I think the Schilling firing by ESPN shows again

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Religious institutions are not the best example since they have exemptions and protections that are not applicable to non-religious private entities and institutions.

What you have been focusing on is firing someone for dressing in accordance with the typical dress of the gender they identify with. That is far different than firing someone because they have alienated a group of people through unsolicited public comments about those people and done so in a way that threatens your bottom line. Two very different things.

Not talking about a religious organization. Just a private citizen that wants to run a particular type of business and cater to certain segment of the population. If ESPN can fire someone over a private message that supposedly offends their audience, does a business owner have a right to fire an employee that offends their clients.

 

[dawgman034]

Yeah and there is a link above about a perv looking under a stall at a 10 yr old girl. There is simply no reason to be tolerant of slongs in the ladies room. If a dude wants to be a lady, do the deal. Otherwise, if someone has to be uncomfortable, let it be the .0001 percent.

What describe is illegal today and was illegal yesterday. It is illegal regardless of what the perpetrator has between their legs. The law at issue doesn't legalize the thing you are talking about. How dense are you?

 

[dawgman034]

Not talking about a religious organization. Just a private citizen that wants to run a particular type of business and cater to certain segment of the population. If ESPN can fire someone over a private message that supposedly offends their audience, does a business owner have a right to fire an employee that offends their clients.

They fired him because his actions damaged their brand.

In regards to your last point, it depends on the type of offense. If the client is offended because the employee is black, then you are setting yourself up for civil suit and DOJ action. If you the client is offended because the employee is LGBT, then it depends on the state. If the client is offended because the employee got tattoos all over his face, and you would rather keep the client, then you can most likely fire the person without consequence other than perhaps paying higher unemployment insurance (assuming no employment contract/agreement).

 

[BamaDawg62]

Thread should be moved to the public board!

 

[PABulldog]

For all of the dawg vent constitutional scholars, Sammy D's post didn't mention the First Amendment. Without arguing over the scope of the First Amendment, you can still certainly make the broader point that there is such a focus on politically correct speech that people do feel limited in their ability to freely express themselves. And yes for all of you brilliant employment law scholars, he also didn't make any mention of the legality of Schilling's discharge. I think most people understand that an employer has the right to unilaterally discharge an employee as long as the decision isn't based on some form of prohibited discrimination. But that doesn't necessarily make it right. There is a double standard out there in terms of the reaction to controversial speech. I don't know that Schilling's situation is the best representation of this double standard given the way he chose to express himself. But I do believe that many conservatives do feel constrained in their ability to express their point of view. Some of the most intolerant people I know are liberals. In closing, I will say that as a husband and father of three girls I do have some legitimate concerns about who can walk into a restroom.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

What describe is illegal today and was illegal yesterday. It is illegal regardless of what the perpetrator has between their legs. The law at issue doesn't legalize the thing you are talking about. How dense are you?

Who is dense here? You are the one that refuses to see the problems inviting men into a ladies room can create. It's great that it's still illegal for a man to peep on a 10 yr old girl but that doesn't mean you have to facilitate the action by allowing him entrance in the first place. There is a bigger possibility for abuse than there is for accommodating the extremely small percentage of trannies. Why is it important to progs to allow shlongs in the ladies room? Is it that important to make the overwhelming majority uncomfortable in order to appease an extremely small group.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

They fired him because his actions damaged their brand.

In regards to your last point, it depends on the type of offense. If the client is offended because the employee is black, then you are setting yourself up for civil suit and DOJ action. If you the client is offended because the employee is LGBT, then it depends on the state. If the client is offended because the employee got tattoos all over his face, and you would rather keep the client, then you can most likely fire the person without consequence other than perhaps paying higher unemployment insurance (assuming no employment contract/agreement).

What proof do they have he damaged their brand? Is there a large group of sports fans threatening to boycott ESPN over a post nobody would have known about had they not publicized it? Heck, I would bet ESPN's audience is extremely supportive of the position Schilling took. Now, the fact that he's a general asshat that they wanted to get rid of anyway...

 

[t_rey594]

Or they didn't want to be represented by a troglodyte.

