Many employers don’t allow political activities and solicitation and such in the workplace.
Of this I am absolutely certain. Employers cannot, for example, compel employees to call all black people “niggers”, or to chant “Jews will not replace us” on Yom Kippur (or any other time), or to salute each other with “Heil Hitler!”.
Did you read the article?
The things you are stating in this post run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Political parties/positions are not protected classes.
From the article:
I think that distinction is hard to support. What would you say is the likely legal outcome if a player tapes over the Redskins logo on his helmet because he considers it racist?
And the owners would say that standing for the anthem is commercial speech, not political.
Ultimately, this problem is structural; it has arisen because of the wide political gap between many of the players and many of the fans. That mismatch is going to continue to plague the NFL, and any solution the owners pursue is going to risk offense to one side of that gap or the other.
Saying that it’s a football game and not a political rally cuts both ways. Opponents of the protests have been saying that all along to try to shut the players down.
The fact that some players are forced into something they oppose means those players are going to come up with a response. These guys have trained endlessly to be tough and to never back down - it’s how they got where they are. The owners (and whoever is pressuring the owners) are going to end up looking like fools. (Which unfortunately appears to be accurate.)
Perhaps worse is the way in which forced compliance with patriotism makes all American patriots look weak and insecure. Needing to force compliance is an obvious sign of desperation.
That wasn’t the ruling of the Court. :dubious:
I would say they have an uphill battle, because the name of the team is intrinsically tied into the team in a way that the national anthem is not. He would probably have to get the courts to rule that team name should be banned, which would be as difficult to do as getting the national anthem banned from the opening ceremony of the game.
They might well do that, but I don’t see that as automatically being a successful argument.
Emphasis added. The SCOTUS did not make that ruling this week or any other week.
Someone on Reddit pointed out that if this policy was to make the controversy go away, it has a lot of potential to do the exact opposite, by highlighting those who decide to defy it.
I look forward to groups demanding more out of the NFL after that, like a public statement of support for the armed forces and the president. I get giddy thinking of the dilemma. 
The Supreme Court ruled that federal law permits employers to use use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prevent class action lawsuits. That’s one kind of “suing your employer,” I suppose, but their ruling doesn’t generically prohibit employees suing employers.
Do you believe that the Court’s ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis has relevance to the NFL issue under discussion here? Can you explain specifically why it does, if you do?
In the news, maybe, but not as visibly as kneeling, because a player who is in the locker room is out of public eye whereas someone who kneels in front of a TV audience of millions is being seen by millions.
I wonder if some can claim a violation of freedom of religion, I know some refuse to honor anything but God.
Huh? 
That’d be kind of a hard sell if they haven’t been refusing to participate all along.
The teams might have been able to make an argument of “no political speech during work hours”, except that the whole kerfluffle arose because of some players refusing to engage in political speech during work hours, and their employers forcing them to. Standing for the anthem is itself a political statement.
So a team could rename itself “the Trumps” and make “MAGA” its logo, and compel the players to wear the slogan that way?
Yes, but now if someone does decide to kneel, the team gets fined, and there’s a million article about the team getting fined for someone kneeling.
Why wouldn’t it be constitutional? If people can be punished for being secretly recorded or for expressing an unpopular opinion then what the NFL is doing is perfectly legit. A society with stricter and stricter speech codes due to fear of the unwashed masses can only be a good thing, right?
Maybe. 
Seriously, I’m not really certain of the whole constitutionality issue, so I’m going to stop arguing about it and wait for the experts to chime in.
people are making some false assumptions here.
First, the players are not regular employees. They are contract employees protected by a collective bargaining agreement. At will rules do not apply.
The league has announced that this was a unanimous decision of the owners, but New York Jets co-owner Christopher Johnson has already come out and said that he will not require his players to stand and will pay any fines incurred by his players under this rule.
The collective bargaining agreement requires that the players association be consulted about any changes to rules relating to the players, and they were not.
and it’s still 4 months away from the season. . .seems to be to be a trial balloon by the league to see where everybody stands.
all of this may be moot.
mc