyond which publicly-espoused views will harm one's career. I'm saying that we'd better be pretty careful about moving that line closer to the mainstream because doing so is taking a big step towards making the US resemble the later Soviet system. I'm definitely not comfortable with that. Even though I don't agree with Tyree, I see nothing so far I've read in his comments (and I certainly haven't read them all) that should preclude him from holding a job.
Do we know for a fact that his predecessor, Charles Way, supported gay marriage? Should he have been asked before he got the job?
Some people hold sports to be more important than they really are. Tyree is an ex-player who is going to help other players assimilate into NFL life. That's it. No one is going to be denied an opportunity at anything over this. These are football players...not heads of state.
The guy did an IMMENSE service to the Giants and all of us, and should have a job with the team for as long as he wants it. He's earned it.
These aren't just Tyree's opinions. It's his lifestyle. Â
“So I’ll lay down everything I am to preserve the honor and integrity of the God that I serve.”
That's obviously okay for him. But giving how very strongly feels, maybe he's not the best choice for this particular job, in this particularly image conscious league, in this particularly high profile city.
try not to be flip about this issue. You're equating an extremist annhilationist view with Tyree's more mainstream views. There's obviously a line beyond which publicly-espoused views will harm one's career. I'm saying that we'd better be pretty careful about moving that line closer to the mainstream because doing so is taking a big step towards making the US resemble the later Soviet system. I'm definitely not comfortable with that. Even though I don't agree with Tyree, I see nothing so far I've read in his comments (and I certainly haven't read them all) that should preclude him from holding a job.
And time 1000, it's not about holding A job. It's about holding THIS job.
Do we know for a fact that his predecessor, Charles Way, supported gay marriage? Should he have been asked before he got the job?
Some people hold sports to be more important than they really are. Tyree is an ex-player who is going to help other players assimilate into NFL life. That's it. No one is going to be denied an opportunity at anything over this. These are football players...not heads of state.
The guy did an IMMENSE service to the Giants and all of us, and should have a job with the team for as long as he wants it. He's earned it.
And he'd trade all that service to us to rid the world of gay people marrying. He's an idiot.
why "this" job? It's some HR-type position within an entertainment corporation. Should people with unorthodox views be banned from working within HR organizations?
some of you folks are.
And soooo 'tolerant'(as long as another view aligns with yours).
2 more comments:
You presume he will discriminate(comic) in doing his job as Director of Player Development, whatever those tasks
be, while doing so would be worthy of termination;and
You presume a BLACK man will discriminate-RACISTS!-(genius).
I guess some of you never did your job in spite of having a difference of opinion about the work being done, the suervisor, the company philosophy, a co-workers life style. Or even disagreeing with Antonio Cromarties 'life-style'.
some of you folks are.
And soooo 'tolerant'(as long as another view aligns with yours).
2 more comments:
You presume he will discriminate(comic) in doing his job as Director of Player Development, whatever those tasks
be, while doing so would be worthy of termination;and
You presume a BLACK man will discriminate-RACISTS!-(genius).
I guess some of you never did your job in spite of having a difference of opinion about the work being done, the suervisor, the company philosophy, a co-workers life style. Or even disagreeing with Antonio Cromarties 'life-style'.
In my 55 years as Giants fan, this is the most inappropriate hiring I can recall. How can the giants, after all of his career, not know that he was homophobic.
One of my sons is gay, it started to show when was 2 years old. He acted much differently than his older brothers.
He wasn't "recruited"
Tyree just doesn't get it. It's determined at birth.
He should just turn down the offer, to save my Jints embarrassment.
why "this" job? It's some HR-type position within an entertainment corporation. Should people with unorthodox views be banned from working within HR organizations?
The NFL is a particularly image conscious brand at a particularly sensitive juncture in regards to this specific issue.
So hiring somebody with such an aggressive stance against the type of player/person that would be in most need of his mentorship, seems like a dumb move to me.
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
^This. If he doesn't inject his personal beliefs into his work, then I can't see this being a bad move.
If he goes full Mark Jackson, on the other hand...
If certain people here would have protested him being drafted by the Giants back then if they knew what we now know about him.
I'd say probably not, considering being a player and someone in a position to help counsel and guide all the players on the team are two completely separate things.
I think it would be different if he were hired as a scout or something similar. Having him work in a role where he's with players is different.
Further, Tyree made his views on gay marriage an issue. It's a non-issue if he didn't open his mouth. So those wondering if they should ask every candidate their views on gay marriage are being morons.
I guess some of you never did your job in spite of having a difference of opinion about the work being done, the suervisor, the company philosophy, a co-workers life style.
And if any of us ever tweeted about it publicly, we would probably (and rightfully) be fired for doing so.
So what if he would? He can't. So what if he's a bible thumping fool? It's not my bag but who gives a shit? Since when did the player development guy hold sway over society?
Man, sometimes socially progressive people (a class I consider myself a part of) can be real fucking hypocrites. We want everyone's beliefs to be accepted except those that disagree with us.
I think religion is stupid and I disagree with basically everything Tyree would probably have to say about morality, social matters, etc. But so what? He works for my favorite football team...it's not like the guy is running the Board of Education.
The guy was, rightfully, an absolute hero to all of us. Now because we don't agree with him he shouldn't work for the Giants? Fuck that.
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
Are entitled to their personal opinions. I like how so many of the special interest groups in this country who allege they are so discriminated against are so vociferous in their trampling of people's rights to have their personal views or opinions on matters.
So what if he would? He can't. So what if he's a bible thumping fool? It's not my bag but who gives a shit? Since when did the player development guy hold sway over society?
Man, sometimes socially progressive people (a class I consider myself a part of) can be real fucking hypocrites. We want everyone's beliefs to be accepted except those that disagree with us.
I think religion is stupid and I disagree with basically everything Tyree would probably have to say about morality, social matters, etc. But so what? He works for my favorite football team...it's not like the guy is running the Board of Education.
The guy was, rightfully, an absolute hero to all of us. Now because we don't agree with him he shouldn't work for the Giants? Fuck that.
As I've said all along, I think he should have a job within the organization as long as he wants one. But it shoudn't be this one.
At the time David Tyree made those statements ... Â
I'm saying that we'd better be pretty careful about moving that line closer to the mainstream because doing so is taking a big step towards making the US resemble the later Soviet system.
Yes, we're all going to be pinko commies because PRIVATE organizations choose not to hire someone that makes a public statement that they deem to be unpopular.
Holy fuck, get a grip.
Yup, religion has no place in the workplace. For normal folks like you and I, we're protected because potential employers are not allowed to ask us about religious views.
Unfortunately for David, he is a public figure and made public comments. His potential employers can read or listen to those comments and choose to hire him or not.
That's actually the opposite of pinko commie or thought police or whatever "sky is falling" bullshit that you wish to be afraid of this week. That's actually freedom. Freedom for a private organization to hire someone to represent them as they see fit.
Are entitled to their personal opinions. I like how so many of the special interest groups in this country who allege they are so discriminated against are so vociferous in their trampling of people's rights to have their personal views or opinions on matters.
It's a glorified sweetheart position for a former player that you want to stay involved in the organization.
I don't understand how the otherwise sensible Giants organization could hire a guy who makes comments that he doesn't want his kids thinking that homosexuals are normal and that he would trade the Giants winning the Super Bowl to stop gay marriage to become the director of player personnel in the summer that the first openly gay football player was drafted and is trying to make a team.
My thinking is, deep down they ataully probably agree with his views.
stop spluttering and think about the issue. First of all, Tyree isn't a "public figure." He works in an HR capacity for an entertainment corporation. And yes firing or not hiring people for holding certain views smells of authoritarianism and we'd better be careful about applying the idea.
But he would be a cancer in the locker room with his views especially if someone like Sam was on the team. We don't want a Miami situation here.
Gimme a break. 99.9% don't know anything about an NFL locker room and how it works. I doubt any of us know much about what Tyree is even going to be doing, and this entire stupid article and discussion will be forgotten probably before the first preseason game kicks off.
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I'm not sure you understand what a democracy is (we aren't one) or what freedom of the press is.
stop spluttering and think about the issue. First of all, Tyree isn't a "public figure." He works in an HR capacity for an entertainment corporation. And yes firing or not hiring people for holding certain views smells of authoritarianism and we'd better be careful about applying the idea.
Yes he is a public figure. There's really no disputing that.
It's a glorified sweetheart position for a former player that you want to stay involved in the organization.
I don't understand how the otherwise sensible Giants organization could hire a guy who makes comments that he doesn't want his kids thinking that homosexuals are normal and that he would trade the Giants winning the Super Bowl to stop gay marriage to become the director of player personnel in the summer that the first openly gay football player was drafted and is trying to make a team.
My thinking is, deep down they ataully probably agree with his views.
which pays much better than the norm, then you have to be willing to have your most aggressive and insulting comments scrutinized, and accept the consequences.
Saying that he would give up by far the greatest experience in his public life to prevent gay marriage is pretty aggressive and insulting. Hey, Tyree, if you HADN'T made that catch, would you be up for this particular job?
Um, no.
So, it's appropriate to stop using your platform as a public figure to further your personal beliefs now.
stop spluttering and think about the issue. First of all, Tyree isn't a "public figure." He works in an HR capacity for an entertainment corporation. And yes firing or not hiring people for holding certain views smells of authoritarianism and we'd better be careful about applying the idea.
And again: The Giants are a private organization. There is no "we" about it.
"We" can bitch and moan (or not) all we want. "We" can protest or write angry or supportive letters. "We" cannot fire or hire him for this job. Only the Giants can do that. And they can do it regardless of what "we" say or do.
stop spluttering and think about the issue. First of all, Tyree isn't a "public figure." He works in an HR capacity for an entertainment corporation. And yes firing or not hiring people for holding certain views smells of authoritarianism and we'd better be careful about applying the idea.
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Free speech is intrinsic to democracy. There's nothing special about Tyree's job. He has to handle his responsibilities in line with Giants policy. If the Giants have a gay player, Tyree needs to do his job and not let his personal beliefs interfere. If they do interfere with it, that is indeed a problem.
Is this debate about whether Tyree's position qualifies as a "public" face of the Giants? Just in the abstract, would you object to a rabid racist/homophobe working in the Giants accounting department?
I might have to take back what I said about old man Â
... President Obama was firmly anti "Gay Marriage" too.
What does that have to do with us putting a man in charge of counseling impressionable, young men who happens to show tendencies of homophobia?
The Giants didn't hire Obama.
All good points, I don't know what Mara was thinking, and I am now questioning what his views are, and this is why it was such an ignorant move, Oh well, I guess we will see where this goes.
to express his own opinion, but his supporters or sympathizers shouldn't feel he's entitled to a job in which voicing his opinions could potentially harm the organization.
But shit, I ultimately agree with Terps on this one. While I'm sure I'd find Tyree as loony in real life as the older woman who approached me in the BART station the other day and warned me of an impending God-created earthquake, I can somehow reconcile my distaste for this particular perspective of his. Hell, maybe it's just because his side of this issue is losing, and I can acknowledge that's not a good reason. But I think he's ultimately pretty impotent in this arena, and that shit will probably hit the fan if he tries to wield influence towards the aim of homophobia.
it was an odd hire. I'm sure plenty of qualified guys with less baggage could've gotten the job. And it's nice to think that Tyree overcoming his drug problems and turning his life around qualifies him for the position - but we all know the only reason he's working in this type of role is because he pinned that ball to his helmet in SB42.
You are correst, of coarse, but now every move will be under a microscope, something that was really not needed, ir opens up too many questions, and opens the organization up to serious criticizm, you think the Giants enemies will not jump on this? Watch a statement come out of Washington now, or one of his boys will stir the pot.
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Free speech is intrinsic to democracy.
Go up to your boss right now. Tell him or her he or she is an incompetent asshole and that a mental challenged monkey could do his or her job better. Then drop a copy of the Constitution and walk away in total confidence that your job is 100% protected.
Quote:
There's nothing special about Tyree's job.
So you figure he's making, what? $7.50 an hour? Anyway, yeah, silly how we're all discussing this non-special hiring of a job that came with all these public announcements. Just another job, like the rest of us.
Quote:
Is this debate about whether Tyree's position qualifies as a "public" face of the Giants? Just in the abstract, would you object to a rabid racist/homophobe working in the Giants accounting department?
Yes. I would want that. There's nothing I would want more. (Beyond a much better analogy.)
I think it is pretty obvious from 3 threads on BBI Â
(small sample not withstanding), the ESPN article, and the comments from the Human Rights Campaign that this at the very least was strange hire PR-wise for the Giants.
PR move to hide their true feelings? its possible but I doubt it
-----------------------------
For starters Monday, several NFL owners, including the Giants’ John Mara and Steve Tisch, gave Sam their support.
"Michael’s announcement will not affect his position on our draft board." -- John Mara
"Michael’s announcement will not affect his position on our draft board," said Mara, without indicating how the Giants rated him.
"Regardless of where you are from, what your religious beliefs are, what your sexual orientation is," said Tisch, "if you are good enough to be on the team, you are part of the family."
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Free speech is intrinsic to democracy.
Go up to your boss right now. Tell him or her he or she is an incompetent asshole and that a mental challenged monkey could do his or her job better. Then drop a copy of the Constitution and walk away in total confidence that your job is 100% protected.
Quote:
There's nothing special about Tyree's job.
So you figure he's making, what? $7.50 an hour? Anyway, yeah, silly how we're all discussing this non-special hiring of a job that came with all these public announcements. Just another job, like the rest of us.
Quote:
Is this debate about whether Tyree's position qualifies as a "public" face of the Giants? Just in the abstract, would you object to a rabid racist/homophobe working in the Giants accounting department?
Yes. I would want that. There's nothing I would want more. (Beyond a much better analogy.)
Except the Giants have already hired Tyree...so the only problem with the hiring is the one being conjured up by the article. The Giamts don't seem to have an issue with it, so I think we are actually at a point now of dealing with a free speech issue.
... President Obama was firmly anti "Gay Marriage" too.
What does that have to do with us putting a man in charge of counseling impressionable, young men who happens to show tendencies of homophobia?
The Giants didn't hire Obama.
Well, one, we put a man in charge of protecting gays who showed tendencies of homophobia. Didn't make him ineligible for his (slightly more important job).
And, two, he evolved. Perhaps Tyree has as well.
Nope. We're dealing with a *consequences of free speech* issue. Â
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Holy crap. Look, if you're tired of thinking about the issue, fine, but then don't post.
1) Political statements are different from personal attacks on one's supervisors. I'm with you on that one.
2) So holding non-mainstream opinions should disqualify people from earning above a certain amount of money. What's the threshold - $10/hr? 140% of the official poverty level? Maybe such people should only be allowed to live in non-heated apartments.
3) I'm not discussing this because I care what Tyree thinks (I don't). I'm discussing it because a journalist questioned a private company's hiring because of their political views. Which is damned disturbing.
4) The accountant question wasn't an analogy. It was a serious question intended to clarify the exact issue at stake here. You didn't answer it.
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
RE: OK, it's bad to hire Tyree because he may say or do something Â
3) I'm discussing it because a journalist questioned a private company's hiring because of their political views. Which is damned disturbing.
That kind of think is what editorials do, and it's odd that you may think they're exempt from the whole "free speech" thing you keep invoking to justify Tyree.
I'm thinking that he will ne helping players get acclimated to the life/routine as an NFL player, what is expected of them and the pressures that go along with that. Also maybe assist them with things like finding affordable housing in the area etc.
I don't really see where his personal views on this enter into the equation as long as he knows to keep them private and not inject them into the work place. I can only assume the Giants organization must feel the same way.
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
Do the Giants have any openly gay players? Why would an organization hire for a variable they don't believe they have?
Secondly, I think the Giants are far more concerned with young players who struggle with drugs, party lifestyle, and financial issues, given recent personnel history.
Thirdly, I would think Tyree can separate his personal views from his professional life to give good advice to any player. That is what a well reasoned professional does.
Sex life of the player within the scope of the guidance he is supposed to give? I doubt it. Why would it even come up in the interaction. As an employee, I had to deal with people who I disagreed with on matters outside the scope of our business interaction.
The First Amendment isn't the issue here. Free speech can be suppressed by a virulent majority which seeks to inflict damage on its opponents. For example, I found Graziano's article more disturbing than Tyree's comments but I'm not claiming that Graziano should be fired for his column. What I do think is that his view should be evualated and criticized and that he should think about what he is writing more carefully.
Packers Player Development
The Player Development Department is the hub for a wide range of League-sponsored programs designed to meet the needs of players and their families in today's NFL. Since its inception in 1991, more than 9,000 players and significant others have made use of programs administered by the department. Player Development Directors at each club work to ensure the programs are meeting the needs of players and reinforce the departments' commitment to support a culture that delivers a continuum of services to help active and practice squad players succeed in all aspects of their lives.
Player Development is divided into four areas:
Player Assistance Services
Continuing Education Program
Financial Education Program
Career Internship Program
As the director of player development, Davis will be vital in maintaining locker room cohesiveness and overall player health. He will assist players in acclimating to their roles, both on and off the field and in the Green Bay community.
Vision: To provide players and their families an unparalleled positive motivating environment that sets the standard of excellence promoting growth and balance in all areas of their lives.
Mission: To challenge players and their families to be lifelong learners while pursuing continuous improvement in personal growth, academic/career development, money management, social interactions, and family relations during and beyond their careers as NFL players.
He may keep his mouth shut going forward, but the damage is Â
already done. A player of any sexuality other than hetero is very likely not going to trust him or his counsel in their time of need anymore than, say, a black man would trust Donald Sterling.
I staunchly disagree with his beliefs, but I wouldn't have had a problem with the team hiring him in some other capacity. This capacity/role, however, just doesn't fit and should raise some eyebrows.
Holy crap. Look, if you're tired of thinking about the issue, fine, but then don't post.
Not thinking isn't keeping you from posting. (Golly, that insult was even easier turn back on you than your arguments.)
Quote:
1) Political statements are different from personal attacks on one's supervisors. I'm with you on that one.
Jesus. Okay, stand up on your chair and start spouting your political views at work. Then, when security comes for you, say 'First Amendment!!!'
Or just go to a theater and scream 'Fire!!!'. One way or another, you'll learn the limits of Free Speech.
Quote:
2) So holding non-mainstream opinions
You keep repeating this phrase like it's your trump card that means everything. It means nothing. So Ima keep moving.
Quote:
3) I'm not discussing this because I care what Tyree thinks (I don't). I'm discussing it because a journalist questioned a private company's hiring because of their political views. Which is damned disturbing.
You clearly don't understand the difference between the NFL and, say, the gas station down the street. Despite repeated attempts to explain it. So moving on from this one, too.
Quote:
4) The accountant question wasn't an analogy.
Quote:
analogy |əˈnaləjē|
noun ( pl. analogies )
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification: an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies | he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines.
• a correspondence or partial similarity: the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia.
• a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects: works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature.
• Logic a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
Quote:
It was a serious question intended to clarify the exact issue at stake here. You didn't answer it.
Because if you don't know the difference between all the different jobs, and don't know what an analogy is, you're not a good person to continue trying to have the conversation with. So I'll compromise. I am tired of discussing this with you. Congratulations?
I too have a gay child and have been a Giants fan for more than 55 years.
Of course, Tyree has the right to express his views, no matter how abhorrent I think they may be. But he has gone beyond "free speech" to actively advocate in support of (1) anti-gay marriage policies would treat a significant portion of the population as inferiors and (2) gay conversion policies that would expose gay people (including children) to physical abuse. This is a very bad move by the Giants that insults a substantial number of their supporters. Would he have been hired if he had actively advocated policies that discriminated on the basis of race or religion? Almost certainly not.
The tide of history in the U.S. and many other countries is moving towards increased rights for gay people including the right to marry anyone they love and with whom they want to share their lives. It makes me sad to see the Giants and so many here on BBI on the wrong side of that history.
but I agree with Graziano -- given the nature of the job (in large part , to help players adjust to the non-football aspect of their lives, present and future) it was not a good move, regardless of his football heroics in our past.
That kind of backfired. That place was off my radar but it created numerous lines 10 people deep at the mall in Paramus. Tried it recently. Probably would have been just part of he background to me at the food court otherwise.
So lets look at possible scenarios based on todays headlines Â
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
need to take a step back and really look at what you are saying and think about what you are saying. You are programmed to viciously attack anything that doesn't swing your way.
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did. He is no longer Super Bowl Hero David Tyree to you guys he is Bigoted Homophobe David Tyree.
I remember Tyree being a Super Bowl hero for our favorite team. Without him we don't have that magical win. It feels like some of you almost even resent that for happening just because of something he happens to believe (which btw is a majority opinion) and probably something most of the team Eli Manning, Tom Coughlin, John Mara etc believe.
and was instrumental in reforming it enough to be voted on by other republicans, like himself. Without him, there probably (definitely) isn't marriage equality in New York. Because of this, I'm fairly sure Tyree was on the list of people that said some pretty heavy, nasty stuff, heading up to the vote and aligned with some some groups that said some pretty hateful things about my father, my family etc. People even threatened to burn our house down. They all said similar things.
I can never respect someone like him.
And will people get a better grip on what freedom of speech is?
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
Do the Giants have any openly gay players? Why would an organization hire for a variable they don't believe they have?
Secondly, I think the Giants are far more concerned with young players who struggle with drugs, party lifestyle, and financial issues, given recent personnel history.
Thirdly, I would think Tyree can separate his personal views from his professional life to give good advice to any player. That is what a well reasoned professional does.