So not firing Schilling would mean that his political opinions represent those of the corporation? No logical person would assume that.

 

[HuntinDawg]

They fired him because his actions damaged their brand.

I disagree. I think they fired him because he went against their extreme liberal viewpoint. They weren't worried about their brand when they kept celebrating Michael Sams kissing his boyfriend on the air. I guarantee you that alienated more viewers than Schilling's tweet ever could. They know they have the sports viewer and he isn't going anywhere. They are secure in that and they are advancing their agenda. They are continually celebrating the LGBT community and any LGBT athlete. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Again, whether that is good or bad, admirable or deplorable or somewhere in between is up to you to decide for yourself but that is what they do.

 

[dawgman034]

Who is dense here? You are the one that refuses to see the problems inviting men into a ladies room can create. It's great that it's still illegal for a man to peep on a 10 yr old girl but that doesn't mean you have to facilitate the action by allowing him entrance in the first place. There is a bigger possibility for abuse than there is for accommodating the extremely small percentage of trannies. Why is it important to progs to allow shlongs in the ladies room? Is it that important to make the overwhelming majority uncomfortable in order to appease an extremely small group.

The law does not invite or allow men into the ladies room. It allows people to use the restroom of the gender with which they identify. It does not allow them to show their genitals to people in an offensive way or commit any other sort of assault/batteries or illegal acts.

If the concern is that a pervert can dress as a woman, go into the bathroom, and spy on a woman, that problem exists now.

 

[HuntinDawg]

Effective immediately, foxes must be welcomed into hen houses. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[dawgman034]

I disagree. I think they fired him because he went against their extreme liberal viewpoint. They weren't worried about their brand when they kept celebrating Michael Sams kissing his boyfriend on the air. I guarantee you that alienated more viewers than Schilling's tweet ever could. They know they have the sports viewer and he isn't going anywhere. They are secure in that and they are advancing their agenda. They are continually celebrating the LGBT community and any LGBT athlete. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Again, whether that is good or bad, admirable or deplorable or somewhere in between is up to you to decide for yourself but that is what they do.

The evidence you cite has nothing to do with what ESPN's political viewpoint is. ESPN is not a politics station, the anchors and commentators are not political pundits, and they do not purport to express political views often if ever. ESPN does not have a political agenda. The Michael Sam story was a news story in the sports world so they reported it. It was a decision based on the subject matter they report on and what their viewers were interested in. Just like any other business decision.

So you're right -- they weren't worried about their brand when they were reporting on Michael Sam, but that has nothing to do with your larger point. It's not about politics with ESPN -- it's about sports, viewership, advertisers, and corporate relationships.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

The law does not invite or allow men into the ladies room. It allows people to use the restroom of the gender with which they identify. It does not allow them to show their genitals to people in an offensive way or commit any other sort of assault/batteries or illegal acts.

If the concern is that a pervert can dress as a woman, go into the bathroom, and spy on a woman, that problem exists now.

And you are advocating making the pervert's entrance into the restroom legal if he simply says I identify as a woman. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here but imo if you are still totin the package, your gender IS identified. If someone is going to be uncomfortable in the restroom, it should be the person that is way outside the norm.

 

[Sitton1]

Ha, man you really don't understand the basics of bathrooms or the law do you? Women's bathrooms have stalls. When women use the toilet, you cannot see their genitals.

If someone with a shlong goes in a restroom and parades it around, that is against the law and they will get arrested and can be sued by the victims, just like the law provides for now.

It's about denying women or girls their rights. In 2012, a 45 year old male student at Evergreen State College who identified as female despite being anatomically male, undressed in the women’s locker room while girls from nearby Olympia High School and a local swim club were changing. Evergreen chose to do nothing to protect the privacy of the girls but offered them a private accommodation if they wished not to dress in the presence of a naked man.

While we sympathize with individuals who struggle with gender dysphoria, it isn’t appropriate to deny all women and girls their right to privacy in response?????

