# Football players should express no opinion on same-sex marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939 "2012-09-07T01:40:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/81 "2012-09-07T22:13:51Z")
One of the great things about the time we live in is that it’s become acceptable for professional athletes to speak up in favor of gay rights. The fact that Kluwe just did that while cursing out a state legislator in the style of a hardcore nerd makes it that much more fun. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/82 "2012-09-07T22:20:57Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > I must say that was pretty awesome of Chris Kluwe to stick his neck out like that when others are stepping back away from the issue in light of the publicity. > On the original letter from Burns, how did it become public to begin with? Did Burns make a copy and say I sent this? Did Bisciotti receive it and send a copy to a news agency? Burns’ original letter noted that it was cc’ed to the media. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/83 "2012-09-07T22:30:38Z")
I’m not seeing the comparison to John Rocker. The particularly offensive part of the Ayanbadejo story is that an elected official pressured the owner of the Ravens to stop a player from exercising his right to weigh in on a political issue. If a New York legislator had told the owners of the Braves to shut Rocker up, that would have been similar. Not surprisingly, that didn’t happen. I doubt he did this consciously, but I suspect a major reason Burns went after Ayanbadejo is the fact that public support is going against his regressive views on same-sex marriage. Maryland is moving toward legalizing it, after all. I’m a little confused about the process but I think they’ll be voting on it in November. Rocker was condemned from all sides because he said something offensive about practically everybody and made a total ass of himself, so legislators probably didn’t feel they needed to put their thumbs on the scale. And yes, just to make it more fun and somewhat more ironic, Burns is a preacher. I’m not surprised a state legislator has a shaky grasp of the Constitution - state legislators do generate a very large portion of “a politician said/proposed WHAT?” stories - and Burns sounds like a kook. In 1999 he was a member of the “Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Education Institutions.” What the fuck? How did that even become a thing? ---
**Author:** ![just\_some\_guy5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@just\_some\_guy5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/just_some_guy5)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/84 "2012-09-07T22:40:15Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I’m also reminded of the situation a few weeks back where that executive mouthed off to a cashier at Chick-Fil-A and was promptly fired, since his actions reflected poorly on the company. I think this incident had far more to do with the fact that he filmed himself acting like a complete asshole to some poor young cashier. The guy was a CFO for god sakes - I suspect that sort of judgement does not inspire shareholder confidence. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/85 "2012-09-07T22:49:30Z")
Being an ass to an employee != political speech. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/86 "2012-09-07T23:28:06Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > [Well, things just got more interesting.](http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it) That was awesome! ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/87 "2012-09-07T23:40:17Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Being an ass to an employee != political speech. This isn’t a doctrine in free speech jurisprudence. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/88 "2012-09-07T23:40:55Z")
> [@just\_some\_guy5](#): > > I think this incident had far more to do with the fact that he filmed himself acting like a complete asshole to some poor young cashier. Yeah–let’s not lose sight of the guiding principle that if you act like an asshole in public, your employer has a lot more moral right to discipline you than if you promote justice in public. And no hand-wringing over who really knows the nature of justice, or both sides deserve equal protection. Being an asshole to a low-level restaurant employee is not morally comparable to promoting justice through donating something to a nonprofit, and I can applaud a company who fires the former person while asking the employer of the latter person to defend him strongly, without being a hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/89 "2012-09-07T23:49:00Z")
