Baltimore politician demands Ravens silence linebacker for supporting gay marriage

#2
#3
Chicago
Wow. Just....wow.

Kluwe's response was hysterical, but the tone will offend more than it will generate a cooperative discourse.
I lost it at "Lustful ....monster." Just lost it.

His response was somewhat right (the First Amendment stuff is shaky at best, but a common error), and the tone was definitely...snide....but judging by Burns' letter, he doesn't strike me as the type interested in constructive dialogue to begin with. Hell, his letter basically said "shut him up, I don't want dialogue."

I took it for what it was, a hilarious screed calling out Burns for being a dimwit.
 
#4
Tiny Illini
The basement of the Alamo
I really don't want to discount my love of Steve Weatherford, but given that I'm a sometimes-Vikings fan, I think Kluwe must now be my favorite punter ever.
 
#5
Amazing how Constitutional Law in 31 states and DOMA somehow are ignored by morons that have brawn rather than brains. Personally I think these attacks against Rep. Burns are racist at every level.
 
#6
I lost it at "Lustful ....monster." Just lost it.

His response was somewhat right (the First Amendment stuff is shaky at best, but a common error), and the tone was definitely...snide....but judging by Burns' letter, he doesn't strike me as the type interested in constructive dialogue to begin with. Hell, his letter basically said "shut him up, I don't want dialogue."

I took it for what it was, a hilarious screed calling out Burns for being a dimwit.
The first Amendment stuff wasn't "shaky at best." It was the strongest argument, which is most likely why he led off with it.
 
#7
The first Amendment stuff wasn't "shaky at best." It was the strongest argument, which is most likely why he led off with it.
I am pretty sure that ill07 was pointing to the common belief (incorrect) that the 1st amendment protects you from being fired or fined by your job. Pretty sure I can go through the parking lot and fire all my employees with Obama stickers on their cars if I want to. I'd be an imbecile to do it but there is no 1st amendment issue.

I think the 1st amendment only protects a person from attack by the government for their political speech (unless you are on Obama's kill list in which case your rights are revoked apparently).
 
#9
I am pretty sure that ill07 was pointing to the common belief (incorrect) that the 1st amendment protects you from being fired or fined by your job. Pretty sure I can go through the parking lot and fire all my employees with Obama stickers on their cars if I want to. I'd be an imbecile to do it but there is no 1st amendment issue.

I think the 1st amendment only protects a person from attack by the government for their political speech (unless you are on Obama's kill list in which case your rights are revoked apparently).
I actually took it as Burns using his government pull to influence the Ravens owner to quell the player's 1st Amendment Rights. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm certainly no First Amendment expert, but that to me seems like the proverbial gray area of Con Law doctrine
 
#10
I am pretty sure that ill07 was pointing to the common belief (incorrect) that the 1st amendment protects you from being fired or fined by your job. Pretty sure I can go through the parking lot and fire all my employees with Obama stickers on their cars if I want to. I'd be an imbecile to do it but there is no 1st amendment issue.

I think the 1st amendment only protects a person from attack by the government for their political speech (unless you are on Obama's kill list in which case your rights are revoked apparently).
Understood, however....
1) It was someone from the government trying to get him silenced.
2) From an employment standpoint, the NFLPA would have quite a bit to say regarding an NFL team trying to silence a player for simply stating a political stance.
 
#11
Chicago
I actually took it as Burns using his government pull to influence the Ravens owner to quell the player's 1st Amendment Rights. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm certainly no First Amendment expert, but that to me seems like the proverbial gray area of Con Law doctrine
Understood, however....
1) It was someone from the government trying to get him silenced.
2) From an employment standpoint, the NFLPA would have quite a bit to say regarding an NFL team trying to silence a player for simply stating a political stance.
Here's the scoop: Burns is a government official, yes. He is also an elected official, and has the argument that he was conveying the beliefs of his constituents to the Ravens. He also didn't demand that Ayanbadejo be silenced else government-inflicted penalties. It would be a pretty groundbreaking holding if this were a First Amendment violation.

That being said, in my opinion there are definitely moral and ethical issues about what Burns did. Not sure if it's enough to warrant some kind of official ethical inquiry, but in any case, what he did was clearly an attempt to stifle dialogue on what is certainly a hot political topic right now simply because he didn't agree with the viewpoint. He's a scumbag, no doubt about it. But it would be a real steep uphill battle to say there's a strong argument for a First Amendment violation.
 
#12
Burns should probably have said nothing, but all the politicians also should have said with nothing when the CEO of chick fila said he didn't believe in gay marriage, it goes both ways, there has been a concerted effort the last few years to intimidate people that don't believe in gay marriage to get them to keep their opinions to themselves.
 