 

[HydroAlum]

I disagree. I think they fired him because he went against their extreme liberal viewpoint. They weren't worried about their brand when they kept celebrating Michael Sams kissing his boyfriend on the air. I guarantee you that alienated more viewers than Schilling's tweet ever could. They know they have the sports viewer and he isn't going anywhere. They are secure in that and they are advancing their agenda. They are continually celebrating the LGBT community and any LGBT athlete. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Again, whether that is good or bad, admirable or deplorable or somewhere in between is up to you to decide for yourself but that is what they do.

I think you seriously underestimate the intelligence and class of a large portion of sports fans. Try hanging out with a better crowd.

 

[maddawg mdc]

Thread should be moved to the public board!

I am surprised it has survived this long, but I don't really understand how anyone could debate ESPN's right to terminate him. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his views has no bearing on whether or not ESPN was justified in protecting their own interests. BTW, I forget the list of companies that threatened to Boycott NC for the passage of the recent law that the Governor chose to modify rather quickly, but it was full of recognizable brands. I fail to see how choosing ESPN to protect its business interests is somehow political.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Chief, guys can 'throw on a wig and a pant suit to hang out in a ladies room' now; not what this is about. Its about a group of small minded thumpers wanted to continue fighting a culture war they lost a long time ago; to criminalize something they don't understand (and that's a big bucket). Suppose your little princess comes to the realization that she identifies as a boy; you want her in the Men's Room of the Ladies? And, this wasn't even the real issue; it was about denying status, shaming. The lack of humanity is appalling but not surprising coming from where it did.

If my little princess decides she wants to become a male, she has and will always have my unwavering support and undying love. (If you only knew) What she won't have is my endorsement to enter the little boys room and potential create problems for her school. I would try to meet with the school officials to make arrangements for her to be accommodated but not at the expense of the feelings, traditions and concerns of others. I guess I'm a dinosaur but I have always thought it best to be selfless and respectful of the circumstances, traditions and belief of others. Maybe I should just say f it and demand everyone conform to my wishes. Heck, maybe I'll walk into the ladies room this evening, leave the stall door open and whiz all over the seat. That would surely make some ladies unhappy.

 

[dawgman034]

It's about denying women or girls their rights. In 2012, a 45 year old male student at Evergreen State College who identified as female despite being anatomically male, undressed in the women’s locker room while girls from nearby Olympia High School and a local swim club were changing. Evergreen chose to do nothing to protect the privacy of the girls but offered them a private accommodation if they wished not to dress in the presence of a naked man.

While we sympathize with individuals who struggle with gender dysphoria, it isn’t appropriate to deny all women and girls their right to privacy in response?????

I think what you describe is absolutely a legitimate issue. It sounds like the rights were protected since accommodations were made in the case you cite. I frankly do not know what the bathroom laws say about changing clothes in areas where other people are present, but I agree that the issue is one that should be addressed.

 

[HuntinDawg]

I fail to see how choosing ESPN to protect its business interests is somehow political.

I obviously don't have the details of his contract but I'll presume that their lawyers believe they were within their rights to terminate, or at the very least they are prepared to pay any necessary price for doing so.

I can guarantee that ESPN would not terminate for one of their personalities espousing an extremely liberal viewpoint. They are not apolitical, but I wish they were.

 

[dawgman034]

And you are advocating making the pervert's entrance into the restroom legal if he simply says I identify as a woman. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here but imo if you are still totin the package, your gender IS identified. If someone is going to be uncomfortable in the restroom, it should be the person that is way outside the norm.

You sound like one of those people that think everyone of their gay friends, co-workers and guys at the gym are secretly in love with you and are one step away from molesting you since that is their one urge in life.

And BTW, as far as I am aware it has always been legal for a pervert to enter a restroom. I am confident you have urinated next to a certifiable pervert on several occasions.

 

[HuntinDawg]

ESPN is not a politics station, the anchors and commentators are not political pundits, and they do not purport to express political views often if ever. ESPN does not have a political agenda.

It's not about politics with ESPN -- it's about sports, viewership, advertisers, and corporate relationships.

So when they gave their ESPY (Arthur Ashe courage award) to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, that wasn't political? Mmmkay.