Well, let’s not exaggerate the situation. He was being confrontational and mildly jerky. Anyone who has worked in a service job would experience assholish behavior on a much grander scale on a not-too-seldom basis. He did little to seriously distress the girl and was more smug and self-satisfied than abusive. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/90 "2012-09-07T23:58:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > This isn’t a doctrine in free speech jurisprudence. It is an important difference, hand waving it away does not change that fact. The primary reason for the right is to protect political speech, especially politically unpopular speech. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/91 "2012-09-08T00:03:32Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Well, let’s not exaggerate the situation. He was being confrontational and mildly jerky. Anyone who has worked in a service job would experience assholish behavior on a much grander scale on a not-too-seldom basis. Stipulating that you’re right, if more companies had a policy of firing people who acted like assholes to service workers, you wouldn’t catch me picketing. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/92 "2012-09-08T00:05:16Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > It is an important difference, hand waving it away does not change that fact. > > The primary reason for the right is to protect political speech, especially politically unpopular speech. You haven’t made the case that it was a significant difference, or one that should change his legal position. From any reasonable legal point of view, the guy _was_ engaging in political speech. He was taking a public stance on a political issue and he was speaking about it. He was just doing it in a manner that doesn’t appeal to you. In fact, that makes it exactly what you describe as the primary purpose of free speech it was political speech and it was unpopular. And you can call it hand-waving if you want, but unless you come up with a rational way of making your distinction, it basically amounts to “I don’t like it, so he shouldn’t be protected.” ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/93 "2012-09-08T00:10:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > You haven’t made the case that it was a significant difference, or one that should change his legal position. From any reasonable legal point of view, the guy _was_ engaging in political speech. He was taking a public stance on a political issue and he was speaking about it. He was just doing it in a manner that doesn’t appeal to you. In fact, that makes it exactly what you describe as the primary purpose of free speech it was political speech and it was unpopular. > > And you can call it hand-waving if you want, but unless you come up with a rational way of making your distinction, it basically amounts to “I don’t like it, so he shouldn’t be protected.” Whoa Cowboy…quite the strawman. Who said I was against what he said? I was saying equating political speech with being a jerk to another employee was not a valid comparison. As to political speech being more protected than other forms of speech…If you are going to claim it is not more protected well here is your cite. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html) ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/94 "2012-09-08T00:31:19Z")
To clarify…how he said “how do you live with yourself” was stupid and it became an attack against someone with no power over the corp policy…and yes you can get fired for many things. That is not the same as having an elected “Representative” demand your company shut you up. So to recap, the drive through dude lost is job because of how he delivered the message not the message it’s self. I don’t agree with him losing his job but I don’t think that is the same as elective officials taking active steps to quell political speech. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/95 "2012-09-08T00:52:21Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > The difference is that Rocker’s actions would certainly have led to costing the team lots of money. If the player in this current story did something that would cause fans to stay away in droves, then the owner would have a leg to stand on in firing/punishing him. > > That’s one difference. Another huge difference for me personally is that Rocker was promoting hate, while Ayanbadejo is opposing it. So how would we put that into law? Who decides when an owner is reasonable for restrict speech of his employees because he feels it reflects negatively on the company? Who defines hate? Should we have a government committee that analyzes employee speech and determine if its hateful or sufficiently hurts his employer? That seems absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/96 "2012-09-08T01:21:49Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Whoa Cowboy…quite the strawman. Mmno. Not strawman. You asserted that there was a principle here, to boot: > [@](#): > > Being an ass to an employee != political speech. And you implied that this principle made the difference in the Chik-Fil-A case, namely that application of this principle would lead one to conclude that the Chik-Fil-A guy was _not_ engaging in protected political speech, in contrast with Ayanbadejo’s situation. Now, if this is _not_ what you meant to imply, then it’s incumbent on you to be explicit about that. > [@](#): > > Who said I was against what he said? It doesn’t matter whether you were against what he said, for the purposes of my post. > [@](#): > > I was saying equating political speech with being a jerk to another employee was not a valid comparison. And this statement is chock full of fallacies, among them: 1. That this statement has any kind of valid application in free speech jurisprudence. 2. That “being a jerk” and “political speech” are mutually exclusive. 3. That the Chik-Fil-A guy was _not_ engaging in political speech. > [@](#): > > As to political speech being more protected than other forms of speech…If you are going to claim it is not more protected well here is your cite. Since I didn’t claim that, you’re the one employing strawmen here. Try this on for size: 1. I posit that the Phelps family’s protest in which they shout “God hates fags” at military funerals is protected political speech. 