How many non-openly gay players do the Giants have now or will have in the future? How many of them will be comfortable to go to Tyree?
No excuse for anyone threatening or making hateful comments, but to be fair I find that generally the fringe elements from both sides of an issue says similar things.
Tom Coughlin might share the same beliefs as Tyree. He might not. Â
The key is he's smart enough not to use his vast platform to advocate his personal opinions on such topics. He's in the role of advising and guiding young men who are supposed to trust him.
How is any man who happens to be of that lifestyle supposed to trust the guidance of a person who you know believes that if you were to desire to get married and have a family of your own, it would be the downfall of the nation and the crumbling of moral values?
Let me start by saying I absolutely disagree with Tyree's beliefs Â
I support the rights for homosexuals to marry and I have no issue with anyone that is gay. Second, that, ordinarily should have nothing to do with a hire. However, the timing of this hire in the wake of Dungy's comments makes this particular hire look bad.
If he can perform his duties without his personal beliefs playing a factor, than there is no issue. But, if his beliefs are being preached to the lockerroom, then he doesn't belong in this position.
Incidentally, it was supposedly Mark Jackson's preaching that got him canned, not his coaching record.
I disagree with pretty much with everything Tyree said. I don't agree with those who automatically label those who have a problem with gay marriage a bigot. It is a definition problem for some of us old farts who will thankfully die soon. I prefer civil unions with equal rights to straight marriage. Not really a big deal to me that I will lose sleep over. I have discussed my thoughts pretty thoroughly on previous threads so I will not go there any further.
Who said I respect fundamentalists on most issues? Extremists are nutty.
However, don't underestimate how often it happens. Many of his "friends" stopped talking to him and said he would be doing the devil's work etc. This is not a tiny sliver.
And someone who was disappointed with one of his votes on tax issues never threatened to kill us and supply our home address.
I have yet to see anyone calling for him to be fired.
Where is this coming from?
DG's article criticized the hiring. That does not equal calling for Tyree to be fired.
Hell, even BBI posters have been doing nothing but questioning the hiring. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has called for him to be fired- they've just expressed that at the very least it is an odd hiring given the first openly gay player in history was drafted this past April.
Some have expressed that they probably wouldn't have hired him.
JFC. A lot of you are acting like questioning an obviously "odd" hiring is the same thing as wanting him eviscerated in town square.
The best though is cosmicj ranting about freedom of speech (which he obviously doesn't understand) while simultaneously bashing DG for exercising freedom of the press and bashing folks on BBI for exercising their right to free speech.
I'll repeat an earlier post on the subject:
Considering the media reaction so far, the reaction of th eHuman Rights Campaign, and comments from folks on BBI, it's plain that this was an odd hire for the Giants to make.
As a MOT I would be very very suprised that he would agree to hire someone with these pronounced views.
I love the catch but was very disappointed in his views on gay marriage.
I think they should rescind the offer. This is from 2011 - ( New Window )
I didn't think you supported any extremist on any side and wasn't trying to imply that. I was simply pointing out that generally the fringe extreme on either side of a heated positions will resort to hatred.
But there are a lot more people, a lot more heated about this than most other things. Lots of "non extremists", if you can call them that, said some pretty vitriolic stuff. These weren't nutjobs with signs all over their lawns or people picketing outside my house (which there were). I have never seen as much hate in my life, first hand, than the backlash from this and the election that followed. An extreme right winger ran against him the following year. A LOT more people voted for him than you might think.
If that was directed towards me, I was replying to Jesse and the fact that his family were receiving death threats and similar. You have to be on the extreme fringe to engage in that and if it would come out that Tyree made threats to peoples life then he needs to be let go by the Giants immediately.
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
I do understand that freedom of speech refers partly to the first amendment (which is not relevant to this case and applies to government suppression of speech), but it extends to suppression of speech via other means, as well.
Let's take an extreme example: in 1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
that some on BBI can't figure this out, and even applaud Tyree's beliefs.
This was a bad move for the Giants, full stop, drawing revenue and advertising dollars from, in large part, a city with one of the largest LGBT communities in the U.S.
And yes, your views outside of work can cost you your job or an opportunity for a job - recruiters regularly check Facebook and Twitter - how many high profile people have been fired for idiotic tweets? Or, maybe, facepaint a swastika on your forehead next time you have an interview...
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
I consider that a plus if the groups were truly anti gay (as opposed to what some here think is anti gay).
Interesting comment. The problem I see is that so many can be sympathetic to the cause of gay rights and yet vilified because they are not quite pure enough. If you mostly agree, but don't advocate the entire agenda, you are the enemy, homophobe, cretin, scum, etc. Thing is, that can turn off a lot of potential allies.
Here. Here. Being considered 3/5 a person should be enough.
Now there's a leap!
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then? Which rights that the rest of us have are you cool with homosexuals being denied? How 'normal' are you comfortable with David Tyree's children thinking gay people are?
RE: So lets look at possible scenarios based on todays headlines Â
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
I often find that people here mistake where some are coming from based on a comment on a narrow part of the discussion. Some here demand absolute purity to their side which sometimes is extreme. We need to fight both extremes. You generally know when you are right when you are attacked from both sides especially from the name callers who are possible to have an honest discussion with.
I often find that people here mistake where some are coming from based on a comment on a narrow part of the discussion. Some here demand absolute purity to their side which sometimes is extreme. We need to fight both extremes. You generally know when you are right when you are attacked from both sides especially from the name callers who are possible to have an honest discussion with.
Bravo!
RE: RE: So lets look at possible scenarios based on todays headlines Â
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Tyree willingly used his public status to espouse his beliefs which will alienate a section of humanity. Whether or not you agree or disagree with him is irrelevant.
What he said will effect how other people see him, and that will hamper how effective he can be in his role within the organization, even if he's able to put his prejudices aside and deal with everyone equally.
1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not give you freedom from the consequence of that speech.
Sure, if it's something you support- it sucks that there are negative consequences to what you say (the NAACP example...or your Tyree example). I'm sorry, though- there are consequences and as long as they are not illegal there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's kinda how the whole "freedom" thing you're all worried about losing actually works.
The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge... Â
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues. The same is true of sportswriters, whose indignation generally reflects that of their class rather than their customers. What Tyree said strikes me as wrongheaded and pretty galling, but as I said yesterday it's a standard hell in a handbasket spiel that would probably have as much, maybe more, currency among those in the locker room who grew up in the South and the Midwest or who went to particular denominations as the sort of opinions that most of us either agree with or find unobjectionable. When a guy involved in a double murder mentors young players it passes without much more than snark, when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
RE: The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge... Â
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues. The same is true of sportswriters, whose indignation generally reflects that of their class rather than their customers. What Tyree said strikes me as wrongheaded and pretty galling, but as I said yesterday it's a standard hell in a handbasket spiel that would probably have as much, maybe more, currency among those in the locker room who grew up in the South and the Midwest or who went to particular denominations as the sort of opinions that most of us either agree with or find unobjectionable. When a guy involved in a double murder mentors young players it passes without much more than snark, when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
But even if that's the majority, wouldn't you want to hire someone who has never said anything publicly to alienate anyone, so that players that might have fundamental opposing viewpoints to his feel comfortable relying on the person who the organization hired to help them?
RE: The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge... Â
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues. The same is true of sportswriters, whose indignation generally reflects that of their class rather than their customers. What Tyree said strikes me as wrongheaded and pretty galling, but as I said yesterday it's a standard hell in a handbasket spiel that would probably have as much, maybe more, currency among those in the locker room who grew up in the South and the Midwest or who went to particular denominations as the sort of opinions that most of us either agree with or find unobjectionable. When a guy involved in a double murder mentors young players it passes without much more than snark, when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
Who isn't acknowledging that? I don't think Tyree is a bad person the way I think someone like Ray Lewis is. And I think he would make a fantastic mentor for many - however, his comments potentially prohibit him from being a mentor to certain players, which is why I think the hire is odd given the position.
Jay in Toronto: IMO those statements, if made by Tyree or anyone Â
else, would be a disqualification for employment because not based on any biblical statement, which I assume is the basis for Tyree's beliefs and statements.
There is NO basis in the Bible for ANY anti-semitic or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim statements.
If someone doesn't believe in the Bible or that the Bible does not enjoin homosexual acts or that it's an incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is sinful, I'm OK with that belief. But, I can also understand if Tyree believes that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. I also have no problem if he publicly professes his belief either as the free exercise of religion or of speech.
RE: The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge... Â
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues. The same is true of sportswriters, whose indignation generally reflects that of their class rather than their customers. What Tyree said strikes me as wrongheaded and pretty galling, but as I said yesterday it's a standard hell in a handbasket spiel that would probably have as much, maybe more, currency among those in the locker room who grew up in the South and the Midwest or who went to particular denominations as the sort of opinions that most of us either agree with or find unobjectionable. When a guy involved in a double murder mentors young players it passes without much more than snark, when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
And a staggering number of coaches and players would rather have a player/teammate who was involved in a double murder than be gay. So maybe that's all the more reason to fill positions like these with people who can help break the cycle and help these guys grow out of their old mindsets.
Eh, we're getting pretty far afield from the point of the topic. It's a tone deaf hire at exactly the wrong time.
RE: The fact that many of you don't want to acknowledge... Â
is that many, perhaps most, of the players for whom you root do not think as you do on many issues.
It's not about all that. It's about whether or not this hire of this guy by this team at this time was a bad move or not.
Quote:
when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
He actually doesn't have a clean record. In fact, he's kind of a classic case of jailhouse conversion. That notwithstanding, this isn't a thread about Ray Lewis, because most of us aren't big fans of ESPN. (Though I'm sure threads crapping on Ray Lewis are just an archive search away.)
Here. Here. Being considered 3/5 a person should be enough.
Now there's a leap!
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then? Which rights that the rest of us have are you cool with homosexuals being denied? How 'normal' are you comfortable with David Tyree's children thinking gay people are?
Ok vibe, an example. On the thread about Sam and "The Kiss", a number of posters very timidly and almost apologetic, confessed that even though they wish him well and are for gay rights, watching the kiss made them uncomfortable. These posters were vilified as homophobic, scum, etc. Perhaps it would not be unnatural for them to feel a bit put off, no? You have never seen a post from me suggesting witholding of any rights. I have however pointed out the complete intolerance from the so called tolerant and hateful name calling. THAT's what I'm talking about with "the whole agenda".
1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not give you freedom from the consequence of that speech.
Sure, if it's something you support- it sucks that there are negative consequences to what you say (the NAACP example...or your Tyree example). I'm sorry, though- there are consequences and as long as they are not illegal there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's kinda how the whole "freedom" thing you're all worried about losing actually works.
Cam - We're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe it is very unhealthy for our political system if espousing political views that were fairly mainstream just a few years ago is a disqualifier for anything like Tyree's new job. Just like we need tolerance for gays, we need tolerance for people who take a strict view of their religious rules.
He's in the private working world. He can and should be accountable for the things he says, even if it means he is fired or certain companies don't hire him.
Ok vibe, an example. On the thread about Sam and "The Kiss", a number of posters very timidly and almost apologetic, confessed that even though they wish him well and are for gay rights, watching the kiss made them uncomfortable. These posters were vilified as homophobic, scum, etc. Perhaps it would not be unnatural for them to feel a bit put off, no? You have never seen a post from me suggesting witholding of any rights. I have however pointed out the complete intolerance from the so called tolerant and hateful name calling. THAT's what I'm talking about with "the whole agenda".
So the 'entire agenda', for you, is mostly about gay people and PDA? You want to be able to hold onto your right to be 'put off'? Without people suggesting you're homophobic? Is that your agenda?
If I've gotten that right, I'm still not clear what the 'gay agenda' is? Beyond wanting the right to be treated equally? Except, of course, where it makes you uncomfortable.
to the extent that people are upset, are you upset at the prospect that he would alienate the next Michael Sam or that you don't like someone who says or thinks what he does working for the team? The latter is fine and understandable, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the guys we cheer for may not say so in as public a manner as Tyree did but plenty of them hold opinions quite different from most of ours. What Tyree said a couple years ago, anachronistic though it might have been, probably has little or nothing to do with his ability to relate to young athletes.
He's in the private working world. He can and should be accountable for the things he says, even if it means he is fired or certain companies don't hire him.
Agreed. And we should be free to be critical of those companies and their policies
Carl in CT: If we delete all this discussion, then we should delete Â
Why should we care if someones gay or what someone else's thoughts are about homosexuality? It has no bearing on the game.
This isn't about football, and Tyree's job description isn't just about football. He's not being hired to be a position coach. He's being handed the responsibility of being a counselor and advisor to young men and their families.
RE: Carl in CT: If we delete all this discussion, then we should delete Â
I'm fine with Tyree in another role with the team. This specific role seems odd.
On the contrary, this is about the only role I could see him in. It's not a "public face" type of role (we rarely if ever saw Charles Way), it's a behind the scenes, mentorship role.
to the extent that people are upset, are you upset at the prospect that he would alienate the next Michael Sam or that you don't like someone who says or thinks what he does working for the team? The latter is fine and understandable, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the guys we cheer for may not say so in as public a manner as Tyree did but plenty of them hold opinions quite different from most of ours. What Tyree said a couple years ago, anachronistic though it might have been, probably has little or nothing to do with his ability to relate to young athletes.
I have no problem with Tyree working for the team in general. It's him in this specific role that is troublesome.
I'm fine with Tyree in another role with the team. This specific role seems odd.
On the contrary, this is about the only role I could see him in. It's not a "public face" type of role (we rarely if ever saw Charles Way), it's a behind the scenes, mentorship role.
and you don't view his stance on gays as being troublesome for someone in a mentorship role?
I'd prefer to have my mentors at least have the appearance of having an open mind on all subjects, not come with a strong bias on a particularly hot button current social topic.
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Wuphat: Please.
Bobby Epps : 2:00 pm : link : reply
Once Eric allowed Graziano's article to be published on BBI, he should allow reasonable comment on it, whether critical or approval comment.
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press, though.
if there is an instance of a gay player (openly or otherwise) and Tyree can't put his beliefs to the side show him the door, but I just don't buy that because of Michael Sam suddenly someone's ability to relate to gay athletes (within the whole of the NFL openly gay athletes present number 1) becomes central to the job description of a mentor.
Selective libertarianism.
kickerpa16 : 1:50 pm : link : reply
He's in the private working world. He can and should be accountable for the things he says, even if it means he is fired or certain companies don't hire him.
Cam - We're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe it is very unhealthy for our political system if espousing political views that were fairly mainstream just a few years ago is a disqualifier for anything like Tyree's new job. Just like we need tolerance for gays, we need tolerance for people who take a strict view of their religious rules.
Who is disqualifying him for this job? Nobody here can do that. Only the Giants can.
Nobody can make the Giants disqualify him. What part of that do you not understand?
It's nice that he does allow the rule to be bent at times, but no, he's under no obligation to allow dissenting opinion.
Eric could, if he so chose to, allow only comments supporting Tyree to be voiced. It's his website, his rules. Freedom of speech and the press have no bearing here whatsoever.
if there is an instance of a gay player (openly or otherwise) and Tyree can't put his beliefs to the side show him the door, but I just don't buy that because of Michael Sam suddenly someone's ability to relate to gay athletes (within the whole of the NFL openly gay athletes present number 1) becomes central to the job description of a mentor.
He's already said he'd trade his greatest moment in his professional life to prevent gay marriage, but you think he'll put that belief to the side for the sake of this job (that he earned because of said moment)?
Ok vibe, an example. On the thread about Sam and "The Kiss", a number of posters very timidly and almost apologetic, confessed that even though they wish him well and are for gay rights, watching the kiss made them uncomfortable. These posters were vilified as homophobic, scum, etc. Perhaps it would not be unnatural for them to feel a bit put off, no? You have never seen a post from me suggesting witholding of any rights. I have however pointed out the complete intolerance from the so called tolerant and hateful name calling. THAT's what I'm talking about with "the whole agenda".
So the 'entire agenda', for you, is mostly about gay people and PDA? You want to be able to hold onto your right to be 'put off'? Without people suggesting you're homophobic? Is that your agenda?
If I've gotten that right, I'm still not clear what the 'gay agenda' is? Beyond wanting the right to be treated equally? Except, of course, where it makes you uncomfortable.
Well vibe, now you're getting beyond silly. I never mentioned the "gay agenda" ... your words. My words related to the agenda of the extreme views here and elsewhere. When being 100% for gay rights is not enough. When you must apologize for not being comfortable watching a gay kiss, and that's not enough. Sorry, but though I am for gay marriage and other rights, I also try to understand other's views and while I may not agree with them, I don't vilify them and call them hateful names when their views appear ignorant but not hateful. Apparently that is not enough for your agenda, so when it gets this silly there's no point in continuing, I'm done.
"Great meeting today guys. I hope you enjoyed todays lesson about managing your money and to be prepared for people coming out of the woodwork looking for a handout. Tomorrow's lesson is about how it's not right to be a gay and how you shouldn't marry dudes"
Graziano is free to write anything he likes. Eric, of course, can print or delete anything he wants because freedom of speech and press apply to the Government.
BUT, if Eric picks and chooses among newspaper articles covering the Giants, printing some and deleting others, wouldn't that make you uncomfortable?
Eric has the right to pick and choose but I wouldn't like it. When I raised the issue of freedom of the press, it was my short-hand for all of the above.
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Its pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about. The premises aren't at all the same, but its pretty clear you won't be able to understand why.
In seriousness, part of his job is to help young players adjust to being part of the Giants. Do you think a homosexual player would ever feel comfortable confiding in Tyree? The same way you wouldn't want a racist, someone who publically hates on religion or vice versa, etc. No known prejudices please.
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Absolutely. Let's put noted anti-semite Mel Gibson in charge of the Jewish National Fund, too.
The point you're missing is that you keep invoking Â
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
That isn't the point that has been belabored here. The point of contention is whether or not his stated beliefs will affect how his charges relate or don't relate to him and how much this may affect whether or not they feel that availing themselves of a, perhaps, needed service may be short-circuited by his stated beliefs.
Wuphat: Sorry but invoked freedom of press only in regard Â
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Its pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about. The premises aren't at all the same, but its pretty clear you won't be able to understand why.
It doesn't matter how or in what context you invoked them.
Unless the government is involved, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form.
Only if your conception of "freedom of speech" is entirely bound in the First Amendment, but that's a different argument entirely and one I don't care to ignite here.
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Wuphat: Tyree's freedom of speech not relevant here? Â
Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
....it does bother me that someone who holds those particular views now has a prominent role within the organization. I can accept that I don't have to like or agree with any person's views and that maybe that has nothing to do with his ability to the job. But I'm more likely to accept that in the case of player who happens to be bigot or a lunatic. In that case, the job is what you do on the field. Here, the job entails relationships, player development, training etc. So yes, I'm bothered by this hire.
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
RE: Wuphat: Sorry but invoked freedom of press only in regard Â
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
Wup, never said anything like that. I only pointed out that aside from the actual right of free speech there is an informal spirit of free speech. That spirit applies to both Tyree and his critics. I'm stating to think that some posters decide what "side" you're on and respond to that rather than actually reading the post.
Have provided some excellent thought provoking context.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
this isn't really a large enough role in the organization that i'm going to get bent out of shape about it. this is mostly a ceremonial job for ex-players in my eyes. if Tyree were made a position coach I'd probably be uncomfortable with that.
he's not the guy I would've hired for the job, but it's a privately-owned organization and they can hire whoever they want. good chance the people who hired him know a whole lot more about this job and what type of person is good for it than i do. plus, they can fire him if he says anything they don't like to the media, or via social media, makes the team look bad or even if they decide he's annoying for no reason at all.
and no he doesn't have freedom of speech when it comes to his statements when he's a member of this or any other private organization. he can be disciplined or fired for anything he says that the organization deems wrong or offensive. if that doesn't make sense to you, then go find a copy of the Constitution - they sell them in little booklets in gift shops and shit - and smack yourself in the face with it like ten times.
What I did say that Tyree has the right to say what he did based on his right of free speech, that if his belief that he professed is based on the Bible I can understand it and that Graziano's comments that Tyree's views represent "medieval views" effectively denies Tyree's freedom of speech and of religion because they're "non-mainstream", that once Graziano's article was allowed to be published on BBI its discussion should also be allowed because if Eric allowed freedom of the press he should allow its discussion and that Tyree's words should not disqualify him from his new job on the grounds of freedom of religion and free speech.
And apparent length to which he would go to execute what he views as god's agenda would scare me if I was the Giants. He sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen in a few years once we have a gay player or two on our roster. Bad hire for that reason IMO.
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Holy crap! I never said or implied that anyone was protected from the consequences of their speech. The spirit of freedom of speech goes both ways. I think I must not be typing clearly, so I think I'll take a break and go get some work done.
Have provided some excellent thought provoking context.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
I do too.
My second post on this thread and a post yesterday laid it out.
I think it's odd, but I'm also confident that the Giants discussed this issue with David.
It's also quite possible as other's have mentioned that David's opinion on the matter has changed.
the people who raise "freedom of speech" arguments in the context of private employment don't have a clue what they're talking about.
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
RE: Wuphat: Never said the Government was involved at all. Â
What I did say that Tyree has the right to say what he did based on his right of free speech, that if his belief that he professed is based on the Bible I can understand it and that Graziano's comments that Tyree's views represent "medieval views" effectively denies Tyree's freedom of speech and of religion because they're "non-mainstream", that once Graziano's article was allowed to be published on BBI its discussion should also be allowed because if Eric allowed freedom of the press he should allow its discussion and that Tyree's words should not disqualify him from his new job on the grounds of freedom of religion and free speech.