When they reprimanded Paul Azinger for saying that Obama plays more golf than he does, while allowing Kenny Mayne to trash Sarah Palin, that wasn't political?

Seriously dude, it is one thing to like their politics. It is entirely different to claim they don't have a political bias. They celebrated Michael Sam being drafted and now it is coming out that the NFL arranged that to happen. They celebrated when the first openly gay current NBA player came out. Every time something like that happens ESPN celebrates it and lauds them as courageous and in other glowing terms. I would prefer that they either ignore it or just report on it and move on. If we were truly a society without "ism's" we wouldn't beat a drum about these things, we would just act like it was no big deal.

 

[dawgman034]

So when they gave their ESPY (Arthur Ashe courage award) to Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, that wasn't political? Mmmkay.

When they reprimanded Paul Azinger for saying that Obama plays more golf than he does, while allowing Kenny Mayne to trash Sarah Palin, that wasn't political?

Seriously dude, it is one thing to like their politics. It is entirely different to claim they don't have a political bias. They celebrated Michael Sam being drafted and now it is coming out that the NFL arranged that to happen. They celebrated when the first openly gay current NBA player came out. Every time something like that happens ESPN celebrates it and lauds them as courageous and in other glowing terms. I would prefer that they either ignore it or just report on it and move on. If we were truly a society without "ism's" we wouldn't beat a drum about these things, we would just act like it was no big deal.

You admit at the end that this is all basically about your preferences.

Again, you offer nothing in the way of evidence that ESPN executives act out of political motivations moreso than motivation about their bottom line. It is possible to think the Jenner thing was worthy of the award without it being a political statement (surely you know this), but above and beyond that -- it was a newsmaker and attracted attention and was probably good for ESPN's bottom line.

The gay athlete story is a HUGE story. You essentially acknowledge as much with how much you focus on it. Reporting on gay athletes in professional sports is absolutely what ESPN is in the business of doing, and it has nothing to do with politics.

If you do not understand why ESPN makes these types of decisions, then are too sheltered and naive and out of touch with mainstream America and especially corporate America.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

You sound like one of those people that think everyone of their gay friends, co-workers and guys at the gym are secretly in love with you and are one step away from molesting you since that is their one urge in life.

And BTW, as far as I am aware it has always been legal for a pervert to enter a restroom. I am confident you have urinated next to a certifiable pervert on several occasions.

Well, my wife's day husband as she called him always told her he'd like to get a hold of me. Of course I have no problem with a perv in a restroom with me or my wife if they are totin the correct equipment. I just don't think it is healthy for me to have to explain to my 5 yr old granddaughter why the lady with the peeper was in the restroom with her. Imo, the lady with the peeper is the one that should be conscious of others.

 

[dawgman034]

Well, my wife's day husband as she called him always told her he'd like to get a hold of me. Of course I have no problem with a perv in a restroom with me or my wife if they are totin the correct equipment. I just don't think it is healthy for me to have to explain to my 5 yr old granddaughter why the lady with the peeper was in the restroom with her. Imo, the lady with the peeper is the one that should be conscious of others.

Women pee in stalls. The law doesn't legalize flashing your junk at little girls.

 

[Coach Reggie Dunlop]

Essentially Schilling was fired for having a different political opinion than his employer. Totally disgraceful. I could completely understand the firing if he used airtime during a game to broadcast his view, but he didn't. ESPN allowed Bomani Jones to flaunt his "Caucassions" shirt on air, but fired Schilling because his political view didn't align with their liberal view.

He was fired for posting something his employer didn't think aligned with the image it wants to project, WHICH IS THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT. He's done it before and been reprimanded, WHICH IS THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT.

Schilling knew what the terms of his employment were, just like everyone else in America does if they're not self-employed.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Women pee in stalls. The law doesn't legalize flashing your junk at little girls.

Yeah but are we going to prosecute the man that pees in a stall and refuses to close the door? Do you think a bunch of 10 and 11 y/o girls might be a little curious as to what Corp Klinger is doing in the ladies room? Honestly, I am just incapable of understanding why anyone thinks it's a good idea to allow a tranny that isn't fully committed to being a female in a restroom with young ladies. The lady with the peeper can also pee in a stall in the mens room if he wants some privacy.