2. Compare this to the Chik-Fil-A video in terms of jerkishness and politiciality and explain what the legal differences and similarities are. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/97 "2012-09-08T01:44:09Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Mmno. Not strawman. You asserted that there was a principle here, to boot: > > And you implied that this principle made the difference in the Chik-Fil-A case, namely that application of this principle would lead one to conclude that the Chik-Fil-A guy was _not_ engaging in protected political speech, in contrast with Ayanbadejo’s situation. > > Now, if this is _not_ what you meant to imply, then it’s incumbent on you to be explicit about that. > > It doesn’t matter whether you were against what he said, for the purposes of my post. > > And this statement is chock full of fallacies, among them: > > 1. That this statement has any kind of valid application in free speech jurisprudence. > > 2. That “being a jerk” and “political speech” are mutually exclusive. > > 3. That the Chik-Fil-A guy was _not_ engaging in political speech. > > Since I didn’t claim that, you’re the one employing strawmen here. > > Try this on for size: > > 1. I posit that the Phelps family’s protest in which they shout “God hates fags” at military funerals is protected political speech. > > 2. Compare this to the Chik-Fil-A video in terms of jerkishness and politiciality and explain what the legal differences and similarities are. No, the “political speech” is that the 1st amendment applies to the government and not private parties. As the protected “political speech” part applies…Once again you have once case where a **private non-government company** fired the man who made that video, mostly IMHO because he was a jerk. In the OP there is a\*\* government official\*\* demanding a company quell the speech of an employee while referencing his elected position as a reason the player should be silenced. Unless you can show in some way that the 1st amendment applies to private parties I see no reason to believe you stance has any standing outside of what a good person would do. But yes…the drive through firing is not an issue where protected “political speech” is being restricted. If you want me to follow down this line you are pressing please tell me how the 1st even applies in the case of the drive through rant firing. So one more time to be clear, the drive through firing was not \*\*“political speech” \*\* as in the protected kind because the government was not involved, and that is who is bound by the 1st amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/98 "2012-09-08T01:55:54Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No, the “political speech” is that the 1st amendment applies to the government and not private parties. You’re skipping ahead to a different step of the analysis. We’re dealing with your assertion that “Being an ass to an employee != political speech.” Let’s deal with that and we’ll worry about whether there has been any government action to suppress speech later. > [@](#): > > So one more time to be clear, the drive through firing was not \*\*“political speech” \*\* as in the protected kind because the government was not involved, and that is who is bound by the 1st amendment. Nope, you’re conflating separate considerations. Whether something is “political speech” has to be determined separately from whether there was any government involvement. (And the question of whether there is a government attempt to suppress speech in this case is a side issue, because the question at had is whether a _private_ employer _should_ have the ability to suppress political speech of an employee. We are assuming for the matter of discussion that we might extend the concept of protected speech to situations in which there is no government action.) ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/99 "2012-09-08T01:59:13Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > You’re skipping ahead to a different step of the analysis. We’re dealing with your assertion that “Being an ass to an employee != political speech.” Let’s deal with that and we’ll worry about whether there has been any government action to suppress speech later. > > Nope, you’re conflating separate considerations. Whether something is “political speech” has to be determined separately from whether there was any government involvement. > > (And the question of whether there is a government attempt to suppress speech in this case is a side issue, because the question at had is whether a _private_ employer _should_ have the ability to suppress political speech of an employee. We are assuming for the matter of discussion that we might extend the concept of protected speech to situations in which there is no government action.) You ignored the question because your claim is wrong. You have no cite to show that the 1st applies to private parties. I expected so…because it doesn’t. I will not fall for your strawman. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939/100 "2012-09-08T02:28:55Z")
[Ravens Support Brendon Ayanbadejo’s Right To Speak](http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Ravens-Support-Brendon-Ayanbadejos-Right-To-Speak/17c3937e-f6a1-4999-b5e0-1568083ca87e) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/football-players-should-express-no-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/633939.md?page=6)