#13
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Johns Creek, GA
Burns should probably have said nothing, but all the politicians also should have said with nothing when the CEO of chick fila said he didn't believe in gay marriage, it goes both ways, there has been a concerted effort the last few years to intimidate people that don't believe in gay marriage to get them to keep their opinions to themselves.
There has also been a concerted effort the last few years to get those who do believe in gay marriage to keep their opinions to themselves. Spend some time in the south...supporting gay marriage is like supporting puppy killers. Worse, even, since a lot of the gay marriage opponents were Michael Vick supporters...
 
#14
There has also been a concerted effort the last few years to get those who do believe in gay marriage to keep their opinions to themselves. Spend some time in the south...supporting gay marriage is like supporting puppy killers. Worse, even, since a lot of the gay marriage opponents were Michael Vick supporters...
When mayors of cities are telling companies not to come to their city because of the CEO's stance against marriage, when Target is being boycotted because of some donation they made that the gay mafia doesn't like, when people are being called bigot and neanderthal for believing that gay partnership is not equivalent to straight marriage; to say that there is some concerted effort to stifle discussion on the side of the majority seems preposterous.
 
#15
When mayors of cities are telling companies not to come to their city because of the CEO's stance against marriage, when Target is being boycotted because of some donation they made that the gay mafia doesn't like, when people are being called bigot and neanderthal for believing that gay partnership is not equivalent to straight marriage; to say that there is some concerted effort to stifle discussion on the side of the majority seems preposterous.
Very well said,I couldn't agree more
 
#16
Woodridge, IL
People were planning boycotts of Oreo after they posted a picture of a rainbow Oreo. People got up in arms over JC Penney having an ad with a same sex couple in their Father's Day advert and that Ellen Degeneres is a spokesperson for them as well.
 
#17
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Johns Creek, GA
When mayors of cities are telling companies not to come to their city because of the CEO's stance against marriage, when Target is being boycotted because of some donation they made that the gay mafia doesn't like, when people are being called bigot and neanderthal for believing that gay partnership is not equivalent to straight marriage; to say that there is some concerted effort to stifle discussion on the side of the majority seems preposterous.
I would say that those mayors are every bit as wrong and every bit as knuckleheaded as the Congressman from Maryland.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with a boycott, they happen all the time by all sorts of groups. An individual is well within their rights to determine what companies they choose to spend their money with, what charities they wish to donate, etc. The religious right threatens boycotts on a fairly consistent basis to attempt to control what is in the media and to suppress support and outreach for the gay community. The American Family Association coordinated a (failed) boycott of Google last year because of Google's support of gay rights. The AFA boycotted Ford because Ford advertised in magazines geared toward the LGBT community. So if you're saying that the majority is the anti-gay marriage and anti-gay crowd, I would say that there is, indeed, a "concerted effort to stifle discussion."
 
#19
I would say that those mayors are every bit as wrong and every bit as knuckleheaded as the Congressman from Maryland.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with a boycott, they happen all the time by all sorts of groups. An individual is well within their rights to determine what companies they choose to spend their money with, what charities they wish to donate, etc. The religious right threatens boycotts on a fairly consistent basis to attempt to control what is in the media and to suppress support and outreach for the gay community. The American Family Association coordinated a (failed) boycott of Google last year because of Google's support of gay rights. The AFA boycotted Ford because Ford advertised in magazines geared toward the LGBT community. So if you're saying that the majority is the anti-gay marriage and anti-gay crowd, I would say that there is, indeed, a "concerted effort to stifle discussion."
You appear to be completely missing my point. You claimed there was some kind of cabal to stifle gay rights advocates. The implication was that there is no such suppression of the other opinion.

Both sides claim some kind of moral superiority, both sides boycott, both sides try and suppress the other.
 
#20
Tiny Illini
The basement of the Alamo
I didn't know there was a gay mafia. I guess that in and of itself is a form of equal rights.
Their cement shoes are phenomenal.

I keed, I keed.
 
#21
Southeast IL
I think the 1st amendment only protects a person from attack by the government for their political speech (unless you are on Obama's kill list in which case your rights are revoked apparently).
:eek: I wonder if a predator drone strike will take out Romney at one of the debates?
 
#23
Here's the scoop: Burns is a government official, yes. He is also an elected official, and has the argument that he was conveying the beliefs of his constituents to the Ravens. He also didn't demand that Ayanbadejo be silenced else government-inflicted penalties. It would be a pretty groundbreaking holding if this were a First Amendment violation.

That being said, in my opinion there are definitely moral and ethical issues about what Burns did. Not sure if it's enough to warrant some kind of official ethical inquiry, but in any case, what he did was clearly an attempt to stifle dialogue on what is certainly a hot political topic right now simply because he didn't agree with the viewpoint. He's a scumbag, no doubt about it. But it would be a real steep uphill battle to say there's a strong argument for a First Amendment violation.
Yes. I understand now exactly why you are saying it's shakey. Strictly from a legal standpoint that is very true.