 

[maddawg mdc]

I obviously don't have the details of his contract but I'll presume that their lawyers believe they were within their rights to terminate, or at the very least they are prepared to pay any necessary price for doing so.

I can guarantee that ESPN would not terminate for one of their personalities espousing an extremely liberal viewpoint. They are not apolitical, but I wish they were.

I could be wrong, but as a general rule, I would argue "liberal viewpoints" tend to be more inclusive and understanding that diversity exists in the world. That tends to alienate fewer people than condemning people based upon a certain aspects of who they are (race, religion, or sexual orientation). It is simply good business to avoid condemning potential customers.

 

[HuntinDawg]

You admit at the end that this is all basically about your preferences.

Again, you offer nothing in the way of evidence that ESPN executives act out of political motivations moreso than motivation about their bottom line. It is possible to think the Jenner thing was worthy of the award without it being a political statement (surely you know this), but above and beyond that -- it was a newsmaker and attracted attention and was probably good for ESPN's bottom line.

The gay athlete story is a HUGE story. You essentially acknowledge as much with how much you focus on it. Reporting on gay athletes in professional sports is absolutely what ESPN is in the business of doing, and it has nothing to do with politics.

If you do not understand why ESPN makes these types of decisions, then are too sheltered and naive and out of touch with mainstream America and especially corporate America.

They don't report these things they celebrate them. The ESPY to Jenner was a celebration of him being a public transvestite. ESPN and the other major media outlets know very well that mainstream America doesn't view this as heroic but they set out to change this many years ago and they are having some success. Again, why the double standard with Azinger and Mayne. Mayne's comments were not "offensive" to them even though a huge % of Americans would disagree with him. When you publicly take shots at high profile members of either major political party you are alienating approximately 50% of the public.

My father and uncle used to be major retailers in the Atlanta area. Specifically their privately owned company sold more furniture in the state of Georgia than any other company. Although they were Republicans they NEVER gave any public support to any political candidate or party either as a business or as individuals...no yard signs in our yard. Why? Because they wanted to sell merchandise to members of both parties. ESPN is the 500 lb. gorilla in sports broadcasting. There is nowhere else to go. When your team is on ESPN you are going to watch ESPN. They use it as a platform for "change." Some of that is not political like the Jimmy V foundation. Some of it is very political. If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you.

I guess when NBC has Bob Costas go on his long anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment rants during the Sunday Night Football broadcast, that isn't political either.

 

[dawgman034]

Yeah but are we going to prosecute the man that pees in a stall and refuses to close the door? Do you think a bunch of 10 and 11 y/o girls might be a little curious as to what Corp Klinger is doing in the ladies room? Honestly, I am just incapable of understanding why anyone thinks it's a good idea to allow a tranny that isn't fully committed to being a female in a restroom with young ladies. The lady with the peeper can also pee in a stall in the mens room if he wants some privacy.

Yes, they will prosecute someone that goes into a bathroom and intentionally exposes themselves to someone.

 

[ABNDawg]

I think we need a special class of rights for people who identify as goat friggers. Figure that will be next and really smart people like hydro can tell us all how enlightened we should be toward them. So smart and quite the Fascist.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I could be wrong, but as a general rule, I would argue "liberal viewpoints" tend to be more inclusive and understanding that diversity exists in the world. That tends to alienate fewer people than condemning people based upon a certain aspects of who they are (race, religion, or sexual orientation). It is simply good business to avoid condemning potential customers.

Are you serious? Have you seen the effort on college campuses to quash anything related to Trump. When was the last time you heard of a conservative group of students and professors trying to rescind the invitation to speak of a sitting member of the SCOTUS or former Sec State? How many liberal functions are shut down or disrupted by roving bands or young Pubs? Conversely, how many times can you think of where kids have been threaten with expulsion for speech that doesn't conform to the prog agenda?

It's been my experience that conservatives are very tolerant of folks that don't agree with them. It's always the progs that are in someone else's face or demanding their world view is the one that must be accepted.