Hey Bobby - if i told you that every single work you just wrote is wrong...how would you respond to that?
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
The job duties can be broadly described as "a non-football role where he will have many responsibilities, most of them related to helping players develop skills necessary for personal success and life after football."
Arguably, anyone who had a real career in the NFL and managed to keep their life together after they retired would be a candidate. So we can say that much for Tyree.
I think many people that view this as a questionable hiring Â
1. Tyree can think, say or believe whatever he wants, but his words, past and present, have consequences;
2. There is no protection against your publicly expressed personal views outside of the workplace impacting your ability to earn a living (wear a swastika arm band on your suit at your next interview and if asked, say "oh that, its personal, next question");
3. Tyree now represents a private organization and brand, whose stakeholders (employees, customers, sponsors) undoubtedly include homosexuals, and friends and family of;
Wuphat: Never said the Government was involved at all.
Then freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are non-issues.
Only the government can deny those rights, and they haven't.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
When you talk about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you are talking about the government suppression of those things.
You and I cannot violate each other's free speech rights. The Giants cannot violate Tyree's free speech rights.
Eric can't violate freedom of press rights.
Only the government can.
And if you're not saying they did, then there's no free speech or free press issues.
Jeez! this shit really gets wild! You conveniently left out the word "spirit". I said there is a spirit of free speech in our democracy. It is separate from what is codified in law and therefore "informal". But you guys just go ahead and see whatever you want regardless of what's actually typed. This silliness is a bit too much for me. Carry on.
I'm legitimately frightened by what I'd find in a search for Â
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
actually what you're suggesting would be a much more injurious type of intrusion into "free speech," either legally or spiritually. you see, if David Tyree were protected from discipline or termination from his *private* employer - despite having said something (hypothetically, of course) that his employer deems inappropriate or offensive, you are then forcing the employer to endorse the employee's viewpoint by forcing them to keep him on staff. that would be much worse for "free speech" in spirit, wouldn't it? can you imagine someone on the executive board of Chick Fil-A being a staunch supporter of gay marriage? think that might undermine corporate cohesion a little bit?
*private* employers are (and should be) allowed to discipline or fire employees for the things they say, even if those comments are OTHERWISE protected from government action by the Constitution. to suggest otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of "free speech," either in law or in spirit.
If the Giants, as an organization, had said "we don't want to hire a guy because his views on humanity are backwards, out-of-step and reflect poorly on our organization," they would absolutely have had the right to make that determination. And it wouldn't matter if the views of that job candidate were based on the bible or anything else. But at the end of the day, the Giants didn't make that determination. (And that's also their right).
Personally, I wish they had.
I think the word that needs to be introduced here is "chilling"` Â
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
actually what you're suggesting would be a much more injurious type of intrusion into "free speech," either legally or spiritually. you see, if David Tyree were protected from discipline or termination from his *private* employer - despite having said something (hypothetically, of course) that his employer deems inappropriate or offensive, you are then forcing the employer to endorse the employee's viewpoint by forcing them to keep him on staff. that would be much worse for "free speech" in spirit, wouldn't it? can you imagine someone on the executive board of Chick Fil-A being a staunch supporter of gay marriage? think that might undermine corporate cohesion a little bit?
*private* employers are (and should be) allowed to discipline or fire employees for the things they say, even if those comments are OTHERWISE protected from government action by the Constitution. to suggest otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of "free speech," either in law or in spirit.
and I think I added it as well, the hire itself is not wrong. Provided he isn't preaching his beliefs to the players he is counseling it isn't an issue. The timing of this particular hire, given his strong public views on this topic, is strange for such a conservative (not right wing conservative) organization.
with all this backlash. I think this is a bad hire but even the Giants make mistakes. Remember Sintim?
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
I know we just debated this topic on BBI a few weeks ago. I am not advocating any sort of legal acton, right? None. What I want is for people, like Graziano, to stand down and accept that expressing political opinions they dislike doesn't prohibit people from being employed at whatever job for which they are qualified.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
If you worked for Coca-Cola and then went on Letterman and said how much you loved Pepsi, there's a good chance you'd be fired by Coca-Cola.
Them firing you, in no way, violated your right to say you loved Pepsi on national television.
However, if the Governor of New York stopped you from saying it at all because he only allows Coca-Cola to be mentioned on television shows filmed in NYC, then your free speech rights have been violated.
with all this backlash. I think this is a bad hire but even the Giants make mistakes. Remember Sintim?
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
it's one thing if it stays as chatter on BBI, quite another if a lot of fans start writing letters to the team, as I think many will. where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
personally, and this is despite the fact that a close family member of mine is a gay man, the Giants organization has given much worse people much bigger opportunities than this. i think Tyree will probably keep his views to himself when it comes to this issue. if he can do that and it's not a constant distraction once the initial story dies down, i wouldn't get all up in arms about it.
but yeah, if he's tweeting about gay marriage next week, then we have a problem.
I know we just debated this topic on BBI a few weeks ago. I am not advocating any sort of legal acton, right? None. What I want is for people, like Graziano, to stand down and accept that expressing political opinions they dislike doesn't prohibit people from being employed at whatever job for which they are qualified.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
So, in other words, you want to suppress Graziano's right of free speech because you don't agree with him that Tyree's viewpoint is grounds for questioning of the Giants' decision to hire him?
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
He never suggests that Tyree should be fired.
Here's the worst of what he wrote:
Quote:
Tyree might well be qualified to hold the job of director of player development. Heck, he might be great at it. And maybe his medieval views on this issue won't affect his ability to do the job or relate to players in any way. But given what's going on in the NFL and the world right now, I have to think the Giants could have made a less tone-deaf hire.
feel like he should be given a chance to do the job and succeed or fail on the merits of the work that he does.
Normally I would agree, but problem there is that I believe that Tyree's previous statements made before the hire will absolutely effect his ability to create meaningful relationships with some young players as a mentor.
In that regard, I think that you have to seriously question his ability to serve in the role he was hired in.
The Giants will have an openly gay player on their roster in the near future, you can count on that. Hell, if 3% of the population identifies as gay, then about 50 NFL players are homosexual, so odds are that there's a closeted gay player or two on the team RIGHT NOW. How do you think Tyree's comments make them feel? Also take into account that he a large part of his job description is serving as a mentor. What kind of mentor do you think he would be if Michael Sam was on the team? Wouldn't Michael Sam be one of the guys in most need of a sympathetic figure with Tyree's job?
I meant to, and my question still stands with spirit included.
There is free speech.
And nowhere has it been violated.
I have no idea what you'll read into this, but just to clarify, I think Tyree had a right to say what he did and the Giants had a right to not hire him and have the right to fire him. Interesting to see how this post is interpreted.
he really has to be given a chance to do his job. Given his past, he does have some qualifications that merit the job. It is now up to him not to allow his personal beliefs to hinder his ability to speak with and counsel players. For many people, that is possible. If he is not one of those people, though, then it is grounds to fire him.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
M in CT: "...you want to suppress Graziano's right of free speech because you don't agree with him..." More that I want him to suppress himself and take that option off the table.
Cam: You're right that Graziano didn't state that Tyree should be fired, but I thought it was coming close. Graziano writes: "People like Tyree stand in the way of that, which is why I don't think this is the right time for Tyree to hold a job like this in the NFL." That's very close to calling for a firing.
I think Tyree had a right to say what he did and the Giants had a right to not hire him and have the right to fire him. Interesting to see how this post is interpreted.
If you somehow got the impression I didn't, I'm not sure where the miscommunication is.
he really has to be given a chance to do his job. Given his past, he does have some qualifications that merit the job. It is now up to him not to allow his personal beliefs to hinder his ability to speak with and counsel players. For many people, that is possible. If he is not one of those people, though, then it is grounds to fire him.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
But I think you can make the argument that once he made those statements in a public forum before he was hired it hindered his ability to counsel people.
I'll forgive his obtuseness about human sexuality... Â
most people that throw that phrase around have absolutely no f-cking idea what it means, to be sure, and I'm not sure it really applies here, but the notion that every time someone voices an unpopular opinion in public it becomes the basis for hiring and firing decisions should be a little disquieting, with or without state action. The attempt to publicly shame someone into silence just because "all thinking people" have united on an issue (and again, I happen to agree with that consensus and to the extent anyone gives a f-ck what I think I have argued for it) is a problem. We rightly shudder when people are targeted for voicing opinions that in particular times and places are unpopular (pro Civil Rights of course, pro Gay Rights), maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call for the heads of those with whom we disagree?
Agree 100% with that post. I am sure the Giants think Tyree is a good fit for this job so what should they do? Should Tyree can never have another job?
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
OK, so we have a litmus test for Tyree's new job? Â
there's a pretty good chance Tyree and his apparent evangelism would have an easier time relating to young athletes, many of whom speak the language even if they don't always behave like it, than a lot of us could. And that's not just young African American athletes, that's your Texans and your Southerners too.
As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
Exactly. He's gone on record passing judgement on a subsection of our society. Even if you're not gay, you can still be offended by that and not want to take advice from someone that you view as a homophobe. That's what I mean when I say it may hinder his ability to form relationships with some of the players.
RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
All Tyree should be required to do is to act professional and keep his opinions to himself in the workplace. The player should also approach the interaction like a professional
If I read his comments and I were in charge if hiring, I wouldn't hire him. Heck, I know for a fact that I would not hire some of the people I read on my fb who make profoundly liberal political posts if their resume came across my desk. Also got a thing about tattoos and piercings... there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into hiring I guess.
All Tyree should be required to do is to act professional and keep his opinions to himself in the workplace. The player should also approach the interaction like a professional
Personally I think that's on the Giants. You don't hire someone to impart wisdom and counselling on your young players that you know have been outspoken and bias against a segment of humanity that may (or in the future) make up your team.
Even if you act professional and courteous around someone, it doesn't mean that it isn't awkward. Also, the hiring could represent at the very least a indifference to what Tyree said, or at worst a tacit agreement with his point of view.
most people that throw that phrase around have absolutely no f-cking idea what it means, to be sure, and I'm not sure it really applies here, but the notion that every time someone voices an unpopular opinion in public it becomes the basis for hiring and firing decisions should be a little disquieting, with or without state action. The attempt to publicly shame someone into silence just because "all thinking people" have united on an issue (and again, I happen to agree with that consensus and to the extent anyone gives a f-ck what I think I have argued for it) is a problem. We rightly shudder when people are targeted for voicing opinions that in particular times and places are unpopular (pro Civil Rights of course, pro Gay Rights), maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call for the heads of those with whom we disagree?
Dunded, thanks. This is what I meant by the spirit of free speech beyond what is codified by law. Though there would be no prosecution of a company for firing someone based on something they said, because no law had been broken, depending on what was said, we could lament the fact that the principle of freedom of speech (not the law) was not considered in such decisions. One can always bring up examples of speech that no one would wish protected, but we would also hope that the spirit would not be too carelessly tossed aside.
RE: RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
most people that throw that phrase around have absolutely no f-cking idea what it means, to be sure, and I'm not sure it really applies here, but the notion that every time someone voices an unpopular opinion in public it becomes the basis for hiring and firing decisions should be a little disquieting, with or without state action. The attempt to publicly shame someone into silence just because "all thinking people" have united on an issue (and again, I happen to agree with that consensus and to the extent anyone gives a f-ck what I think I have argued for it) is a problem. We rightly shudder when people are targeted for voicing opinions that in particular times and places are unpopular (pro Civil Rights of course, pro Gay Rights), maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call for the heads of those with whom we disagree?
Agreed. Chilling free speech by relying on the state actor element is fundamentally flawed and our Courts have long held that it could run end around this in the past. You can't have it both ways.
RE: RE: RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
Oh sure, anachronistic is a word I used and not necessarily an appropriate one either in that it suggests there was once an appropriate time to speak as he did and of course that isn't the case. But even so, the fact that younger people generally are much more accepting does not mean that the same can be said of the younger group of NFL players, the majority of whom didn't grow up in the suburban Northeast as I did and many on this board did.
if Tyree said, "Homosexual activity is sinful", a homophobe?
if a Muslim says "Homosexual activity is sinful and under Sharia law a crime", a homophobe?
if the Dalai Lama says (as he has) that homosexual activity is sexual misconduct, a homophobe?
Where do we draw the line in someone enjoying gainful employment?
I am not saying he's unemployable. I'm sure he'd be great at any number of jobs. But he's been outspoken about condemning a subsection of the population to multiple media outlets.
The issue isn't that he has an opinion on someone's lifestyle, it's the fact that he's gotten up on a soapbox and sang it from the rafters and what that represents to the organization that's doing the hiring.
how is that germane to his job? I suppose if a player comes in questioning his sexuality and wants advice it might be an issue but that would be a rare event. In fact, it's likely that the Giants having an openly gay player for him to make uncomfortable would be a rare event for his tenure. I suppose Sam could open a floodgate, but I think that's unlikely.
RE: RE: RE: RE: As younger people seem to be going in less homophobic direction Â
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
Oh sure, anachronistic is a word I used and not necessarily an appropriate one either in that it suggests there was once an appropriate time to speak as he did and of course that isn't the case. But even so, the fact that younger people generally are much more accepting does not mean that the same can be said of the younger group of NFL players, the majority of whom didn't grow up in the suburban Northeast as I did and many on this board did.
So he's a good hire based on…regional stereotypes? That seems kinda anachronistic thinking its own self.
As I said, given his expressed views and priorities, Tyree seems like a strange choice. (Frankly, for him, as well.) But I fully expect the Giants PR team will issue a clarifying statement any time now. We'll see.
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
I actually see both sides of this point marriage is basically viewed as a contract between two people nowadays which is also the reason imo that the divorce rate has skyrocketed over the last several decades. Now its mainly the people who believe in the religious sanctimony who have a problem with it whether they have a problem with gay people or not.
Personally I don't give a rats ass what people believe just as long they don't force their opinions on anyone. My step brother is gay we were 15 when our parents married and we knew then he was gay. We became close right away and I love him like he was my real brother. We had this same discussion yesterday about tyree. He said although he shouldn't come out preaching about it the way he did he understands the opinion and doesn't havea problem with it. The thing he does have a problem with its when people tell him what he can and can't do because of his sexuality
If you worked for Coca-Cola and then went on Letterman and said how much you loved Pepsi, there's a good chance you'd be fired by Coca-Cola.
Them firing you, in no way, violated your right to say you loved Pepsi on national television.
However, if the Governor of New York stopped you from saying it at all because he only allows Coca-Cola to be mentioned on television shows filmed in NYC, then your free speech rights have been violated.
Its not hard to understand freedom of speech pretexts you to day what you want but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you said.
If your in a high profile job and say you hate Jews or call black people the n word on let's say twitter freedom of speech allows you to say that but it doesn't stop your company from firing you for saying that because it makes them look bad for having you work for them
else, would be a disqualification for employment because not based on any biblical statement, which I assume is the basis for Tyree's beliefs and statements.
There is NO basis in the Bible for ANY anti-semitic or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim statements.
If someone doesn't believe in the Bible or that the Bible does not enjoin homosexual acts or that it's an incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is sinful, I'm OK with that belief. But, I can also understand if Tyree believes that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. I also have no problem if he publicly professes his belief either as the free exercise of religion or of speech.
Since this was a response to me, I have two broad points:
1. Using Biblical verse to validate harm against others has never been convincing to me.
2. To argue that the New Testament has not been used as a resource to foment anti-antisemitism (even if one doesn't look at problematic actual text in Gospels of Mark, Matthew, John and the Book of Revelations) is quite problematic. For the broader view, I recommend James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews – A History.
Wasting your typed words. Nobody is changing anybodies minds.
generally i agree with this. intelligent people who know the law and who have made up their minds about how the law should be interpreted probably won't be swayed by what they read here, but at least they have a shot at understanding the principles in play. that may or may not lead to an evolution in their thinking, but the key is that they are thinking.
the people who shout "freedom of speech" in these scenarios are utterly hopeless, however. so in that regard, no, their feeble minds cannot be changed. in order to understand and ultimately, to change their opinion, they have to be able to grasp the concepts first.
M in CT: So, I guess you're saying (I'm not trying to put words Â
But his employer might fire him or not hire him because of what he says. But he did get hired, so I don't see what all the hubbub is for. It's not as if he got fired and people are saying "Freedom of speech!". The guy is free to say whatever he wants, and his employer took what he said into consideration and still hired him. Nothing to see here.
But his employer might fire him or not hire him because of what he says. But he did get hired, so I don't see what all the hubbub is for. It's not as if he got fired and people are saying "Freedom of speech!". The guy is free to say whatever he wants, and his employer took what he said into consideration and still hired him. Nothing to see here.
nobody disputes that the Giants actually did hire Tyree, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
the focus of the debate has largely been whether the Giants or other private organizations are free to consider an employee's (or potential employee's) viewpoints as part of the hiring, discipline or termination process. so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
but yeah, i think we can all agree that the Giants did in fact hire David Tyree, but thanks anyway for reminding us.
so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
I think people are discussing their views on the principles involved, not "Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened"
Duned- you're arguing something nobody has suggested . Â
And to address your point about players not being a representation of social norms as a whole: obviously that's the case, otherwise there would have been an openly gay player before 2014. What's also obvious is that although not perhaps "up to speed" with the rest of the country, players views absolutely are changing. Specifically an entire team of young men in Columbia, MO kept the fact that one of their star players is homosexual a secret for a year because the gay player asked them to. If that's not a sign of the younger generation of players having a different attitude towards homosexuality, I'm not quite sure what is.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
Ha, if you restricted BBI threads to discussion of things that have actually occurred - as opposed to things that might occur or haven't yet occurred - you'd probably eliminate 80% of the threads. I'm sure you've never sunken low enough to engage in a debate regarding the hypothetical.
Freedom of speech has little or nothing to do with this specific case. No matter which side of the argument you are on.
The argument may have delved deeper into hypotheticals, but I still find it weird/stupid that freedom of speech is the theme of this discussion when it never really had anything to do with this scenario.
you read through the thread, you'll find that quite a few posters, myself included, have been trying to make exactly that point - that freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with this story. so, while we are in agreement on that, you are pretty late to the party.
But as I said, it makes no sense for either side of the argument. It would have made sense to argue tooth and nail if Tyree got fired for this and people were chanting "Freedom of speech!", but he got hired. It's just a circular argument about something that has never happened.
The fact that I'm late to the party and freedom of speech is still the hot topic on this very page speaks volumes on how stupid this is.
that anyone argues that freedom of speech as codified in the constitution is an issue here even though so much effort has been expended refuting that argument that few are making. Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Wuphat you're like a bulldog. I NEVER said that its being violated. You seem to be lying in wait ready to pounce on me for any perceived slight. I talked in generalities that the principle of free speech should be given consideration whenever possible. I never directly applied it to the Tyree issue. Some poster thought freedom of speech was important and I followed up with the idea that even when the law did not apply, we should still consider the principle where appropriate. You keep trying to put me on one side of this issue when I haven't taken a stand on it other than to say Tryree was free to say what he did and the Giants were free to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know why you have a hard on for me but its getting a bit creepy!
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Quote:
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
I was agreeing with you and went on to remark that the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals. You chose to apply that to the Tyree situation, not I, nor did I intend to. It was just a general observation about the importance of the principle of free speech. And if you don't get that simple concept and need it further simplified, then I can't help you. No, change that ... I don't wish to help you because you're just baiting me and I continue to foolishly respond.
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
People are boggling themselves by reading into, rather than just reading. The OP's subject makes it pretty clear. The article sparked a discussion here as to whether or not this hire was a 'bad move' by the Giants. No one on the 'bad move' side has questioned anyone's rights to do anything they've done. As is often the case on here, the Freedom of Speech business is usually introduced by people who simply don't understand it. Which is usually served with a side of 'PC!!!' or 'Pussification!!!'.
And that's probably where all the 'boggling' comes in. People are just randomly grabbing at words they see in front of them, without being concerned about what anything actually means.
"Freedom of Speech" only applies when there is govt involvement. But there should also be freedom of speech. I think the amendment is founded on a principle that yeah govt shouldn't impinge, but also that people have freedom just by existing, independent of govt. part of that freedom should be, IMO, that your or my opinion are equally able to be expressed. Wrt repercussions, an employer certainly has that right. But more often than not it's not the employer, it's the employer being bullied into an action by mob mentality. That's also scary.
Is based on at people don't like what he said. So I would guess that's where the speech element comes in. I haven't seen anyone say it's a bad move based on his qualifications.
Wrt repercussions, an employer certainly has that right. But more often than not it's not the employer, it's the employer being bullied into an action by mob mentality. That's also scary.
c'mon, companies are not bullied in any such fashion. they're simply responding to public opinion so that they are best positioned to make money, just like they always have.
the only two things that have changed between the "good old days" when you could spout off about "fags" and keep your job and today are 1) public opinion and 2) technology.
so now ridiculing "fags" is no longer an accepted viewpoint in mainstream society and it's easier to disseminate your ignorant shit to more people by using Twitter.
if people are so concerned about being vilified for their views, or losing their jobs, or being called bigots, then they should keep them off Twitter, don't you think?
I wonder where there is a line though even for private employers Â
As I said, if I had seen someone express politically different ideology of mine in public, I likely wouldn't hire them...unless there was a huge difference in qualifications versus other candidates. I also would factor in other personal things (that we're not religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc). Smoking, smoking weed, tattoos, piercings etc. somewhere there must be. Line?
So you're right. I think mostly we suck though wrt contrary opinions..not necessarily homophobic speech.., we are very much a "Lottery" society I think.
the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
Wup, first let me apologize for the tone of my last few posts to you, that is letting my frustration get the best of me. I am frustrated with words being put in my mouth, with positions ascribed to me that I have not take, and with posts agreeing with posters being ignored by those posters. That's no reason to abandon civility.
The idea of a tradition of respect for freedom of speech is so utterly basic and self evident as to defy efforts to boil it down even further. The best I can do is leave you with an example...
Suppose in an interview with a school newspaper, a teacher said " I think our educational system is deeply flawed. Our methods are all wrong and there is too much emphasis on testing. That is compounded by inept administration, particularly at our school". Now, the Board of Education must decide whether the statements were so egregious that her traditional right to freedom of speech should be disregarded and she should be disciplined.
We should consider freedom of speech in deciding these issues regardless of whether the government is involved, and the BoE can very well decide that the damage of her comments outweighs her freedom of speech. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't too lightly dismiss it.
Now, you say what has this got to do with David Tyree? NOTHING! And I never said it did. I made a general comment about our democratic traditions after agreeing with you about the actual codified constitutional right to free speech. You proceeded to cross examine me as if I had come down on the side of "leave Tyree alone, he has the right of free speech" I said no such thing, and in fact stated the opposite, he can say what he likes and the Giants can respond as they like. That's it. I'm out before I again succumb to frustration.
RM, you're confusing public and private employers Â
the public school that employs or would employ the teacher in your example may be limited in its responses to those comments, depending on whether the teacher could demonstrate the elements for a first amendment retaliation claim.
but a private employer, like the NYG, does not have any such restrictions and private employees, like David Tyree, are not eligible for first amendment retaliation claims.
freedom of speech means that the government can't stop you from saying something.
It does not mean you are free from consequences of that speech.
It never has.
Ever.
If a school board (and this is a strange example, since the BOE is technically an arm of the state) decides that a teacher has said something egregious, of course, as that teacher's employer (rather than as an arm of the state) has the right to terminate.
Now, we can certainly nitpick over what ought or ought not be a terminable offense, but I don't think that's what either of us are looking for.
I just didn't (and to be honest, still don't) understand what is meant by the spirit or principle of free speech you've talked about means.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean you have the right to an audience, a right to a platform on which to speak, or the right to be free of consequences for what you say.
And, so I'm clear, I perfectly understand your position on this Â
You proceeded to cross examine me as if I had come down on the side of "leave Tyree alone, he has the right of free speech" I said no such thing, and in fact stated the opposite, he can say what he likes and the Giants can respond as they like. That's it. I'm out before I again succumb to frustration.
It's the whole spirit/principle of free speech apart from the law or government that you're proposing that I don't see.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean you have the right to an audience, a right to a platform on which to speak, or the right to be free of consequences for what you say.
We have no real disagreement here other than you diligently looking for something to disagree with
Even though it's not the intended reason, by hiring a person of authority for players who is outspoken in his stance against gay marriage, there are players who could easily view the Giants as an anti-gay organization. Basically guilty by association. You might say that it ridiculous and certainly not the intention. You might point out the team's statement that Tyree does not speak for the team on this issue. But there are players who have every right to see differently, and now would refuse to ever play for the franchise. This could hurt us at some point, even though we'll never know it happened.
Even though it's not the intended reason, by hiring a person of authority for players who is outspoken in his stance against gay marriage, there are players who could easily view the Giants as an anti-gay organization. Basically guilty by association. You might say that it ridiculous and certainly not the intention. You might point out the team's statement that Tyree does not speak for the team on this issue. But there are players who have every right to see differently, and now would refuse to ever play for the franchise. This could hurt us at some point, even though we'll never know it happened.
Agree. I stated earlier on this thread I thought it was a dumb move on their part
Great, we seem to be in agreement on all aspects except for Â
Gay people have been waiting for their freedom to simply be who they are, in public, for a long, long, long time now. Without getting the crap kicked out of them. In other words, the basic freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness without hearing how they're disgusting or the Devil's abominations or they're making somebody unforgettable with their (gasp!) kissing.
I give zero shits about the non-existent, on any level, impingement of David Tyree's right to say whatever ignorant thing pops into his head. As if that's the real travesty here and this guy with his thin resume getting a cushy job is the one who has really been victimized here.
The spirit of freedom of speech in the private sector Â
You do realize that setting a precedent that it's OK for you to demand that someone who holds what you consider a wrong political opinion not be gainfully employed can backfire and be turned on you one day, correct?
You do realize that setting a precedent that it's OK for you to demand that someone who holds what you consider a wrong political opinion not be gainfully employed can backfire and be turned on you one day, correct?
Who is saying he shouldn't be gainfully employed? Good gravy, people are really trying to not get it now...
Seeing as how there are millions of people with differing viewpoints who hold his views, he can easily find a job. That's not limiting gainful employment. He had a job before in the NFL, and that's acceptable.
I don't think he suits this position, and I certainly have the right to complain.
How this translates to employment on a broader scale is pure fantasy.
RE: I'm going to start petitioning the employers of people who Â
Don't agree with me on political issues to fire them.
Either you agree with me, because I have the only valid opinion possible, or you cannot be gainfully employed.
Perfectly reasonable, no?
"reasonable" is a loaded term in this context. you are certainly within your legal rights to make a petition of that nature and the company is certainly within its legal rights to either respond to the petition and discipline or fire the employee(s) in question or, more likely, completely ignore you.
whether either party is acting "reasonably" in your scenario is a matter of opinion. you think it would be unreasonable to make such a petition, but others who are actually offended by what Tyree said probably don't agree. would you begrudge them their freedom of speech in choosing to write to the team? or are you suggesting that their speech should be suppressed because you don't agree with it?
Thats treue also. How Graziano makes the jump form Tyree saying he doesn't approve, to all of a sudden claiming hateful and damaging actions is bullshit.I'm tired of this hysterical whining
bullshit and will fight it wherever I find it.who the hell is graziano to be telling us what we should or shouldn't approve of.I leave you alone, you leave me alone, but go fuck yourselves wheb you want to tell me how to think or nake moral judgements on it, cause guess what, then ill start passing moral judgements on other people for being dicksucks. And i don't really give a shit who it offends anymore. those who are offended tend to be the most vile sorts of people anyway.most parts of the world fagotism is treated as a mental illness, or a crime.i don't really give a shit is some closeted fag in the giants locker room was thinking about coming out and now feels he can't. Maybe we get lucky and he asks to be traded, and furthermore others of their ilk avoid signign with us in the future. If Mara and Tasxh had that in mind, Bravo.The whole soncept of them " scrambling for damage control" is hirseshit. The did it, and they don't give 2 shits who is butthurt over it.Theyw ant to hire a gay player, go right ahead. They want to hire 20, thats fine too.They want to hire a gay GM< i'm down with that also. But don't presume to tell me how to feel about it. What a man thinks in his own head id his own fucking business, and he has a right to express it if he wants.
You wanna call me a bigot, go right ahead.Doesn't make me one.somehow now saying anything other than promoting fagotry is a hate crime. i call bullshit.Also tyree is right. Go find the fag gene, otherwise shut the fuck up about how you were born this way and can't help yourself.Bigots make you sick? Fagots make me sick. too bad.If me saying thst is a crime, then I think you are a sick twisted bastard.Tyree has every right to hisd opinion and doesnt owe his integrity as a man and a human being to an employer. There are plenty of ameerican men whio think homosexuality is sick and disgussting, but they simply wont say so in public because they might be adversely affected. these men are characterless weasels. At least Tyree has the courage of his convictions.anyone don't like my opinion can go pound it up their ass along with whatever else they like to shove up there.Graziano makes me sick.
Not allowing gay people to get married is by itself anti-gay.
That's a crime? tens of thousands of years pf precedingh mankind all all eveil criminals, but the modern evolved fag, who emerges from the world of global warming, environmetal destruction, endless wars,millions up on millions of abortions a year, this man is the new standard, to be upheld, admired and followed? LIke a q940 Ubermensch, maybe?I don't think so dude. your just another in a long list of assholes who inhabit the earth who fucked it up just like the peopel whoi came beforew them with their own list of petty prejudices and grudges.You hold no moral high ground, so go live your life as you weish, and stop trying to convince everyone else it's the way to be. You do like it when religious types do it, do you? No. So please, just go about your business and shut the fuck up.
Not allowing gay people to get married is by itself anti-gay.
who empowered you to redefine marriage? If the individual states vote on it to accept it, so be it, we live in a democracy.we abide by the rule of law.when you try and villify and demonize those who dont share your view then that is something else entirely.that's just force on force. and when you appeal to force, don't cry if you lose.
RE: I'd never heard the term homophile until yesterday. Â
I have no idea if there's someone out there that's better qualified for the job than Tyree.
I would think it has been made clear to him that his religious views/views on homosexuality aren't to be brought to work.
I'm really hoping that the 'hoopla' about this is just that, and that his personal views won't have any effect on how well he does his job.
ytou think so, cam? you think Mara, as a devout catholic, and Tisch, as a devout jew, are approving of homosexual lifestyles?I dont think so. LIke me they would probably hire one if he was the best guy for the job, but that doesn't constitute approval.
If you can differentiate between lack of approval, and persecution, then you are the problem, not the other fellow.
That's true, but the "there's no scientific evidence that you're born gay" is beyond moronic.
I totally agree. That is a very dumb statement.
link, bitch, or GTFO. there is no evidence.ancient greeks, Romans, Pederastic relationships, convicts, any many other examples can be used to make the case tat in a great many instances, it is simply a lifestyle choice.
Hey, make you choice, thats your right. live how you are happy. just stop trying to tell other people how to feel about you or judge you. If I commit no crime, show no discrimination in hiring or business practices, and for the most part keep my views on your lifestyle to myself, then it's really nomn of your fucking business what I think or how I view it. I am as free to say a homsexual lifestyle is a matter of choice ny damaged individuals are you are gree to say that it isnt, and we both have the same right to call each other mentally ill. ( except I'm right and you're not). I'm not afraid of an argument with a militant homophile.most of you are hysterics anyway and easy to deal with.
No. Enough. Being against gay marriage is the symptom of you thinking them to be lesser people who are living their lives incorrectly.
you and you're mind reading leftist belshevik bullshit is getting tiring.You missed your calling, guy, you should have grown up in st petersburg in 1917.You dont have a fucking clue how anyone thinks so stop pretending you do.
o tired of your whining " I'm a victimized little flower' horsehit.
You don't have the courage of your convictions. you cant, and never could make your case without resorting to hysterics and insults. you're an empty.to many of you arounbd here like that, and then comes the disgusting part where you all weep on each other shoulders and console each other. Why\ because Tyree got hired as head of player development and doesnt share your politics? Please, just fuckoff
.
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
"mostly a legal contract" to who?Again, it is amazing how progressives feel quite free to define what other peoplemnthink, feel and believe.Me, my family, everyone I know views it as a religious sacrament.you however say otherwise. Based on what authority? certainly not gods, you're an atheist?other than power, and the ability to enforce your rules, your logic, your outlook, your definitions of what is or isn't marraige, or law for that matter, by force, where do you derive an authority from?
Legally, same sex unions are legal in NY and NJ, so there is that. Where I live that is not the case.My point is you dont recognize god, so the ability to govern comes simply from power, in all its forms, including the ability to ridicule and marginalize oppposition.It just sound so very much like george bush" you're either with us or againbst us"..
It's been stated very early in thge thread, if you do no support same sex marraige then you are discriminating against them and pesecuting them and denying them theur rights, ) whilst at the same time redefining an institution thousands of years old simply so you can get tax benifits) after all, you yourself said it's simply a "legal" matter, that comes down to the preservation and dispensation of material assets. Thats how you view it.you see yourselves as persecuted, denied your rights and liberties. I understand that, and I dont think anyone should be denied employment because of their sexual preferences.Once again, I'll try and make the point that I'm sure will get lost, always gets lost, because the one side has a NEED to villify the other ( and i think thats frankly because their case doesnt stand up under Close inspection, so any real discussion must be squelched at the outset by advocates of gay rights)If for my part am very willing to consider other peopels views, and needs, and even to make movements to meet their needs, if and when i see i am dealinh with good faith partners. I dont find progressives, or most gay rights activists to be such partners.Same reason we cant have an honest discussion about racism in this country and probably won't ever be able to.
One mans contract is another mans sacrament, whether you ridicule or respect it or not. the part that cracks me up is the latent inherent hypocrisy, where you mock and bellittle others beliefs and then get indignant when people dont supoort your own warped agenda.
RE: if it were his beliefs and he kept to himself, he'd be fine i think Â
it's that he used the biggest stage he could to speak against others, and the momentum of acceptance and legalization of gay marraige stands directly in opposition to what he said. the fact that it's a player development position, i cant speak with absolute certainty to what that entails but, i'd think it's ultimately about preparing each and every player in the organization for success. it's going to be tricky... although I do think Tyree is a good person to try and inspire confidence in young players who need to prove themselves in their craft on the biggest stages. but football isn't everything....
This is a well thought out post I can't really argue with.
on the subject, whether he's on the wrong side of the issue or not, but it would have been much better for him and the Giants had he just kept that personal belief, you know, personal.
But as soon as he expressed it publicly, he opened himself up to criticism for it, and given the position he's been hired for, I think it's reasonable to question whether or not that belief will interfere with his ability to perform that job.
Maybe I'm seeing this with blue shades on, but I have to think that the Giants addressed this during their vetting process and he gave them some indication that he wouldn't let his beliefs interfere with the job should such an occasion arise. Who knows, maybe he's had a change of heart. I certainly hope so, at least.
Why would it have been better?What if he felt strongly about it and it was important to him.What if he thought that taking thre institution of marriage, and desanctifying consitutued a direct attack on his church, his faith, his religious beliefs, and that furthermore, it would help shape the values of a nation where you no longer had a seperation between church and state, but rather a SUBJUGATION of church to state.you dont know what thought, what importance, what assesments he put into his comments. They my have been very well thought out.He may not have been seeking to avoid criticisism. he may have wanted an open debate.Furthermore, I don't know you can be so very sure that his attitudes and values do not reflect those of thwe Giants organization. I think the Tisaches and Maras being devoutly religious, he may in fact reflect their views.
Further still, it is quite possible those views are misrepresented.Just becayse certain parties try and force others to make a choice, to put them on the horns of a dilemna, so to speak, by saying you either support gay marraige or you are an evil bigot ( which is kinda funny, coming from a crowd of atheists), mybe thats there way of saying no, that is not the case.Most people I know thiin k like me
they oppose gay marriage, think homosexuality is disgusting, would work with gay people, would hire them, would socialize with them, and just simply avoid that aspect of their life that the dont approve of, the same way I have feinds that like to get high. I dont. i thik itsa illegal, dangerous and stupid. doesnt affect my relationshp, i just avoid that aspect of it.
The fact is the homosexual; community seems to display some deep need for not only tolerance, which is all we really owe each other over anything, but open outright acceptance, and if you dont you are evil.to me it is it's own sort of tyranny, and to try and impose that on david tyree is bullshit.
what you dont get is that most people, fpor the most part simply ignore the sexual habits of other people, and dont really give a shit. but it doesnt mean i should teach my children it's a valid lifestyle choice.Plain and simply, for any practicing montheist of any Abrahamic religion, it isn't.And that's not my say so.
Are all gays atheists? or do they just cherry pick what parts of their religions to practice?
He's the batshit crazy gift you wish would stop giving Â
Does someone who believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion be denied a job because it is a minority viewpoint? Does it mean they are disqualified from working for a WNBA team? Will it reach the point that affiliation with a particular political party is the basis for rejection from employment?
I think you have to look to how he does his job. If he discriminates, or tries to "cure" a gay player, it would be a firing offense. If he spends most of his free time at anti-gay marriage rallies it might affect his ability to do his job. But merely holding an unpopular belief should not be a disqualifying act.
What an excellent post.The issue here to me isn't homosexuality ( i could give a shit who is gay and who isn't)but rather the threat of progressive censorship to democracy.
Tyree is a fucking Hero. Did nothing wrong. BUT there re those. even on here, who whould make politicl hay, and seek to politicize the job( as if it was some sort of federallly appointed job that we as voters had some say over).
Americans are idiots, plain and simple. we've just lost 2 wars ( does anyone think that in 10 years time we will be allied with either Iraq or afghanistan)Gaza burns, rockets rain down on Israel, More and more russian troops pour into the Ukraine every day, the Japanese are now talking to the north koreans and telling us that we would have to ask permission from japan to delpoy any of our units based on jap soil, Americam Brigades, squadrons, ships, decomission before the end of their service life to fund one program( the F-35) that doesnt work, cant turn, is slow as fuck, cant carry any real paylod, has no range, and it's the one thing we as a nation are spending money on. Oh yeah, and importing hordes of Mexican children.These are partisan issues. These are universal issues that will affect our future, but what concerns us is whether or not David Tyree, a goddamn hero whobrought you the best moment of sports entertainament any of you ever saw in yor lif, is fit to behead of developing the character of young players, and preparing them for life after the NFL. Is the great fear that he will leave out the part where they teach how to cruise Twink bars?
“If they pass this gay marriage bill ... this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward — it’s a strong word — but anarchy. The moment we have, and if you trace back to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society itself loses its grip with what’s right. ... Marriage is the backbone of society, so if you redefine it, it changes the way we educate our children, it changes the perception of what is good, what is right, what is just,” Tyree said in a videotaped interview.
Or here….
Quote:
Tyree continues his crusade against same-sex marriage, telling the New York Daily News that he’d be inclined to trade one of the greatest plays in Super Bowl history to prevent men from legally marrying other men.
“The catch was a gift, it’s not like I’d try to do it. I couldn’t do it again so that was a miracle,” Tyree told Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News. “There’s nothing worth more than [maintaining heterosexual marriage] right here for me.”
And definitely here….
Quote:
‘I don’t want my kids to think homosexuals are normal.’”
4%of americans are homosexuals.$% is not considered a norm in any case study or demographic.
Hysterics. What crusade? where are his legions? Has be brought seige engine to the walls of soho and chelsea? has his armies landed on fire Island?Have his divisions taken san francisco. His crusade, you say.
This is why I laugh. all is bullshit, hysterics, histrionics womans wailing and crying and lamentations and wringing of hands. What next, will you present the bodies of those slain By Tyree the fearsome, the fagslayer, and ululate in public over the corpses?Nothing you say has any bearing on anything vaguely resembling reality. Just all bullshit and hysterics to play the victim, the poor wilted flowers, who seek to destroy our institutions, and way of life, as they vilify those who would oppose them.Phooey on you.
You never want ‘I don’t want my kids to think homosexuals are normal.’” to be on your permanent public record.
Why?Actually, I wouldn't say that. I might say " I don't want my kids to think homosexuality is normal." there is a difference to me between saying the person isn't normal, and the choice of lifestyle isn't.Kinda like alchoholism, crminality, drug addiction, or simply a choice or never bathing are also abnormal lifestyle choices
RE: RE: RE: Yeah, 'tone deaf' was how it struck me, as well. Â
I don't think it's so mysterious. Tyree is a guy who overcame drug problems to have a successful football career amidst the temptations of playing in NY.
If that's the criteria, LT would have been a better choice.
Really, in your infinite wisdom, that's who your choice of head of player development would be? Lawrence Taylor? I think that says all we need to know about your judgement
hey, why should they be any different and not suffer miserably in the courts trying to extricate themselves from a love affair gone wrong?
That said, anyone who thinks that there isn't a very significant percentage of people who think gay marriage is wrong is outright wrong. Heck, when I merely suggested it's ok to people who haven't set foot in a church in years (other than to watch someone get married or buried) I was told how wrong it was. legal rights are ok, but call it marriage? No way.
I'm really mixed on this. On the one hand I hold the view that non conformity makes it hard for someone to get a job, so I'm intolerant. On the other hand, I think you have a right to non conformity, and most people agree with this right. And I think most of these people will come up with all kinds of faulty reasoning for rationalizing that they don't demand conformity. Here, a non conformist (to the PC correct world) espouses his views, gets a job, and there's a sizeable portion of people who claim it's a problem when there is zero evidence that it is.
Let's get real. No one here is going to stop rooting for the Giants because of Tyree's views. The gay world in general or the gay NFL world is not going to be set back a generation because Tyree is now the guy who advises players on whatever the the position advises them on. Just like Charles Way, it's going to be a story when the guys gets the job, and no one will ever think of it again unless they have an agenda they want to push.
GWG- when is the last time you made a consious choice Â
There is a large segment of the population that I could totally be banging if only I could figure out how to make myself get aroused. Fat chicks need love too, ya know?
I think some of those comments are nuts and idiotic. Let's not dilute the issue by waving away how oddball they are. Should someone be professionally harmed for holding non-mainstream views on a subject?
Definitely not. Westboro Baptist Church should have snapped him up years ago.
shouldn't you be in the office printing posters to elect Gus Hall?
I think this is a great example of how some "special interest" groups Â
actually end up hurting the cause-at-large with what they choose to comment on and get offended about.
Is scolding the Giants for hiring someone who is anti-gay really furthering their cause? Is this really going to change the opinions of various Giants fans?
Tyree is a bit of a nutjob, and I disagree with his viewpoint. But for this group to be up-in-arms about his hiring only emboldens people whose minds won't be changed anyway. Who really gives a shit about this story? Don't they have bigger fish to fry?