 

[Coach Reggie Dunlop]

I think we need a special class of rights for people who identify as goat friggers. Figure that will be next and really smart people like hydro can tell us all how enlightened we should be toward them. So smart and quite the Fascist.

You clearly don't know the definition of "fascist."

 

[dawgman034]

They don't report these things they celebrate them. The ESPY to Jenner was a celebration of him being a public transvestite. ESPN and the other major media outlets know very well that mainstream America doesn't view this as heroic but they set out to change this many years ago and they are having some success. Again, why the double standard with Azinger and Mayne. Mayne's comments were not "offensive" to them even though a huge % of Americans would disagree with him. When you publicly take shots at high profile members of either major political party you are alienating approximately 50% of the public.

My father and uncle used to be major retailers in the Atlanta area. Specifically their privately owned company sold more furniture in the state of Georgia than any other company. Although they were Republicans they NEVER gave any public support to any political candidate or party either as a business or as individuals...no yard signs in our yard. Why? Because they wanted to sell merchandise to members of both parties. ESPN is the 500 lb. gorilla in sports broadcasting. There is nowhere else to go. When your team is on ESPN you are going to watch ESPN. They use it as a platform for "change." Some of that is not political like the Jimmy V foundation. Some of it is very political. If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you.

I guess when NBC has Bob Costas go on his long anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment rants during the Sunday Night Football broadcast, that isn't political either.

A lot of people would view the Jenner announcement and coming out as a courageous act, so again, it is not political on its face.

But there is an easy way to show you why ESPN did what it did with Schilling. As I'm sure you are aware, lots of major acts, entertainers, corporations, cities and other entities have expressed major concern with the North Carolina law -- concerts have been canceled, travel bans have been put in place, and decisions have been made by corporations about conventions and investments, all of which have negatively impacted North Carolina's economy. Curt Schilling is a baseball analyst. He is not very valuable in the grand scheme of things to ESPN. It is easy to see why ESPN would determine that his limited value is far outweighed by the negative attention he brings to ESPN, especially when there is evidence in the news everyday about how corporations and people are voting with their money when they disagree with certain viewpoints.

Surely you have had an employee or corporate relationship before that was such a pain in the ass and potential liability that you felt it was easier to part ways than to have to worry about the negative consequences of their continued employment. It happens every day in America and has since the country was founded.

 

[HuntinDawg]

I would argue "liberal viewpoints" tend to be more inclusive and understanding that diversity exists in the world.

Always tricky to speak in generalities, but I would argue that liberals are extremely intolerant of anyone with a different viewpoint. That is why anyone who disagrees with the liberal view must be labeled as a hate monger, some type of "phobe" or some type of "ist."

This is going to be my last post in this thread unless someone directly replies to one of my posts or singles me out for more debate.

To me the issue isn't about transvestites. It is about our daughters, wives, mothers and sisters being able to go to the bathroom, locker room, dormitory shower, etc., without having to worry about some dude in there filming her, photographing her, ogling her, touching her, exposing himself to her, etc. Yes, I realize those things are not permitted but by allowing men to walk into a women's room by simply saying he identifies as a woman (I can say that, you can say that, anyone can say that) then we are setting the women in our society up for more victimization. It isn't necessarily the real transvestite that I'm worried about. It sure isn't the gay man that I'm worried about. It is the pedophile who now has the cover he needs to just waltz right in there. It is the "straight" or bisexual pervert that wants to get a cheap thrill. It is the guy that loves to "flash" women. He can go in there and flash my little girls and nobody will suspect anything (if the liberals manage to normalize this bathroom thing) until he actually commits the act. Right now the red flags would go up when he walked in the door of the restroom but not once this is normalized.

Have you not heard of the university in Canada that made their dormitory showers non-gender-specific / co-ed? I guess they had individual stalls but they immediately had problems with guys taking video of the young lady in the next shower. In what world is that not predictable? Hell an 18 year old guy doesn't even have to be a deviant to pull that stunt, he just has to be a horny knucklehead which most of us were at that age.