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
No. It is wrong to prohibit people from working a job. It is not wrong from prohibiting people from working particular jobs.
But free speech!
Bolsheviks dunno what free speech is.Get a better disguise next time, Boris.
It's WAY worse than this. Paulie only boots liberals; right-wing nuts (and far, far worse) are welcome to say whatever they like with no fear of consequences.
Well traffic on Boulevard is horrid because of fucking Redskins training camp.
Saw a couple of what must have been their trainers on bikes last night (by the Altria). I wanted to hit them with my car, but we were on the way to dinner and the gf was hungry. Dinner was okay. Would have been more satisfying to hit them.
Is this guy is a poster called sonosam from the Paulie site. They actually linked this thread there and were talking about the "fags" posting here. The stuff above is pretty tame compared to stuff from him about "the joos" and "the n....s".
At times to observe the psycho behavior but have not posted there in years. I have previously admitted my fascination with observing crazy. Sort of how many us look at car crashes
If this guy is in for just a timeout, I think a mass exodus from BBI is in order. If he isn't permanently banned for that rant, it would be a disgrace.
but getting back on track, how did you think Reese did fielding the question about Tyree's hiring in his press conference? I actually thought he put things well.
Reese's answer flies in the face of Tyree's quotes. Â
Yesterday you guys hired David Tyree and have taken some criticism from outside the organization. Why was he the right guy for that job and did you discuss beforehand some of his controversial quotations?
A: We do our due diligence on everybody we try to hire around here. David - number one - was qualified for the job. We think he’s a terrific fit for us. We’re happy to have him on board.
Q: Were you worried at all about some of the things he’s said in the past about homosexuals?
A: In this day and age, sometimes you say some things that maybe you don’t want to say, or shouldn’t have said, or something like that, and things can get blown out of proportion to a degree. But I’m not here to talk about social issues or somebody’s personal opinion about their beliefs. I believe everybody should be treated equally. I believe everybody should be treated fairly. I believe everybody should have an opinion to what they want to say. Most of all, I believe I should mind my own business and try to keep the plank out of my own eye. That’s what I believe the most.
Q: Does it concern you that there was that kind of criticism towards it?
A: Again, I’m not talking about that. I’m here to talk about the football team. That’s as much as I’m going to address that, guys. I tried to express how I feel about that and we’re happy to have David on our staff.
"Number one, he was qualified for the job and we think he's a terrific fit for us," Reese said. "I believe everybody should be treated equal, I believe everybody should be treated fairly, I believe everybody should have an opinion on what they want to say. Most of all I believe I should mind my own business and try to keep the plank out of my own eye."
I did like the allusion to the Bible verse at the end. Seemed pointed.
But if you're a Giants player with a gay relative or friend and you know David Tyree doesn't want them 'considered normal', I would expect that would be an impediment to the relationship. Thus I'm not buying the 'great fit' for this team at this time.
he's egregiously crossed the line multiple times. There's an alarmingly large group that are too fucking stupid to grasp what the first amendment covers. It's been brought up in the Dungy thread, and many threads about that football team in DC. Boils down to being able to empathize with other ethnicities, sexual orientation, and genders.
Not allowing gay people to get married is by itself anti-gay.
I would think it has been made clear to him that his religious views/views on homosexuality aren't to be brought to work.
I'm really hoping that the 'hoopla' about this is just that, and that his personal views won't have any effect on how well he does his job.
I totally agree. That is a very dumb statement.
I don't think you'll find a gay person to agree with you.
What do his comments in a public forum have to do with anything? What if we signed Michael Sam, as we were rumored to be interested in doing if he slipped out of the 7th round? Would Tyree try to convert him?
If he did, then fire him for that. Simple enough.
If so, he isn't just anti gay marriage, he's a homophobe.
I would have passed.
Damn. What's that say about your sex life, Anger?
No. It is wrong to prohibit people from working a job. It is not wrong from prohibiting people from working particular jobs.
UberAlias : 10:46 am : link : reply
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
I don't think you'll find a gay person to agree with you.
Or any straight person who isn't anti-gay or a homophobe.
Quote:
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
I don't think you'll find a gay person to agree with you.
I'm sure I won't. But for some it is about their views on what marriage is. It doesn't have to be about disliking people who are gay.
But as soon as he expressed it publicly, he opened himself up to criticism for it, and given the position he's been hired for, I think it's reasonable to question whether or not that belief will interfere with his ability to perform that job.
Maybe I'm seeing this with blue shades on, but I have to think that the Giants addressed this during their vetting process and he gave them some indication that he wouldn't let his beliefs interfere with the job should such an occasion arise. Who knows, maybe he's had a change of heart. I certainly hope so, at least.
Quote:
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
No. It is wrong to prohibit people from working a job. It is not wrong from prohibiting people from working particular jobs.
But free speech!
I'm decidedly not on Tyree's side on this whole issue, but he's actually probably got a point in the most literal sense -- there probably isn't one scientific study that empirically demonstrates a cause of gayness present at birth.
Sure, the lack of that study or piece of proof isn't license to believe "gay can be cured" or what have you, but still, he's probably technically right.t
Would anyone who had publicly made similarly insensitive comments about race even be considered for this position? Not unless they profusely and sincerely apologized and probably not even then.
....says it all for me!
So we he trade the catch for, um, a block? “Honestly, I probably would.”
Tyree then elaborated on his point. “Nothing means more to me than that my God would be honored,” Tyree said. “Being the fact that I firmly believe that God created and ordained marriage between a man and a woman, I believe that that’s something that should be fought for at all costs.
“So I’ll lay down everything I am to preserve the honor and integrity of the God that I serve.”
Forget how crazy this makes him sound, shouldn't the Giants (and fans) be concerned that he doesn't necessarily prioritize winning? Bad hire.
Muslims would not be able to hold Tyree's new job because under the Koran and Sharia, being gay is not only a sin but a crime and they should also be disqualified from holding a job like Tyree's because of their beliefs?. Giants and other sports teams not able to hire someone to hold supervisory or managerial jobs because of their beliefs?
Now, if Tyree's beliefs are translated into anti-gay actions, then I believe he and anyone like him should be fired. But to hold a religious belief and publicly say so disqualifies you from holding a job? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Discriminate against someone holding a job based on their beliefs?
Graziano is barely able to report on sports and yet he feels qualified to comment on someone else's beliefs and opine that someone should not hold a job based on their beliefs?
Quote:
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
Not allowing gay people to get married is by itself anti-gay.
Exactly
Once again, for those who can't seem to get it:
The 1st Amendment protects you from government sanctions, it does not shield you from criticism.
Muslims would not be able to hold Tyree's new job because under the Koran and Sharia, being gay is not only a sin but a crime and they should also be disqualified from holding a job like Tyree's because of their beliefs?. Giants and other sports teams not able to hire someone to hold supervisory or managerial jobs because of their beliefs?
Now, if Tyree's beliefs are translated into anti-gay actions, then I believe he and anyone like him should be fired. But to hold a religious belief and publicly say so disqualifies you from holding a job? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Discriminate against someone holding a job based on their beliefs?
Graziano is barely able to report on sports and yet he feels qualified to comment on someone else's beliefs and opine that someone should not hold a job based on their beliefs?
Bingo. Score 1 for Mr. Epps.
I think you have to look to how he does his job. If he discriminates, or tries to "cure" a gay player, it would be a firing offense. If he spends most of his free time at anti-gay marriage rallies it might affect his ability to do his job. But merely holding an unpopular belief should not be a disqualifying act.
I have an alternative approach: how about Tyree be instructed by the Giants on their workplace policy towards gay people and how about he adheres to it? And how about any gays who object to Tyree write him a personal letter explaining why he is wrong in hopes of changing his mind? Persuaion instead of coercion?
You can't have a job like this with those types of views. Why would a potential gay player on the Giants feel okay about telling the organization with someone like Tyree and his views as the go-between?
I don't think it's so mysterious. Tyree is a guy who overcame drug problems to have a successful football career amidst the temptations of playing in NY.
But, here's what I don't understand: you have a problem because I'm criticizing Graziano.
Graziano can criticize the Giants and Tyree but I can't criticize Graziano?
Here….
Or here….
“The catch was a gift, it’s not like I’d try to do it. I couldn’t do it again so that was a miracle,” Tyree told Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News. “There’s nothing worth more than [maintaining heterosexual marriage] right here for me.”
And definitely here….
More PC nonsense. Another thought crime for the perpetually offended.
Of course, you can criticize DG.
Quote:
Not sure what makes Tyree so special.
I don't think it's so mysterious. Tyree is a guy who overcame drug problems to have a successful football career amidst the temptations of playing in NY.
If that's the criteria, LT would have been a better choice.
You never want ‘I don’t want my kids to think homosexuals are normal.’” to be on your permanent public record.
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
It depends on the job they are trying to get.
Really? Should a teacher candidate who thinks Jews should be exterminated be considered? I can do this for hours.
Definitely not. Westboro Baptist Church should have snapped him up years ago.
"Minority view"- certainly but "non-mainstream", I don't know about that.
I don't understand how the otherwise sensible Giants organization could hire a guy who makes comments that he doesn't want his kids thinking that homosexuals are normal and that he would trade the Giants winning the Super Bowl to stop gay marriage to become the director of player personnel in the summer that the first openly gay football player was drafted and is trying to make a team.
Some people hold sports to be more important than they really are. Tyree is an ex-player who is going to help other players assimilate into NFL life. That's it. No one is going to be denied an opportunity at anything over this. These are football players...not heads of state.
The guy did an IMMENSE service to the Giants and all of us, and should have a job with the team for as long as he wants it. He's earned it.
That's obviously okay for him. But giving how very strongly feels, maybe he's not the best choice for this particular job, in this particularly image conscious league, in this particularly high profile city.
And time 1000, it's not about holding A job. It's about holding THIS job.
Some people hold sports to be more important than they really are. Tyree is an ex-player who is going to help other players assimilate into NFL life. That's it. No one is going to be denied an opportunity at anything over this. These are football players...not heads of state.
The guy did an IMMENSE service to the Giants and all of us, and should have a job with the team for as long as he wants it. He's earned it.
And he'd trade all that service to us to rid the world of gay people marrying. He's an idiot.
Because he didn't express them publicly. And that's the point.
He kept whatever his feelings may be to himself.
It's once you express them publicly (as you are entitled to do) that you open yourself up to criticism for them.
Tyree wasn't asked by the Giants because he'd already expressed his thoughts all of his own doing.
And soooo 'tolerant'(as long as another view aligns with yours).
2 more comments:
You presume he will discriminate(comic) in doing his job as Director of Player Development, whatever those tasks
be, while doing so would be worthy of termination;and
You presume a BLACK man will discriminate-RACISTS!-(genius).
I guess some of you never did your job in spite of having a difference of opinion about the work being done, the suervisor, the company philosophy, a co-workers life style. Or even disagreeing with Antonio Cromarties 'life-style'.
And soooo 'tolerant'(as long as another view aligns with yours).
2 more comments:
You presume he will discriminate(comic) in doing his job as Director of Player Development, whatever those tasks
be, while doing so would be worthy of termination;and
You presume a BLACK man will discriminate-RACISTS!-(genius).
I guess some of you never did your job in spite of having a difference of opinion about the work being done, the suervisor, the company philosophy, a co-workers life style. Or even disagreeing with Antonio Cromarties 'life-style'.
You are awful.
One of my sons is gay, it started to show when was 2 years old. He acted much differently than his older brothers.
He wasn't "recruited"
Tyree just doesn't get it. It's determined at birth.
He should just turn down the offer, to save my Jints embarrassment.
The NFL is a particularly image conscious brand at a particularly sensitive juncture in regards to this specific issue.
^This. If he doesn't inject his personal beliefs into his work, then I can't see this being a bad move.
If he goes full Mark Jackson, on the other hand...
I'd say probably not, considering being a player and someone in a position to help counsel and guide all the players on the team are two completely separate things.
Further, Tyree made his views on gay marriage an issue. It's a non-issue if he didn't open his mouth. So those wondering if they should ask every candidate their views on gay marriage are being morons.
And if any of us ever tweeted about it publicly, we would probably (and rightfully) be fired for doing so.
Man, sometimes socially progressive people (a class I consider myself a part of) can be real fucking hypocrites. We want everyone's beliefs to be accepted except those that disagree with us.
I think religion is stupid and I disagree with basically everything Tyree would probably have to say about morality, social matters, etc. But so what? He works for my favorite football team...it's not like the guy is running the Board of Education.
The guy was, rightfully, an absolute hero to all of us. Now because we don't agree with him he shouldn't work for the Giants? Fuck that.
I wouldn't have an issue, but it's different when he's in the position he was just hired for.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
More PC nonsense. Another thought crime for the perpetually offended.
I dunno... seems like Tyree and his ilk are the sort of people more inclined to seek punishment for thought crimes.
Man, sometimes socially progressive people (a class I consider myself a part of) can be real fucking hypocrites. We want everyone's beliefs to be accepted except those that disagree with us.
I think religion is stupid and I disagree with basically everything Tyree would probably have to say about morality, social matters, etc. But so what? He works for my favorite football team...it's not like the guy is running the Board of Education.
The guy was, rightfully, an absolute hero to all of us. Now because we don't agree with him he shouldn't work for the Giants? Fuck that.
As I've said all along, I think he should have a job within the organization as long as he wants one. But it shoudn't be this one.
Yes, we're all going to be pinko commies because PRIVATE organizations choose not to hire someone that makes a public statement that they deem to be unpopular.
Holy fuck, get a grip.
Yup, religion has no place in the workplace. For normal folks like you and I, we're protected because potential employers are not allowed to ask us about religious views.
Unfortunately for David, he is a public figure and made public comments. His potential employers can read or listen to those comments and choose to hire him or not.
That's actually the opposite of pinko commie or thought police or whatever "sky is falling" bullshit that you wish to be afraid of this week. That's actually freedom. Freedom for a private organization to hire someone to represent them as they see fit.
I don't understand how the otherwise sensible Giants organization could hire a guy who makes comments that he doesn't want his kids thinking that homosexuals are normal and that he would trade the Giants winning the Super Bowl to stop gay marriage to become the director of player personnel in the summer that the first openly gay football player was drafted and is trying to make a team.
My thinking is, deep down they ataully probably agree with his views.
Sammo284 : 11:38 am : link : reply
Are entitled to their personal opinions
The problem is that Tyree made them public. Otherwise, how would any of us know his personal opinions?
Gimme a break. 99.9% don't know anything about an NFL locker room and how it works. I doubt any of us know much about what Tyree is even going to be doing, and this entire stupid article and discussion will be forgotten probably before the first preseason game kicks off.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I'm not sure you understand what a democracy is (we aren't one) or what freedom of the press is.
Yes he is a public figure. There's really no disputing that.
If he was a cancer, you could send him to the Player Development person for guidance. How is a gay player supposed to go to Tyree in that role?
Quote:
It's a glorified sweetheart position for a former player that you want to stay involved in the organization.
I don't understand how the otherwise sensible Giants organization could hire a guy who makes comments that he doesn't want his kids thinking that homosexuals are normal and that he would trade the Giants winning the Super Bowl to stop gay marriage to become the director of player personnel in the summer that the first openly gay football player was drafted and is trying to make a team.
My thinking is, deep down they ataully probably agree with his views.
I think so, too.
Saying that he would give up by far the greatest experience in his public life to prevent gay marriage is pretty aggressive and insulting. Hey, Tyree, if you HADN'T made that catch, would you be up for this particular job?
Um, no.
So, it's appropriate to stop using your platform as a public figure to further your personal beliefs now.
chops : 11:46 am : link : reply
his own opinion.
has suggested that he doesn't.
And again: The Giants are a private organization. There is no "we" about it.
"We" can bitch and moan (or not) all we want. "We" can protest or write angry or supportive letters. "We" cannot fire or hire him for this job. Only the Giants can do that. And they can do it regardless of what "we" say or do.
Pretty much everything you just wrote is wrong.
Quote:
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Free speech is intrinsic to democracy. There's nothing special about Tyree's job. He has to handle his responsibilities in line with Giants policy. If the Giants have a gay player, Tyree needs to do his job and not let his personal beliefs interfere. If they do interfere with it, that is indeed a problem.
Is this debate about whether Tyree's position qualifies as a "public" face of the Giants? Just in the abstract, would you object to a rabid racist/homophobe working in the Giants accounting department?
What does that have to do with us putting a man in charge of counseling impressionable, young men who happens to show tendencies of homophobia?
The Giants didn't hire Obama.
But shit, I ultimately agree with Terps on this one. While I'm sure I'd find Tyree as loony in real life as the older woman who approached me in the BART station the other day and warned me of an impending God-created earthquake, I can somehow reconcile my distaste for this particular perspective of his. Hell, maybe it's just because his side of this issue is losing, and I can acknowledge that's not a good reason. But I think he's ultimately pretty impotent in this arena, and that shit will probably hit the fan if he tries to wield influence towards the aim of homophobia.
Quote:
In comment 11777845 cosmicj said:
Quote:
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Free speech is intrinsic to democracy.
Go up to your boss right now. Tell him or her he or she is an incompetent asshole and that a mental challenged monkey could do his or her job better. Then drop a copy of the Constitution and walk away in total confidence that your job is 100% protected.
So you figure he's making, what? $7.50 an hour? Anyway, yeah, silly how we're all discussing this non-special hiring of a job that came with all these public announcements. Just another job, like the rest of us.
Yes. I would want that. There's nothing I would want more. (Beyond a much better analogy.)
PR move to hide their true feelings? its possible but I doubt it
-----------------------------
For starters Monday, several NFL owners, including the Giants’ John Mara and Steve Tisch, gave Sam their support.
"Michael’s announcement will not affect his position on our draft board." -- John Mara
"Michael’s announcement will not affect his position on our draft board," said Mara, without indicating how the Giants rated him.
"Regardless of where you are from, what your religious beliefs are, what your sexual orientation is," said Tisch, "if you are good enough to be on the team, you are part of the family."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 11777871 vibe4giants said:
Quote:
In comment 11777845 cosmicj said:
Quote:
OK. You're arguing that the Giants weren't wise to offer Tyree this position given his views on gay marriage. I'm arguing that public statements in the press criticizing hirings of people with non-mainstream views are disturbing and antithetical to democracy.
Just to be precise, those views aren't mutually exclusive. Let me think about it.
I sincerely don't know what this has to do with 'democracy'. (Unless you really want to type 'Free Speech', but know that won't work.) Again, you want to take this very specific man, with very specific views who was given a very specific job and extrapolate it out to all of 'democracy'. It's a very specific and unique circumstance.
Free speech is intrinsic to democracy.
Go up to your boss right now. Tell him or her he or she is an incompetent asshole and that a mental challenged monkey could do his or her job better. Then drop a copy of the Constitution and walk away in total confidence that your job is 100% protected.
Quote:
There's nothing special about Tyree's job.
So you figure he's making, what? $7.50 an hour? Anyway, yeah, silly how we're all discussing this non-special hiring of a job that came with all these public announcements. Just another job, like the rest of us.
Quote:
Is this debate about whether Tyree's position qualifies as a "public" face of the Giants? Just in the abstract, would you object to a rabid racist/homophobe working in the Giants accounting department?
Yes. I would want that. There's nothing I would want more. (Beyond a much better analogy.)
Except the Giants have already hired Tyree...so the only problem with the hiring is the one being conjured up by the article. The Giamts don't seem to have an issue with it, so I think we are actually at a point now of dealing with a free speech issue.
Quote:
... President Obama was firmly anti "Gay Marriage" too.
What does that have to do with us putting a man in charge of counseling impressionable, young men who happens to show tendencies of homophobia?
The Giants didn't hire Obama.
Well, one, we put a man in charge of protecting gays who showed tendencies of homophobia. Didn't make him ineligible for his (slightly more important job).
And, two, he evolved. Perhaps Tyree has as well.
Tyree can talk and it's bad but gay couples who set an example by their actions are OK? Double standard?
Tyree can talk and it's bad but gay couples who set an example by their actions are OK? Double standard?
I'm not sure I understand this comparison at all.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
1) Political statements are different from personal attacks on one's supervisors. I'm with you on that one.
2) So holding non-mainstream opinions should disqualify people from earning above a certain amount of money. What's the threshold - $10/hr? 140% of the official poverty level? Maybe such people should only be allowed to live in non-heated apartments.
3) I'm not discussing this because I care what Tyree thinks (I don't). I'm discussing it because a journalist questioned a private company's hiring because of their political views. Which is damned disturbing.
4) The accountant question wasn't an analogy. It was a serious question intended to clarify the exact issue at stake here. You didn't answer it.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
No, that's not a double standard.
3) I'm discussing it because a journalist questioned a private company's hiring because of their political views. Which is damned disturbing.
That kind of think is what editorials do, and it's odd that you may think they're exempt from the whole "free speech" thing you keep invoking to justify Tyree.
I don't really see where his personal views on this enter into the equation as long as he knows to keep them private and not inject them into the work place. I can only assume the Giants organization must feel the same way.
Quote:
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
Do the Giants have any openly gay players? Why would an organization hire for a variable they don't believe they have?
Secondly, I think the Giants are far more concerned with young players who struggle with drugs, party lifestyle, and financial issues, given recent personnel history.
Thirdly, I would think Tyree can separate his personal views from his professional life to give good advice to any player. That is what a well reasoned professional does.
http://www.packers.com/team/player-development.html
Packers Player Development
The Player Development Department is the hub for a wide range of League-sponsored programs designed to meet the needs of players and their families in today's NFL. Since its inception in 1991, more than 9,000 players and significant others have made use of programs administered by the department. Player Development Directors at each club work to ensure the programs are meeting the needs of players and reinforce the departments' commitment to support a culture that delivers a continuum of services to help active and practice squad players succeed in all aspects of their lives.
Player Development is divided into four areas:
Player Assistance Services
Continuing Education Program
Financial Education Program
Career Internship Program
As the director of player development, Davis will be vital in maintaining locker room cohesiveness and overall player health. He will assist players in acclimating to their roles, both on and off the field and in the Green Bay community.
Vision: To provide players and their families an unparalleled positive motivating environment that sets the standard of excellence promoting growth and balance in all areas of their lives.
Mission: To challenge players and their families to be lifelong learners while pursuing continuous improvement in personal growth, academic/career development, money management, social interactions, and family relations during and beyond their careers as NFL players.
I staunchly disagree with his beliefs, but I wouldn't have had a problem with the team hiring him in some other capacity. This capacity/role, however, just doesn't fit and should raise some eyebrows.
Not thinking isn't keeping you from posting. (Golly, that insult was even easier turn back on you than your arguments.)
1) Political statements are different from personal attacks on one's supervisors. I'm with you on that one.
Jesus. Okay, stand up on your chair and start spouting your political views at work. Then, when security comes for you, say 'First Amendment!!!'
Or just go to a theater and scream 'Fire!!!'. One way or another, you'll learn the limits of Free Speech.
2) So holding non-mainstream opinions
You keep repeating this phrase like it's your trump card that means everything. It means nothing. So Ima keep moving.
You clearly don't understand the difference between the NFL and, say, the gas station down the street. Despite repeated attempts to explain it. So moving on from this one, too.
analogy |əˈnaləjē|
noun ( pl. analogies )
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification: an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies | he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines.
• a correspondence or partial similarity: the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia.
• a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects: works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature.
• Logic a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
Because if you don't know the difference between all the different jobs, and don't know what an analogy is, you're not a good person to continue trying to have the conversation with. So I'll compromise. I am tired of discussing this with you. Congratulations?
Of course, Tyree has the right to express his views, no matter how abhorrent I think they may be. But he has gone beyond "free speech" to actively advocate in support of (1) anti-gay marriage policies would treat a significant portion of the population as inferiors and (2) gay conversion policies that would expose gay people (including children) to physical abuse. This is a very bad move by the Giants that insults a substantial number of their supporters. Would he have been hired if he had actively advocated policies that discriminated on the basis of race or religion? Almost certainly not.
The tide of history in the U.S. and many other countries is moving towards increased rights for gay people including the right to marry anyone they love and with whom they want to share their lives. It makes me sad to see the Giants and so many here on BBI on the wrong side of that history.
Big Al : 11:23 am : link : reply
If certain people here would have protested him being drafted by the Giants back then if they knew what we now know about him.
I wondered a similar question; if any fans will be boycotting the Giants as some customers boycotted Chick-fil-A?
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did. He is no longer Super Bowl Hero David Tyree to you guys he is Bigoted Homophobe David Tyree.
I remember Tyree being a Super Bowl hero for our favorite team. Without him we don't have that magical win. It feels like some of you almost even resent that for happening just because of something he happens to believe (which btw is a majority opinion) and probably something most of the team Eli Manning, Tom Coughlin, John Mara etc believe.
Quote:
He is no longer Super Bowl Hero David Tyree to you guys he is Bigoted Homophobe David Tyree.
The man said one or the other. Learn to listen, child.
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did.
That's because you made the choice to look past bigotry. Some of us didn't.
I don't want to assume something you're not actually saying.
I can never respect someone like him.
And will people get a better grip on what freedom of speech is?
Quote:
In comment 11777954 Emil said:
Quote:
I wish training camp observations would generate as much interest.
Personally, I am completely sympathetic to the Michael Sam issue and believe he should have every opportunity to make it in the NFL, but to expect the Giants to screen the opinions of private citizens whom they hire is an unfair litmus test. Tyree believes what he believes, and I would bet his personal opinions had absolutely zero bearing on the Giant's decision to hire him. Tyree is probably the perfect ex-Giant for this job. He has roots in the area, played a Syracuse (if I recall), struggled as a young player, got in trouble, reformed himself, worked with the current staff leadership, found a niche role on the team and made the most of his opportunity overcoming adversity along the way. Yeah, I'm not going to hire that guy because he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
Now if I was hiring him to represent the Giants on social and league diversity issues, then absolutely not. That would be tone deaf and politically stupid, which the Giants are not. The ESPN commentary is the result of the flavor of the week story (thank you Tony Dungy....also a guy a respect, that was a dumb statement).
Tyree is employed to comment on gay/homosexual issues. I am also quite sure that the Giants informed him the minute he uses his employment with Big Blue to address the issue, that day will be his last with the GMEN.
We all come from different walks of life with different opinions. Just as Michael Sam deserves a shot in the NFL by virtue of his college career and draft status, David Tyree deserves a shot in the Giants organization by virtue of his life experience, playing career, and ability to relate his story to young players. He makes the organization better by being a part of it. That is how good organizations operate. Everything else is noise. ESPN discussing the Giant's hire to Tyree, who has been outspoken concerning his views of gay/homosexual issues, in the wake of the Tony Dungy statement (which was directly about Michael Sam) is simply noise to stir discussion and not even remotely a "bad move" by the Giants.
Tyree's job is to counsel and guide all of the Giants' players, including the gay ones. How are they supposed to look to him for guidance given his comments?
Do the Giants have any openly gay players? Why would an organization hire for a variable they don't believe they have?
Secondly, I think the Giants are far more concerned with young players who struggle with drugs, party lifestyle, and financial issues, given recent personnel history.
Thirdly, I would think Tyree can separate his personal views from his professional life to give good advice to any player. That is what a well reasoned professional does.
How many non-openly gay players do the Giants have now or will have in the future? How many of them will be comfortable to go to Tyree?
How is any man who happens to be of that lifestyle supposed to trust the guidance of a person who you know believes that if you were to desire to get married and have a family of your own, it would be the downfall of the nation and the crumbling of moral values?
If he can perform his duties without his personal beliefs playing a factor, than there is no issue. But, if his beliefs are being preached to the lockerroom, then he doesn't belong in this position.
Incidentally, it was supposedly Mark Jackson's preaching that got him canned, not his coaching record.
With that line of thinking should that rule out an openly gay person from the position because there may be some players not comfortable going to him?
Quote:
Mr. Nickels : 12:34 pm : link : reply
I didn't even remember Tyree made any of these comments yet somehow the media and some of you did.
That's because you made the choice to look past bigotry. Some of us didn't.
How do you know it was a choice and not genetic?
...they didn't want their kids thinking heterosexuals were normal, absolutely.
Homophobes should have no place in our society period.
Being gay isn't a choice, being a dick to people who are gay IS!
Quote:
How many non-openly gay players do the Giants have now or will have in the future? How many of them will be comfortable to go to Tyree?
With that line of thinking should that rule out an openly gay person from the position because there may be some players not comfortable going to him?
Did the openly gay person speak out against the heterosexual lifestyle? If not, then it's not the same thing.
He likened it to the downfall of society and as quoted above, said he didn't want his kids to think that gays were normal.
There's no question that at the time of those statements, Tyee was being a bigot, and most likely homophobic.
I do leave room that perhaps he's softened his position on that, but I've not heard him make any statement to that effect.
However, don't underestimate how often it happens. Many of his "friends" stopped talking to him and said he would be doing the devil's work etc. This is not a tiny sliver.
And someone who was disappointed with one of his votes on tax issues never threatened to kill us and supply our home address.
He likened it to the downfall of society and as quoted above, said he didn't want his kids to think that gays were normal.
There's no question that at the time of those statements, Tyee was being a bigot, and most likely homophobic.
I do leave room that perhaps he's softened his position on that, but I've not heard him make any statement to that effect.
I'd venture the PR staff is working on that statement right now.
Where is this coming from?
DG's article criticized the hiring. That does not equal calling for Tyree to be fired.
Hell, even BBI posters have been doing nothing but questioning the hiring. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has called for him to be fired- they've just expressed that at the very least it is an odd hiring given the first openly gay player in history was drafted this past April.
Some have expressed that they probably wouldn't have hired him.
JFC. A lot of you are acting like questioning an obviously "odd" hiring is the same thing as wanting him eviscerated in town square.
The best though is cosmicj ranting about freedom of speech (which he obviously doesn't understand) while simultaneously bashing DG for exercising freedom of the press and bashing folks on BBI for exercising their right to free speech.
I'll repeat an earlier post on the subject:
Considering the media reaction so far, the reaction of th eHuman Rights Campaign, and comments from folks on BBI, it's plain that this was an odd hire for the Giants to make.
I love the catch but was very disappointed in his views on gay marriage.
I think they should rescind the offer.
This is from 2011 - ( New Window )
Can't have it both ways
But there are a lot more people, a lot more heated about this than most other things. Lots of "non extremists", if you can call them that, said some pretty vitriolic stuff. These weren't nutjobs with signs all over their lawns or people picketing outside my house (which there were). I have never seen as much hate in my life, first hand, than the backlash from this and the election that followed. An extreme right winger ran against him the following year. A LOT more people voted for him than you might think.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
Let's take an extreme example: in 1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
This was a bad move for the Giants, full stop, drawing revenue and advertising dollars from, in large part, a city with one of the largest LGBT communities in the U.S.
And yes, your views outside of work can cost you your job or an opportunity for a job - recruiters regularly check Facebook and Twitter - how many high profile people have been fired for idiotic tweets? Or, maybe, facepaint a swastika on your forehead next time you have an interview...
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Interesting comment. The problem I see is that so many can be sympathetic to the cause of gay rights and yet vilified because they are not quite pure enough. If you mostly agree, but don't advocate the entire agenda, you are the enemy, homophobe, cretin, scum, etc. Thing is, that can turn off a lot of potential allies.
Now there's a leap!
Quote:
Here. Here. Being considered 3/5 a person should be enough.
Now there's a leap!
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then? Which rights that the rest of us have are you cool with homosexuals being denied? How 'normal' are you comfortable with David Tyree's children thinking gay people are?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
Bravo!
Quote:
what if he states his views on immigration or the Palestinian-Isreal conflcit or gun control? Do we blacklist him because we do not share his view? Do we assume he can't work with Hispanics, or Jews, or Muslims?
The short answer is : yes. Consider the nature of his job. He's the guy people come to if they have some non-football and often personal issues. If he said: "I'd give up my catch if all Jews accepted Jesus" how comfortable would Schwartz be in seeking him out? If he said "Arabs should be watched because they tend to be terrorists" how comfortable would Nassib be in seeking him out?
Hanlon is good his job presumable because he is a PR pro -- those skills would not make him a great OL coach. Tyree's job requires sensitivity and approachability -- so it's a puzzling hire IMHO.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Tyree willingly used his public status to espouse his beliefs which will alienate a section of humanity. Whether or not you agree or disagree with him is irrelevant.
What he said will effect how other people see him, and that will hamper how effective he can be in his role within the organization, even if he's able to put his prejudices aside and deal with everyone equally.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not give you freedom from the consequence of that speech.
Sure, if it's something you support- it sucks that there are negative consequences to what you say (the NAACP example...or your Tyree example). I'm sorry, though- there are consequences and as long as they are not illegal there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's kinda how the whole "freedom" thing you're all worried about losing actually works.
But even if that's the majority, wouldn't you want to hire someone who has never said anything publicly to alienate anyone, so that players that might have fundamental opposing viewpoints to his feel comfortable relying on the person who the organization hired to help them?
Who isn't acknowledging that? I don't think Tyree is a bad person the way I think someone like Ray Lewis is. And I think he would make a fantastic mentor for many - however, his comments potentially prohibit him from being a mentor to certain players, which is why I think the hire is odd given the position.
There is NO basis in the Bible for ANY anti-semitic or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim statements.
If someone doesn't believe in the Bible or that the Bible does not enjoin homosexual acts or that it's an incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is sinful, I'm OK with that belief. But, I can also understand if Tyree believes that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. I also have no problem if he publicly professes his belief either as the free exercise of religion or of speech.
And a staggering number of coaches and players would rather have a player/teammate who was involved in a double murder than be gay. So maybe that's all the more reason to fill positions like these with people who can help break the cycle and help these guys grow out of their old mindsets.
Eh, we're getting pretty far afield from the point of the topic. It's a tone deaf hire at exactly the wrong time.
It's not about all that. It's about whether or not this hire of this guy by this team at this time was a bad move or not.
when a guy with a clean record but some anachronistic public pronouncements gets hired to do the same everyone hits the fucking roof.
He actually doesn't have a clean record. In fact, he's kind of a classic case of jailhouse conversion. That notwithstanding, this isn't a thread about Ray Lewis, because most of us aren't big fans of ESPN. (Though I'm sure threads crapping on Ray Lewis are just an archive search away.)
Why should we care if someones gay or what someone else's thoughts are about homosexuality? It has no bearing on the game.
Quote:
In comment 11778143 vibe4giants said:
Quote:
Here. Here. Being considered 3/5 a person should be enough.
Now there's a leap!
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then? Which rights that the rest of us have are you cool with homosexuals being denied? How 'normal' are you comfortable with David Tyree's children thinking gay people are?
Ok vibe, an example. On the thread about Sam and "The Kiss", a number of posters very timidly and almost apologetic, confessed that even though they wish him well and are for gay rights, watching the kiss made them uncomfortable. These posters were vilified as homophobic, scum, etc. Perhaps it would not be unnatural for them to feel a bit put off, no? You have never seen a post from me suggesting witholding of any rights. I have however pointed out the complete intolerance from the so called tolerant and hateful name calling. THAT's what I'm talking about with "the whole agenda".
Quote:
1953, a NAACP member in Alabama would have feared to speak out publicly in favor school integration not because they would be prosecuted, but because vigilante thugs would have physically attacked or killed them. I'm not saying that the Tyree controversy and this hypothetical aren't close to the same in terms of gravity, but I think they both involve suppression of freedom of speech by non-governmental means. And I bet you agree.
Hence, suppressing freedom of speech is an issue if Tyree's would be denied a position based on his political views.
This is really a semantic point, but I'm tired of reading that freedom of speech can't be a factor if the government isn't involved in the suppression. That's incorrect.
Freedom of speech absolutely does not give you freedom from the consequence of that speech.
Sure, if it's something you support- it sucks that there are negative consequences to what you say (the NAACP example...or your Tyree example). I'm sorry, though- there are consequences and as long as they are not illegal there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's kinda how the whole "freedom" thing you're all worried about losing actually works.
Cam - We're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe it is very unhealthy for our political system if espousing political views that were fairly mainstream just a few years ago is a disqualifier for anything like Tyree's new job. Just like we need tolerance for gays, we need tolerance for people who take a strict view of their religious rules.
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then?
Ok vibe, an example. On the thread about Sam and "The Kiss", a number of posters very timidly and almost apologetic, confessed that even though they wish him well and are for gay rights, watching the kiss made them uncomfortable. These posters were vilified as homophobic, scum, etc. Perhaps it would not be unnatural for them to feel a bit put off, no? You have never seen a post from me suggesting witholding of any rights. I have however pointed out the complete intolerance from the so called tolerant and hateful name calling. THAT's what I'm talking about with "the whole agenda".
So the 'entire agenda', for you, is mostly about gay people and PDA? You want to be able to hold onto your right to be 'put off'? Without people suggesting you're homophobic? Is that your agenda?
If I've gotten that right, I'm still not clear what the 'gay agenda' is? Beyond wanting the right to be treated equally? Except, of course, where it makes you uncomfortable.
Agreed. And we should be free to be critical of those companies and their policies
Either BBI prints articles like that and allows discussion of it or disallows inclusion of such articles on BBI.
Freedom of the press, anyone?
Why should we care if someones gay or what someone else's thoughts are about homosexuality? It has no bearing on the game.
This isn't about football, and Tyree's job description isn't just about football. He's not being hired to be a position coach. He's being handed the responsibility of being a counselor and advisor to young men and their families.
Either BBI prints articles like that and allows discussion of it or disallows inclusion of such articles on BBI.
Freedom of the press, anyone?
lulz
If Eric chooses to, he's free to on his website.
On the contrary, this is about the only role I could see him in. It's not a "public face" type of role (we rarely if ever saw Charles Way), it's a behind the scenes, mentorship role.
I have no problem with Tyree working for the team in general. It's him in this specific role that is troublesome.
Quote:
I'm fine with Tyree in another role with the team. This specific role seems odd.
On the contrary, this is about the only role I could see him in. It's not a "public face" type of role (we rarely if ever saw Charles Way), it's a behind the scenes, mentorship role.
and you don't view his stance on gays as being troublesome for someone in a mentorship role?
If he's not getting preachy on the job, not, I don't.
Despite what this majority feels,
Who cares what he thinks,
Or if his position stinks,
Can he do the job? Then what's the big deal?
Quote:
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Carl in CT : 1:59 pm : link : reply
I hate Fags!
just short of saying that.
A distinction with little difference
Quote:
and you don't view his stance on gays as being troublesome for someone in a mentorship role?
If he's not getting preachy on the job, not, I don't.
Yeah. That happens never.
Bobby Epps : 2:00 pm : link : reply
Once Eric allowed Graziano's article to be published on BBI, he should allow reasonable comment on it, whether critical or approval comment.
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press, though.
That's the part you're not getting.
kickerpa16 : 1:50 pm : link : reply
He's in the private working world. He can and should be accountable for the things he says, even if it means he is fired or certain companies don't hire him.
And if he does, fire him. Problemo solved.
Who is disqualifying him for this job? Nobody here can do that. Only the Giants can.
Nobody can make the Giants disqualify him. What part of that do you not understand?
Eric could, if he so chose to, allow only comments supporting Tyree to be voiced. It's his website, his rules. Freedom of speech and the press have no bearing here whatsoever.
That said, it's not catering to this demographic. It's catering to the ideal of the position.
He's already said he'd trade his greatest moment in his professional life to prevent gay marriage, but you think he'll put that belief to the side for the sake of this job (that he earned because of said moment)?
What's up! I miss hockey. Let's go Rangers. I want the Cup next year.
Quote:
In comment 11778168 vibe4giants said:
Sorry. What's the 'entire agenda', then?
Quote:
Ok vibe, an example. On the thread about Sam and "The Kiss", a number of posters very timidly and almost apologetic, confessed that even though they wish him well and are for gay rights, watching the kiss made them uncomfortable. These posters were vilified as homophobic, scum, etc. Perhaps it would not be unnatural for them to feel a bit put off, no? You have never seen a post from me suggesting witholding of any rights. I have however pointed out the complete intolerance from the so called tolerant and hateful name calling. THAT's what I'm talking about with "the whole agenda".
So the 'entire agenda', for you, is mostly about gay people and PDA? You want to be able to hold onto your right to be 'put off'? Without people suggesting you're homophobic? Is that your agenda?
If I've gotten that right, I'm still not clear what the 'gay agenda' is? Beyond wanting the right to be treated equally? Except, of course, where it makes you uncomfortable.
Well vibe, now you're getting beyond silly. I never mentioned the "gay agenda" ... your words. My words related to the agenda of the extreme views here and elsewhere. When being 100% for gay rights is not enough. When you must apologize for not being comfortable watching a gay kiss, and that's not enough. Sorry, but though I am for gay marriage and other rights, I also try to understand other's views and while I may not agree with them, I don't vilify them and call them hateful names when their views appear ignorant but not hateful. Apparently that is not enough for your agenda, so when it gets this silly there's no point in continuing, I'm done.
"Great meeting today guys. I hope you enjoyed todays lesson about managing your money and to be prepared for people coming out of the woodwork looking for a handout. Tomorrow's lesson is about how it's not right to be a gay and how you shouldn't marry dudes"
BUT, if Eric picks and chooses among newspaper articles covering the Giants, printing some and deleting others, wouldn't that make you uncomfortable?
Eric has the right to pick and choose but I wouldn't like it. When I raised the issue of freedom of the press, it was my short-hand for all of the above.
Quote:
In comment 11778125 Sammo284 said:
Quote:
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Its pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about. The premises aren't at all the same, but its pretty clear you won't be able to understand why.
I'd voice my opinion. And if that opinion were subsequently deleted, that would also be within Eric's purview.
Again, it's his site, his rules, and he's free to change them, adhere to them or ignore them at his discretion.
If you don't like that, you can always start your own site.
BBI is not the government.
Again, I refer you to the cartoon I posted earlier. Specifically, the first panel of the bottom row.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Absolutely. Let's put noted anti-semite Mel Gibson in charge of the Jewish National Fund, too.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Quote:
Yeah. That happens never.
And if he does, fire him. Problemo solved.
That isn't the point that has been belabored here. The point of contention is whether or not his stated beliefs will affect how his charges relate or don't relate to him and how much this may affect whether or not they feel that availing themselves of a, perhaps, needed service may be short-circuited by his stated beliefs.
Freedom of speech (and religion invoked too)with regard to Tyree's comments.
Quote:
In comment 11778136 Rob in NYC said:
Quote:
In comment 11778125 Sammo284 said:
Quote:
I now want Tyree promoted to HC in waiting after this thread.
You can't prevent Tyree from a job because of his views on the same premise you can't discriminate against gays out of some fear their thinking or lifestyle will hinder them from doing a job.
Tyree will be under the microscope now but I wish him well.
This could not be more incorrect.