 

[Kylo Ren]

I could be wrong, but as a general rule, I would argue "liberal viewpoints" tend to be more inclusive and understanding that diversity exists in the world. That tends to alienate fewer people than condemning people based upon a certain aspects of who they are (race, religion, or sexual orientation). It is simply good business to avoid condemning potential customers.

that's one of the most ridiculous posts i have ever read.. "inclusive" and "understanding".. sorry that doesn't at all vibe with "liberal viewpoints".. they are as decisive as the ones on the right.. the extremes both have issues.

 

[Savannah_Dawg]

Another win for the Social Justice Warriors. They will not stop until they get their PC utopia.

Funny how this is always one sided with ESPN . Unless you are a flaming leftist you better keep your friggin mouth shut. That is if they didn't vett you properly in the first place cause if they did they would have never hired you to begin with. Conservatives need not apply.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

A lot of people would view the Jenner announcement and coming out as a courageous act, so again, it is not political on its face.

But there is an easy way to show you why ESPN did what it did with Schilling. As I'm sure you are aware, lots of major acts, entertainers, corporations, cities and other entities have expressed major concern with the North Carolina law -- concerts have been canceled, travel bans have been put in place, and decisions have been made by corporations about conventions and investments, all of which have negatively impacted North Carolina's economy. Curt Schilling is a baseball analyst. He is not very valuable in the grand scheme of things to ESPN. It is easy to see why ESPN would determine that his limited value is far outweighed by the negative attention he brings to ESPN, especially when there is evidence in the news everyday about how corporations and people are voting with their money when they disagree with certain viewpoints.

Surely you have had an employee or corporate relationship before that was such a pain in the ass and potential liability that you felt it was easier to part ways than to have to worry about the negative consequences of their continued employment. It happens every day in America and has since the country was founded.

Finally, something we can agree on. ESPN just recently cut the CFA staff and that's not a great time for an analyst with a history of being abrasive to go against the company line and chime in on a controversial issue. Of course, I would imagine Schilling DGAS as he's pretty much set anyway and most likely will get a settlement but this is an excellent point.

 

[HuntinDawg]

A lot of people would view the Jenner announcement and coming out as a courageous act, so again, it is not political on its face.

But there is an easy way to show you why ESPN did what it did with Schilling. As I'm sure you are aware, lots of major acts, entertainers, corporations, cities and other entities have expressed major concern with the North Carolina law -- concerts have been canceled, travel bans have been put in place, and decisions have been made by corporations about conventions and investments, all of which have negatively impacted North Carolina's economy. Curt Schilling is a baseball analyst. He is not very valuable in the grand scheme of things to ESPN. It is easy to see why ESPN would determine that his limited value is far outweighed by the negative attention he brings to ESPN, especially when there is evidence in the news everyday about how corporations and people are voting with their money when they disagree with certain viewpoints.

Surely you have had an employee or corporate relationship before that was such a pain in the ass and potential liability that you felt it was easier to part ways than to have to worry about the negative consequences of their continued employment. It happens every day in America and has since the country was founded.

Except for the first sentence, this was a good post. The Jenner ESPY was definitely done to promote the LGBT agenda. They were quite simply celebrating his decision to move forward with the process, however far he goes.

I see that nobody has tried to explain why Azinger was reprimanded for his statement about Obama playing more golf but Kenny Mayne was not made to stop trashing Palin.

 

[ABNDawg]

Sorry coach. Used in reference to the "intolerant toward views of others". That was for hydro, you are just so much smarter than everyone else. Impressive.

 

[Coach Reggie Dunlop]

Another win for the Social Justice Warriors. They will not stop until they get their PC utopia.

Funny how this is always one sided with ESPN . Unless you are a flaming leftist you better keep your friggin mouth shut. That is if they didn't vett you properly in the first place cause if they did they would have never hired you to begin with. Conservatives need not apply.

It's another win for private businesses. A business isn't required to think like you do or I do or anyone else does. And a business isn't required to keep employees who speak in a way that the business feels hurts its brands or negatively impacts it's consumers.

That's life in a capitalistic world.