Wrong. Just because you don't like the truth of it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
Its pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about. The premises aren't at all the same, but its pretty clear you won't be able to understand why.
Enlighten me.
Unless the government is involved, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form.
Freedom of speech (and religion invoked too)with regard to Tyree's comments.
And none of those have anything to do with freedom of the press or freedom of speech, except that they are all exercising them.
Unless the government is involved, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form.
Only if your conception of "freedom of speech" is entirely bound in the First Amendment, but that's a different argument entirely and one I don't care to ignite here.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
Freedom of speech (and religion invoked too)with regard to Tyree's comments.
You do know these are from the Bill of Rights which is part of the US Constitution and apply only to the Government, right?
They don't apply to BBI or any non-government entity.
Quote:
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Quote:
Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
There is no protection for being called out by others for what you say. None. Tyree's speech rights were not trampled upon in any way.
Wup, never said anything like that. I only pointed out that aside from the actual right of free speech there is an informal spirit of free speech. That spirit applies to both Tyree and his critics. I'm stating to think that some posters decide what "side" you're on and respond to that rather than actually reading the post.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
he's not the guy I would've hired for the job, but it's a privately-owned organization and they can hire whoever they want. good chance the people who hired him know a whole lot more about this job and what type of person is good for it than i do. plus, they can fire him if he says anything they don't like to the media, or via social media, makes the team look bad or even if they decide he's annoying for no reason at all.
and no he doesn't have freedom of speech when it comes to his statements when he's a member of this or any other private organization. he can be disciplined or fired for anything he says that the organization deems wrong or offensive. if that doesn't make sense to you, then go find a copy of the Constitution - they sell them in little booklets in gift shops and shit - and smack yourself in the face with it like ten times.
a throne.
MFers!
There's freedom of speech.
And it hasn't been violated at all
Quote:
In comment 11778338 Wuphat said:
Quote:
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
Nobody is disregarding the spirit of free speech.
What you and others are missing is that there is no protection from the consequences of your speech.
If I come on BBI and post about how much I hate black people because my religion tells me they're lesser people, are you going to start a thread about how I shouldn't be banned because that wouldn't be "in the spirit of free speech?"
Of course I have every right to say it.
And Eric or the mods or any poster has every right to say that I shouldn't be allowed to post here because my views are ignorant and racist.
There is nothing protecting me from being banned for exercising my "free speech" nor should there be.
Holy crap! I never said or implied that anyone was protected from the consequences of their speech. The spirit of freedom of speech goes both ways. I think I must not be typing clearly, so I think I'll take a break and go get some work done.
But I still support keeping Tyree unless he fails in his job and or allows his stance to prevent properly carrying out his duties to the well being of those under his care.
I do too.
My second post on this thread and a post yesterday laid it out.
I think it's odd, but I'm also confident that the Giants discussed this issue with David.
It's also quite possible as other's have mentioned that David's opinion on the matter has changed.
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
Hey Bobby - if i told you that every single work you just wrote is wrong...how would you respond to that?
But here's a question. What exactly are Tyree's qualifications for this job anyway?
The job duties can be broadly described as "a non-football role where he will have many responsibilities, most of them related to helping players develop skills necessary for personal success and life after football."
Arguably, anyone who had a real career in the NFL and managed to keep their life together after they retired would be a candidate. So we can say that much for Tyree.
1. Tyree can think, say or believe whatever he wants, but his words, past and present, have consequences;
2. There is no protection against your publicly expressed personal views outside of the workplace impacting your ability to earn a living (wear a swastika arm band on your suit at your next interview and if asked, say "oh that, its personal, next question");
3. Tyree now represents a private organization and brand, whose stakeholders (employees, customers, sponsors) undoubtedly include homosexuals, and friends and family of;
Sanitary gnomes have toilets.
BTW, don't do a google image search for that with safe search off.
Then freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are non-issues.
Only the government can deny those rights, and they haven't.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
When you talk about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you are talking about the government suppression of those things.
You and I cannot violate each other's free speech rights. The Giants cannot violate Tyree's free speech rights.
Eric can't violate freedom of press rights.
Only the government can.
And if you're not saying they did, then there's no free speech or free press issues.
There's freedom of speech.
And it hasn't been violated at all
Jeez! this shit really gets wild! You conveniently left out the word "spirit". I said there is a spirit of free speech in our democracy. It is separate from what is codified in law and therefore "informal". But you guys just go ahead and see whatever you want regardless of what's actually typed. This silliness is a bit too much for me. Carry on.
Wow.
I meant to, and my question still stands with spirit included.
There is free speech.
And nowhere has it been violated.
actually what you're suggesting would be a much more injurious type of intrusion into "free speech," either legally or spiritually. you see, if David Tyree were protected from discipline or termination from his *private* employer - despite having said something (hypothetically, of course) that his employer deems inappropriate or offensive, you are then forcing the employer to endorse the employee's viewpoint by forcing them to keep him on staff. that would be much worse for "free speech" in spirit, wouldn't it? can you imagine someone on the executive board of Chick Fil-A being a staunch supporter of gay marriage? think that might undermine corporate cohesion a little bit?
*private* employers are (and should be) allowed to discipline or fire employees for the things they say, even if those comments are OTHERWISE protected from government action by the Constitution. to suggest otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of "free speech," either in law or in spirit.
If the Giants, as an organization, had said "we don't want to hire a guy because his views on humanity are backwards, out-of-step and reflect poorly on our organization," they would absolutely have had the right to make that determination. And it wouldn't matter if the views of that job candidate were based on the bible or anything else. But at the end of the day, the Giants didn't make that determination. (And that's also their right).
Personally, I wish they had.
Quote:
A well-functioning society depends on much more than laws. It depends on the spirit of free speech which River Mike mentioned and it also depends on the rights of people to express minority viewpoints (within limits of course) without suffering grievous consequences.
actually what you're suggesting would be a much more injurious type of intrusion into "free speech," either legally or spiritually. you see, if David Tyree were protected from discipline or termination from his *private* employer - despite having said something (hypothetically, of course) that his employer deems inappropriate or offensive, you are then forcing the employer to endorse the employee's viewpoint by forcing them to keep him on staff. that would be much worse for "free speech" in spirit, wouldn't it? can you imagine someone on the executive board of Chick Fil-A being a staunch supporter of gay marriage? think that might undermine corporate cohesion a little bit?
*private* employers are (and should be) allowed to discipline or fire employees for the things they say, even if those comments are OTHERWISE protected from government action by the Constitution. to suggest otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of "free speech," either in law or in spirit.
This.
Incidentally, is the position Charles Way filled?
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
Them firing you, in no way, violated your right to say you loved Pepsi on national television.
However, if the Governor of New York stopped you from saying it at all because he only allows Coca-Cola to be mentioned on television shows filmed in NYC, then your free speech rights have been violated.
I find it kind of weird that a guy states that he'd give up a championship that belongs to a team for the sake of a personal political goal and then that team goes on to hire him.
it's one thing if it stays as chatter on BBI, quite another if a lot of fans start writing letters to the team, as I think many will. where it goes from there is anyone's guess.
personally, and this is despite the fact that a close family member of mine is a gay man, the Giants organization has given much worse people much bigger opportunities than this. i think Tyree will probably keep his views to himself when it comes to this issue. if he can do that and it's not a constant distraction once the initial story dies down, i wouldn't get all up in arms about it.
but yeah, if he's tweeting about gay marriage next week, then we have a problem.
In other words, people need to calm down, restrain themselves and start trying to persuade opponents rather than suggesting they be fired. Can't we all get along?
So, in other words, you want to suppress Graziano's right of free speech because you don't agree with him that Tyree's viewpoint is grounds for questioning of the Giants' decision to hire him?
He never suggests that Tyree should be fired.
Here's the worst of what he wrote:
It's all fun and games until the gnome is on the throne, man.
When the gnome is on the throne, that's when you know shit just got real.
A fate worse then death. My sympathies.
Normally I would agree, but problem there is that I believe that Tyree's previous statements made before the hire will absolutely effect his ability to create meaningful relationships with some young players as a mentor.
In that regard, I think that you have to seriously question his ability to serve in the role he was hired in.
Wow.
Nice! :)
I meant to, and my question still stands with spirit included.
There is free speech.
And nowhere has it been violated.
I have no idea what you'll read into this, but just to clarify, I think Tyree had a right to say what he did and the Giants had a right to not hire him and have the right to fire him. Interesting to see how this post is interpreted.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
Cam: You're right that Graziano didn't state that Tyree should be fired, but I thought it was coming close. Graziano writes: "People like Tyree stand in the way of that, which is why I don't think this is the right time for Tyree to hold a job like this in the NFL." That's very close to calling for a firing.
If you somehow got the impression I didn't, I'm not sure where the miscommunication is.
The fact that his views on this topic are public, it still makes for strange bedfellows for this position. But, once he's been hired, that's it, he was hired.
But I think you can make the argument that once he made those statements in a public forum before he was hired it hindered his ability to counsel people.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
Additionally, he was explicit about thinking this (point of view) means more to him than even winning a Super Bowl.
So, according to Tyree, yes, he's hindered.
Thus he's all and all a really weird choice for the guy you want to teach rookies about NFL priorities.
Quote:
What if someone is an atheist? Is Tyree hindered? What if Tyree were an atheist, would he not be able to counsel the religious? Doctors counsel people all the time and likely often have different views including same-sex marriage.
Doctors don't make it a point to promote their own politics and moral values. I don't know what my doctor's politics are and don't care to know. I do know that he ever made public statements like Tyree did, I wouldn't use his services.
Exactly. He's gone on record passing judgement on a subsection of our society. Even if you're not gay, you can still be offended by that and not want to take advice from someone that you view as a homophobe. That's what I mean when I say it may hinder his ability to form relationships with some of the players.
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
Personally I think that's on the Giants. You don't hire someone to impart wisdom and counselling on your young players that you know have been outspoken and bias against a segment of humanity that may (or in the future) make up your team.
Even if you act professional and courteous around someone, it doesn't mean that it isn't awkward. Also, the hiring could represent at the very least a indifference to what Tyree said, or at worst a tacit agreement with his point of view.
Double-entendre alert!
if a Muslim says "Homosexual activity is sinful and under Sharia law a crime", a homophobe?
if the Dalai Lama says (as he has) that homosexual activity is sexual misconduct, a homophobe?
Where do we draw the line in someone enjoying gainful employment?
Dunded, thanks. This is what I meant by the spirit of free speech beyond what is codified by law. Though there would be no prosecution of a company for firing someone based on something they said, because no law had been broken, depending on what was said, we could lament the fact that the principle of freedom of speech (not the law) was not considered in such decisions. One can always bring up examples of speech that no one would wish protected, but we would also hope that the spirit would not be too carelessly tossed aside.
Quote:
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
How about...wherever the private employer in question decides that the line should be drawn, so long as it doesn't violate the law?
Agreed. Chilling free speech by relying on the state actor element is fundamentally flawed and our Courts have long held that it could run end around this in the past. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
In comment 11778674 vibe4giants said:
Quote:
than older folks, I'm not sure that someone who sees marriage equality as the downfall of America will be perceived as all that in touch with that generation. (He's probably not going to want to discuss the new Lil Jon with them, either. He's got a case, there.)
And you're assuming that this generation of pro athletes mirrors the wider age cohort in terms of opinion, which doesn't seem particularly likely. The wider point is that his views on homosexuality, even if his views are unchanged, is so peripheral to his responsibilities and to his ability to relate to young athletes that it should not preclude employment.
I am assuming that a guy who has expressed the priorities he has will find himself on a different page than the majority of young guys coming into the NFL, yes. Most of whom likely have different interests and priorities than Tyree's own 'anachronistic' views.
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
Oh sure, anachronistic is a word I used and not necessarily an appropriate one either in that it suggests there was once an appropriate time to speak as he did and of course that isn't the case. But even so, the fact that younger people generally are much more accepting does not mean that the same can be said of the younger group of NFL players, the majority of whom didn't grow up in the suburban Northeast as I did and many on this board did.
if a Muslim says "Homosexual activity is sinful and under Sharia law a crime", a homophobe?
if the Dalai Lama says (as he has) that homosexual activity is sexual misconduct, a homophobe?
Where do we draw the line in someone enjoying gainful employment?
I am not saying he's unemployable. I'm sure he'd be great at any number of jobs. But he's been outspoken about condemning a subsection of the population to multiple media outlets.
The issue isn't that he has an opinion on someone's lifestyle, it's the fact that he's gotten up on a soapbox and sang it from the rafters and what that represents to the organization that's doing the hiring.
But his employer knows his views and still hired him. So what is the problem here exactly? Why is freedom of speech even being brought up here?
'Anachronistic' is the word you used, right?
Because I don't want to get into a debate with the wrong person over whether or not the guy with the out-dated, old fashioned thinking (Tyree) is really the best choice to relate to the kids today.
Oh sure, anachronistic is a word I used and not necessarily an appropriate one either in that it suggests there was once an appropriate time to speak as he did and of course that isn't the case. But even so, the fact that younger people generally are much more accepting does not mean that the same can be said of the younger group of NFL players, the majority of whom didn't grow up in the suburban Northeast as I did and many on this board did.
So he's a good hire based on…regional stereotypes? That seems kinda anachronistic thinking its own self.
As I said, given his expressed views and priorities, Tyree seems like a strange choice. (Frankly, for him, as well.) But I fully expect the Giants PR team will issue a clarifying statement any time now. We'll see.
But his employer knows his views and still hired him. So what is the problem here exactly? Why is freedom of speech even being brought up here?
Right. Actually the debate is more freedom to hire who you want.
Quote:
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
I actually see both sides of this point marriage is basically viewed as a contract between two people nowadays which is also the reason imo that the divorce rate has skyrocketed over the last several decades. Now its mainly the people who believe in the religious sanctimony who have a problem with it whether they have a problem with gay people or not.
Personally I don't give a rats ass what people believe just as long they don't force their opinions on anyone. My step brother is gay we were 15 when our parents married and we knew then he was gay. We became close right away and I love him like he was my real brother. We had this same discussion yesterday about tyree. He said although he shouldn't come out preaching about it the way he did he understands the opinion and doesn't havea problem with it. The thing he does have a problem with its when people tell him what he can and can't do because of his sexuality
Them firing you, in no way, violated your right to say you loved Pepsi on national television.
However, if the Governor of New York stopped you from saying it at all because he only allows Coca-Cola to be mentioned on television shows filmed in NYC, then your free speech rights have been violated.
Its not hard to understand freedom of speech pretexts you to day what you want but it doesn't protect you from the consequences of what you said.
If your in a high profile job and say you hate Jews or call black people the n word on let's say twitter freedom of speech allows you to say that but it doesn't stop your company from firing you for saying that because it makes them look bad for having you work for them
There is NO basis in the Bible for ANY anti-semitic or anti-Arab or anti-Muslim statements.
If someone doesn't believe in the Bible or that the Bible does not enjoin homosexual acts or that it's an incorrect interpretation that homosexuality is sinful, I'm OK with that belief. But, I can also understand if Tyree believes that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity. I also have no problem if he publicly professes his belief either as the free exercise of religion or of speech.
Since this was a response to me, I have two broad points:
1. Using Biblical verse to validate harm against others has never been convincing to me.
2. To argue that the New Testament has not been used as a resource to foment anti-antisemitism (even if one doesn't look at problematic actual text in Gospels of Mark, Matthew, John and the Book of Revelations) is quite problematic. For the broader view, I recommend James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews – A History.
generally i agree with this. intelligent people who know the law and who have made up their minds about how the law should be interpreted probably won't be swayed by what they read here, but at least they have a shot at understanding the principles in play. that may or may not lead to an evolution in their thinking, but the key is that they are thinking.
the people who shout "freedom of speech" in these scenarios are utterly hopeless, however. so in that regard, no, their feeble minds cannot be changed. in order to understand and ultimately, to change their opinion, they have to be able to grasp the concepts first.
nobody disputes that the Giants actually did hire Tyree, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
the focus of the debate has largely been whether the Giants or other private organizations are free to consider an employee's (or potential employee's) viewpoints as part of the hiring, discipline or termination process. so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
but yeah, i think we can all agree that the Giants did in fact hire David Tyree, but thanks anyway for reminding us.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
Quote:
so yeah, in that regard it's been very much a "hypothetical" discussion about what would happen if the Giants decided to fire Tyree based on either the backlash from the decision to hire him or based on some other indiscretion at a later date.
Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened. Got it. Always good to see people keeping themselves occupied somehow I guess.
I think people are discussing their views on the principles involved, not "Arguing about shit that didn't/hasn't happened"
Nobody is saying the Giants should fire him.
And to address your point about players not being a representation of social norms as a whole: obviously that's the case, otherwise there would have been an openly gay player before 2014. What's also obvious is that although not perhaps "up to speed" with the rest of the country, players views absolutely are changing. Specifically an entire team of young men in Columbia, MO kept the fact that one of their star players is homosexual a secret for a year because the gay player asked them to. If that's not a sign of the younger generation of players having a different attitude towards homosexuality, I'm not quite sure what is.
Ha, if you restricted BBI threads to discussion of things that have actually occurred - as opposed to things that might occur or haven't yet occurred - you'd probably eliminate 80% of the threads. I'm sure you've never sunken low enough to engage in a debate regarding the hypothetical.
The argument may have delved deeper into hypotheticals, but I still find it weird/stupid that freedom of speech is the theme of this discussion when it never really had anything to do with this scenario.
But as I said, it makes no sense for either side of the argument. It would have made sense to argue tooth and nail if Tyree got fired for this and people were chanting "Freedom of speech!", but he got hired. It's just a circular argument about something that has never happened.
The fact that I'm late to the party and freedom of speech is still the hot topic on this very page speaks volumes on how stupid this is.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Quote:
Some have suggested that the principle, not the law, of freedom of speech might be a consideration.
I asked earlier and you deflected because I forgot to include the word "spirit."
So, what does that statement be? Because I don't see anyone suggesting that Tyree not be allowed to say what he's said, only that being able to say what you want doesn't mean you are free from consequences for doing so.
So, what exactly is this spirit or principle that seems to be being violated?
Wuphat you're like a bulldog. I NEVER said that its being violated. You seem to be lying in wait ready to pounce on me for any perceived slight. I talked in generalities that the principle of free speech should be given consideration whenever possible. I never directly applied it to the Tyree issue. Some poster thought freedom of speech was important and I followed up with the idea that even when the law did not apply, we should still consider the principle where appropriate. You keep trying to put me on one side of this issue when I haven't taken a stand on it other than to say Tryree was free to say what he did and the Giants were free to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know why you have a hard on for me but its getting a bit creepy!
You keep bringing it up, but I have no idea what you mean by it.
Quote:
freedom of speech and press into this argument, and it's got nothing to do with it whatsoever.
The government isn't denying Tyree the right to speech.
The government doesn't dictate what articled Eric allows or disallows to be shared here.
Those freedoms you cite are specifically there to protect us from the government, not from the public, not from the NFL, not from BBI, and not from each other.
Wup, you're absolutely right, and I've made that point a number of times. Still, its not off base to cite freedom of speech as a fundamental part of our democratic ideals. Although it should not be invoked as trampling our rights if the government is not involved, its legitimate to lament disregard of the spirit of free speech.
I was agreeing with you and went on to remark that the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals. You chose to apply that to the Tyree situation, not I, nor did I intend to. It was just a general observation about the importance of the principle of free speech. And if you don't get that simple concept and need it further simplified, then I can't help you. No, change that ... I don't wish to help you because you're just baiting me and I continue to foolishly respond.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
Not that anyone has done that here to Tyree
Quote:
You keep repeating it, but your application of it, doesn't actually show an understanding of free speech. This is common with most people. The tenets of free speech are to protect people's rights to say what they want without government interference. The principle of free speech was in play, as he was allowed his opinion and the right to voice his opinion without punishment y the government. However, the "spirit" of free speech doesn't mean that no ramifications exist when you make statements publicly. A company, organization, etc. is allowed to act based on your statements.
Matt, I never once applied it to the Tyree situation. It was a generalized comment. I also stated a couple of times here that Tyree had a right to voice his views and the Giants had a right to not hire him or to fire him. I don't know how much plainer I can say it or how many times it must be repeated. Damn, I'm stupid!
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
Quote:
In comment 11778969 Matt M. said:
Quote:
I think that's where this gets boggled for me. We seem to have it all in reverse talking about freedom of speech in the context of the giants being able to fire or not hire when it's actually not the situation. It seems more like people here are arguing that the giants shouldn't have the ability to hire someone as opposed to fire him.
People are boggling themselves by reading into, rather than just reading. The OP's subject makes it pretty clear. The article sparked a discussion here as to whether or not this hire was a 'bad move' by the Giants. No one on the 'bad move' side has questioned anyone's rights to do anything they've done. As is often the case on here, the Freedom of Speech business is usually introduced by people who simply don't understand it. Which is usually served with a side of 'PC!!!' or 'Pussification!!!'.
And that's probably where all the 'boggling' comes in. People are just randomly grabbing at words they see in front of them, without being concerned about what anything actually means.
In that case, I'm voting for someone else in the next election.
Doesn't seem like that's promoting this lower case freedom of speech you're alluding to.
c'mon, companies are not bullied in any such fashion. they're simply responding to public opinion so that they are best positioned to make money, just like they always have.
the only two things that have changed between the "good old days" when you could spout off about "fags" and keep your job and today are 1) public opinion and 2) technology.
so now ridiculing "fags" is no longer an accepted viewpoint in mainstream society and it's easier to disseminate your ignorant shit to more people by using Twitter.
if people are so concerned about being vilified for their views, or losing their jobs, or being called bigots, then they should keep them off Twitter, don't you think?
Quote:
the idea of freedom of speech is something that should receive consideration regardless of the law or involvement of the government because it is a part of our democratic ideals.
But what does this mean? What considerations are part of our democratic ideals that don't pertain to law or government?
Wup, first let me apologize for the tone of my last few posts to you, that is letting my frustration get the best of me. I am frustrated with words being put in my mouth, with positions ascribed to me that I have not take, and with posts agreeing with posters being ignored by those posters. That's no reason to abandon civility.
The idea of a tradition of respect for freedom of speech is so utterly basic and self evident as to defy efforts to boil it down even further. The best I can do is leave you with an example...
Suppose in an interview with a school newspaper, a teacher said " I think our educational system is deeply flawed. Our methods are all wrong and there is too much emphasis on testing. That is compounded by inept administration, particularly at our school". Now, the Board of Education must decide whether the statements were so egregious that her traditional right to freedom of speech should be disregarded and she should be disciplined.
We should consider freedom of speech in deciding these issues regardless of whether the government is involved, and the BoE can very well decide that the damage of her comments outweighs her freedom of speech. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't too lightly dismiss it.
Now, you say what has this got to do with David Tyree? NOTHING! And I never said it did. I made a general comment about our democratic traditions after agreeing with you about the actual codified constitutional right to free speech. You proceeded to cross examine me as if I had come down on the side of "leave Tyree alone, he has the right of free speech" I said no such thing, and in fact stated the opposite, he can say what he likes and the Giants can respond as they like. That's it. I'm out before I again succumb to frustration.
but a private employer, like the NYG, does not have any such restrictions and private employees, like David Tyree, are not eligible for first amendment retaliation claims.
but you probably knew that already, huh?
It does not mean you are free from consequences of that speech.
It never has.
Ever.
If a school board (and this is a strange example, since the BOE is technically an arm of the state) decides that a teacher has said something egregious, of course, as that teacher's employer (rather than as an arm of the state) has the right to terminate.
Now, we can certainly nitpick over what ought or ought not be a terminable offense, but I don't think that's what either of us are looking for.
I just didn't (and to be honest, still don't) understand what is meant by the spirit or principle of free speech you've talked about means.
Free speech means you can say whatever you want. It does not mean you have the right to an audience, a right to a platform on which to speak, or the right to be free of consequences for what you say.
It's the whole spirit/principle of free speech apart from the law or government that you're proposing that I don't see.
We have no real disagreement here other than you diligently looking for something to disagree with
Agree. I stated earlier on this thread I thought it was a dumb move on their part
I still haven't seen what this distinction is
I give zero shits about the non-existent, on any level, impingement of David Tyree's right to say whatever ignorant thing pops into his head. As if that's the real travesty here and this guy with his thin resume getting a cushy job is the one who has really been victimized here.
Sure, populist cries for firing may not be uniformly desirable, but it's the private equivalent of voting enfranchisement on the public side.
Either you agree with me, because I have the only valid opinion possible, or you cannot be gainfully employed.
Perfectly reasonable, no?
A more apt analogy would be petitioning employers to fire all blacks. Though it would be funny to watch that one backfire...
And an employer can certainly try to choose a homogeneous political ideology. But the economic harms can go both ways...
Who is saying he shouldn't be gainfully employed? Good gravy, people are really trying to not get it now...
Seeing as how there are millions of people with differing viewpoints who hold his views, he can easily find a job. That's not limiting gainful employment. He had a job before in the NFL, and that's acceptable.
I don't think he suits this position, and I certainly have the right to complain.
How this translates to employment on a broader scale is pure fantasy.
Either you agree with me, because I have the only valid opinion possible, or you cannot be gainfully employed.
Perfectly reasonable, no?
"reasonable" is a loaded term in this context. you are certainly within your legal rights to make a petition of that nature and the company is certainly within its legal rights to either respond to the petition and discipline or fire the employee(s) in question or, more likely, completely ignore you.
whether either party is acting "reasonably" in your scenario is a matter of opinion. you think it would be unreasonable to make such a petition, but others who are actually offended by what Tyree said probably don't agree. would you begrudge them their freedom of speech in choosing to write to the team? or are you suggesting that their speech should be suppressed because you don't agree with it?
bullshit and will fight it wherever I find it.who the hell is graziano to be telling us what we should or shouldn't approve of.I leave you alone, you leave me alone, but go fuck yourselves wheb you want to tell me how to think or nake moral judgements on it, cause guess what, then ill start passing moral judgements on other people for being dicksucks. And i don't really give a shit who it offends anymore. those who are offended tend to be the most vile sorts of people anyway.most parts of the world fagotism is treated as a mental illness, or a crime.i don't really give a shit is some closeted fag in the giants locker room was thinking about coming out and now feels he can't. Maybe we get lucky and he asks to be traded, and furthermore others of their ilk avoid signign with us in the future. If Mara and Tasxh had that in mind, Bravo.The whole soncept of them " scrambling for damage control" is hirseshit. The did it, and they don't give 2 shits who is butthurt over it.Theyw ant to hire a gay player, go right ahead. They want to hire 20, thats fine too.They want to hire a gay GM< i'm down with that also. But don't presume to tell me how to feel about it. What a man thinks in his own head id his own fucking business, and he has a right to express it if he wants.
You wanna call me a bigot, go right ahead.Doesn't make me one.somehow now saying anything other than promoting fagotry is a hate crime. i call bullshit.Also tyree is right. Go find the fag gene, otherwise shut the fuck up about how you were born this way and can't help yourself.Bigots make you sick? Fagots make me sick. too bad.If me saying thst is a crime, then I think you are a sick twisted bastard.Tyree has every right to hisd opinion and doesnt owe his integrity as a man and a human being to an employer. There are plenty of ameerican men whio think homosexuality is sick and disgussting, but they simply wont say so in public because they might be adversely affected. these men are characterless weasels. At least Tyree has the courage of his convictions.anyone don't like my opinion can go pound it up their ass along with whatever else they like to shove up there.Graziano makes me sick.
Quote:
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
Not allowing gay people to get married is by itself anti-gay.
Quote:
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
Not allowing gay people to get married is by itself anti-gay.
I would think it has been made clear to him that his religious views/views on homosexuality aren't to be brought to work.
I'm really hoping that the 'hoopla' about this is just that, and that his personal views won't have any effect on how well he does his job.
If you can differentiate between lack of approval, and persecution, then you are the problem, not the other fellow.
Quote:
That's true, but the "there's no scientific evidence that you're born gay" is beyond moronic.
I totally agree. That is a very dumb statement.
Hey, make you choice, thats your right. live how you are happy. just stop trying to tell other people how to feel about you or judge you. If I commit no crime, show no discrimination in hiring or business practices, and for the most part keep my views on your lifestyle to myself, then it's really nomn of your fucking business what I think or how I view it. I am as free to say a homsexual lifestyle is a matter of choice ny damaged individuals are you are gree to say that it isnt, and we both have the same right to call each other mentally ill. ( except I'm right and you're not). I'm not afraid of an argument with a militant homophile.most of you are hysterics anyway and easy to deal with.
Quote:
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
No. Enough. Being against gay marriage is the symptom of you thinking them to be lesser people who are living their lives incorrectly.
o tired of your whining " I'm a victimized little flower' horsehit.
You don't have the courage of your convictions. you cant, and never could make your case without resorting to hysterics and insults. you're an empty.to many of you arounbd here like that, and then comes the disgusting part where you all weep on each other shoulders and console each other. Why\ because Tyree got hired as head of player development and doesnt share your politics? Please, just fuckoff
.
Quote:
In comment 11777658 UberAlias said:
Quote:
And not be anti-gay or a homophobe.
I don't think you'll find a gay person to agree with you.
I'm sure I won't. But for some it is about their views on what marriage is. It doesn't have to be about disliking people who are gay.
Quote:
It's mostly a legal contract. Which is why they can be held just about anywhere other than a church.
"mostly a legal contract" to who?Again, it is amazing how progressives feel quite free to define what other peoplemnthink, feel and believe.Me, my family, everyone I know views it as a religious sacrament.you however say otherwise. Based on what authority? certainly not gods, you're an atheist?other than power, and the ability to enforce your rules, your logic, your outlook, your definitions of what is or isn't marraige, or law for that matter, by force, where do you derive an authority from?
Legally, same sex unions are legal in NY and NJ, so there is that. Where I live that is not the case.My point is you dont recognize god, so the ability to govern comes simply from power, in all its forms, including the ability to ridicule and marginalize oppposition.It just sound so very much like george bush" you're either with us or againbst us"..
It's been stated very early in thge thread, if you do no support same sex marraige then you are discriminating against them and pesecuting them and denying them theur rights, ) whilst at the same time redefining an institution thousands of years old simply so you can get tax benifits) after all, you yourself said it's simply a "legal" matter, that comes down to the preservation and dispensation of material assets. Thats how you view it.you see yourselves as persecuted, denied your rights and liberties. I understand that, and I dont think anyone should be denied employment because of their sexual preferences.Once again, I'll try and make the point that I'm sure will get lost, always gets lost, because the one side has a NEED to villify the other ( and i think thats frankly because their case doesnt stand up under Close inspection, so any real discussion must be squelched at the outset by advocates of gay rights)If for my part am very willing to consider other peopels views, and needs, and even to make movements to meet their needs, if and when i see i am dealinh with good faith partners. I dont find progressives, or most gay rights activists to be such partners.Same reason we cant have an honest discussion about racism in this country and probably won't ever be able to.
One mans contract is another mans sacrament, whether you ridicule or respect it or not. the part that cracks me up is the latent inherent hypocrisy, where you mock and bellittle others beliefs and then get indignant when people dont supoort your own warped agenda.
But as soon as he expressed it publicly, he opened himself up to criticism for it, and given the position he's been hired for, I think it's reasonable to question whether or not that belief will interfere with his ability to perform that job.
Maybe I'm seeing this with blue shades on, but I have to think that the Giants addressed this during their vetting process and he gave them some indication that he wouldn't let his beliefs interfere with the job should such an occasion arise. Who knows, maybe he's had a change of heart. I certainly hope so, at least.
Why would it have been better?What if he felt strongly about it and it was important to him.What if he thought that taking thre institution of marriage, and desanctifying consitutued a direct attack on his church, his faith, his religious beliefs, and that furthermore, it would help shape the values of a nation where you no longer had a seperation between church and state, but rather a SUBJUGATION of church to state.you dont know what thought, what importance, what assesments he put into his comments. They my have been very well thought out.He may not have been seeking to avoid criticisism. he may have wanted an open debate.Furthermore, I don't know you can be so very sure that his attitudes and values do not reflect those of thwe Giants organization. I think the Tisaches and Maras being devoutly religious, he may in fact reflect their views.
Further still, it is quite possible those views are misrepresented.Just becayse certain parties try and force others to make a choice, to put them on the horns of a dilemna, so to speak, by saying you either support gay marraige or you are an evil bigot ( which is kinda funny, coming from a crowd of atheists), mybe thats there way of saying no, that is not the case.Most people I know thiin k like me
they oppose gay marriage, think homosexuality is disgusting, would work with gay people, would hire them, would socialize with them, and just simply avoid that aspect of their life that the dont approve of, the same way I have feinds that like to get high. I dont. i thik itsa illegal, dangerous and stupid. doesnt affect my relationshp, i just avoid that aspect of it.
The fact is the homosexual; community seems to display some deep need for not only tolerance, which is all we really owe each other over anything, but open outright acceptance, and if you dont you are evil.to me it is it's own sort of tyranny, and to try and impose that on david tyree is bullshit.
what you dont get is that most people, fpor the most part simply ignore the sexual habits of other people, and dont really give a shit. but it doesnt mean i should teach my children it's a valid lifestyle choice.Plain and simply, for any practicing montheist of any Abrahamic religion, it isn't.And that's not my say so.
Are all gays atheists? or do they just cherry pick what parts of their religions to practice?
It's Bucky.
Does he have much else going for him?
Mods -- please don't delete.
I think you have to look to how he does his job. If he discriminates, or tries to "cure" a gay player, it would be a firing offense. If he spends most of his free time at anti-gay marriage rallies it might affect his ability to do his job. But merely holding an unpopular belief should not be a disqualifying act.
Tyree is a fucking Hero. Did nothing wrong. BUT there re those. even on here, who whould make politicl hay, and seek to politicize the job( as if it was some sort of federallly appointed job that we as voters had some say over).
Americans are idiots, plain and simple. we've just lost 2 wars ( does anyone think that in 10 years time we will be allied with either Iraq or afghanistan)Gaza burns, rockets rain down on Israel, More and more russian troops pour into the Ukraine every day, the Japanese are now talking to the north koreans and telling us that we would have to ask permission from japan to delpoy any of our units based on jap soil, Americam Brigades, squadrons, ships, decomission before the end of their service life to fund one program( the F-35) that doesnt work, cant turn, is slow as fuck, cant carry any real paylod, has no range, and it's the one thing we as a nation are spending money on. Oh yeah, and importing hordes of Mexican children.These are partisan issues. These are universal issues that will affect our future, but what concerns us is whether or not David Tyree, a goddamn hero whobrought you the best moment of sports entertainament any of you ever saw in yor lif, is fit to behead of developing the character of young players, and preparing them for life after the NFL. Is the great fear that he will leave out the part where they teach how to cruise Twink bars?
On the money. A shitstain, for sure. And since when is the use of "fag" an acceptable term here?
Wuphat : 7/23/2014 11:32 am : link : reply
leaving all others behind, old man has shown up to win the dumb.
I had no idea what was coming our way.
Quote:
Because he had to get over Tyree being black before he could support him for hating homosexuality. Decisions, decisions.
On the money. A shitstain, for sure. And since when is the use of "fag" an acceptable term here?
Based on the post above, right around the same time "jap" became acceptable.
Which one?
Quote:
Here….
Quote:
“If they pass this gay marriage bill ... this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward — it’s a strong word — but anarchy. The moment we have, and if you trace back to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society itself loses its grip with what’s right. ... Marriage is the backbone of society, so if you redefine it, it changes the way we educate our children, it changes the perception of what is good, what is right, what is just,” Tyree said in a videotaped interview.
Or here….
Quote:
Tyree continues his crusade against same-sex marriage, telling the New York Daily News that he’d be inclined to trade one of the greatest plays in Super Bowl history to prevent men from legally marrying other men.
“The catch was a gift, it’s not like I’d try to do it. I couldn’t do it again so that was a miracle,” Tyree told Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News. “There’s nothing worth more than [maintaining heterosexual marriage] right here for me.”
And definitely here….
Quote:
‘I don’t want my kids to think homosexuals are normal.’”
Hysterics. What crusade? where are his legions? Has be brought seige engine to the walls of soho and chelsea? has his armies landed on fire Island?Have his divisions taken san francisco. His crusade, you say.
This is why I laugh. all is bullshit, hysterics, histrionics womans wailing and crying and lamentations and wringing of hands. What next, will you present the bodies of those slain By Tyree the fearsome, the fagslayer, and ululate in public over the corpses?Nothing you say has any bearing on anything vaguely resembling reality. Just all bullshit and hysterics to play the victim, the poor wilted flowers, who seek to destroy our institutions, and way of life, as they vilify those who would oppose them.Phooey on you.
Which is a huge win for humanities genetic pool.
A limited vocab will do that.
You never want ‘I don’t want my kids to think homosexuals are normal.’” to be on your permanent public record.
Why?Actually, I wouldn't say that. I might say " I don't want my kids to think homosexuality is normal." there is a difference to me between saying the person isn't normal, and the choice of lifestyle isn't.Kinda like alchoholism, crminality, drug addiction, or simply a choice or never bathing are also abnormal lifestyle choices
Quote:
In comment 11777722 vibe4giants said:
Quote:
Not sure what makes Tyree so special.
I don't think it's so mysterious. Tyree is a guy who overcame drug problems to have a successful football career amidst the temptations of playing in NY.
If that's the criteria, LT would have been a better choice.
That said, anyone who thinks that there isn't a very significant percentage of people who think gay marriage is wrong is outright wrong. Heck, when I merely suggested it's ok to people who haven't set foot in a church in years (other than to watch someone get married or buried) I was told how wrong it was. legal rights are ok, but call it marriage? No way.
I'm really mixed on this. On the one hand I hold the view that non conformity makes it hard for someone to get a job, so I'm intolerant. On the other hand, I think you have a right to non conformity, and most people agree with this right. And I think most of these people will come up with all kinds of faulty reasoning for rationalizing that they don't demand conformity. Here, a non conformist (to the PC correct world) espouses his views, gets a job, and there's a sizeable portion of people who claim it's a problem when there is zero evidence that it is.
Let's get real. No one here is going to stop rooting for the Giants because of Tyree's views. The gay world in general or the gay NFL world is not going to be set back a generation because Tyree is now the guy who advises players on whatever the the position advises them on. Just like Charles Way, it's going to be a story when the guys gets the job, and no one will ever think of it again unless they have an agenda they want to push.
Is there a trick to it? If so, please share.
There is a large segment of the population that I could totally be banging if only I could figure out how to make myself get aroused. Fat chicks need love too, ya know?
Quote:
I think some of those comments are nuts and idiotic. Let's not dilute the issue by waving away how oddball they are. Should someone be professionally harmed for holding non-mainstream views on a subject?
Definitely not. Westboro Baptist Church should have snapped him up years ago.
Is scolding the Giants for hiring someone who is anti-gay really furthering their cause? Is this really going to change the opinions of various Giants fans?
Tyree is a bit of a nutjob, and I disagree with his viewpoint. But for this group to be up-in-arms about his hiring only emboldens people whose minds won't be changed anyway. Who really gives a shit about this story? Don't they have bigger fish to fry?
Quote:
In comment 11777680 weeg in the bronx said:
Quote:
Its comepltely wrong to prohibit people from working based on thier personal beliefs whether you agree with them or not. All that matters is that he performs his job objectively.
No. It is wrong to prohibit people from working a job. It is not wrong from prohibiting people from working particular jobs.
But free speech!
Naw, I think he's saying Brett is a very short cartoon character.
He has to answer every post before it first. Patience!
This is a hall of fame performance.
Quote:
Brett is a communist. Probably believes in fluoridation of our drinking water.
Naw, I think he's saying Brett is a very short cartoon character.
Short?! I hate this guy now.
Hey! Moose and Squirrel is the name of my fantasy football team. You can't hate Moose and Squirrel!
Great White Ghost
I thought buckyd was a liberal nutjob? This seems more like a FilmGiant masterpiece!
It's WAY worse than this. Paulie only boots liberals; right-wing nuts (and far, far worse) are welcome to say whatever they like with no fear of consequences.
Its a story I'm not going to share .... at least not here :)
Quote:
again.
I thought buckyd was a liberal nutjob? This seems more like a FilmGiant masterpiece!
Heh. I know.
Quote:
Wow?
Its a story I'm not going to share .... at least not here :)
Saw a couple of what must have been their trainers on bikes last night (by the Altria). I wanted to hit them with my car, but we were on the way to dinner and the gf was hungry. Dinner was okay. Would have been more satisfying to hit them.
Everyone's second favorite Giants' owner for Marriage Equality - ( New Window )
And because they scream and kick their feet like the little bitches they are this is why they will always get their way and eventually win.
Quote:
Probably isn't even true. These leftist have this fantasy of having a gay son so that their creepy whacked out views can somehow have validity.
And because they scream and kick their feet like the little bitches they are this is why they will always get their way and eventually win.
And yet another blow to free speech...
Democracy!
Attica, Attica!
May breeding not be in their future.
Quote:
Quote:
Probably isn't even true. These leftist have this fantasy of having a gay son so that their creepy whacked out views can somehow have validity.
And because they scream and kick their feet like the little bitches they are this is why they will always get their way and eventually win.
Which lucid poster wrote that?
Somebody called 'wakeup'. Never heard of him.
Free GWG!
Best part was that he was in the process of responding to pretty much every post in the thread, so he clearly saw it.
Quote:
needs a timeout.
And yet another blow to free speech...
Democracy!
Attica, Attica!
Well, there goes that donation!
They're lying, of course. PC, pussification, etc.
Best post of the thread..:)
A: We do our due diligence on everybody we try to hire around here. David - number one - was qualified for the job. We think he’s a terrific fit for us. We’re happy to have him on board.
Q: Were you worried at all about some of the things he’s said in the past about homosexuals?
A: In this day and age, sometimes you say some things that maybe you don’t want to say, or shouldn’t have said, or something like that, and things can get blown out of proportion to a degree. But I’m not here to talk about social issues or somebody’s personal opinion about their beliefs. I believe everybody should be treated equally. I believe everybody should be treated fairly. I believe everybody should have an opinion to what they want to say. Most of all, I believe I should mind my own business and try to keep the plank out of my own eye. That’s what I believe the most.
Q: Does it concern you that there was that kind of criticism towards it?
A: Again, I’m not talking about that. I’m here to talk about the football team. That’s as much as I’m going to address that, guys. I tried to express how I feel about that and we’re happy to have David on our staff.
I did like the allusion to the Bible verse at the end. Seemed pointed.
But if you're a Giants player with a gay relative or friend and you know David Tyree doesn't want them 'considered normal', I would expect that would be an impediment to the relationship. Thus I'm not buying the 'great fit' for this team at this time.
Editor-at-large, HuffPost Gay Voices
Link - ( New Window )
(10)If racists are allowed on BBI, why not homophobes?