The Jacksonville Jaguars

[RattlerGator]

The NFL had better not fine him. All he has done is given the League an opportunity to show it can handle a diversity of opinions among its players even as it moves forward with a rather obvious (and laudable) corporate agenda.

This is America; you're allowed to have opinions. Wildly positive opinions and wildly negative opinions. We've got to stop these fascists who want to falsely insist there is only one proper way for grown-ass people to think.

A "one way to think" mentality, whether on homosexuals or feminists or whatever, isn't representative of thinking at all. Live and let live? Yes. I must accept and cater to your deviant behavior? Wrong. This statement: "I hope it works out for her." is the right attitude. Meet the standard, do the job. Good luck to you, Sarah Thomas. Especially given that the talent required to be an NFL ref is certainly attainable by women.

[spuwho]

The NFL had better not fine him. All he has done is given the League an opportunity to show it can handle a diversity of opinions among its players even as it moves forward with a rather obvious (and laudable) corporate agenda.

This is America; you're allowed to have opinions. Wildly positive opinions and wildly negative opinions. We've got to stop these fascists who want to falsely insist there is only one proper way for grown-ass people to think.

A "one way to think" mentality, whether on homosexuals or feminists or whatever, isn't representative of thinking at all. Live and let live? Yes. I must accept and cater to your deviant behavior? Wrong. This statement: "I hope it works out for her." is the right attitude. Meet the standard, do the job. Good luck to you, Sarah Thomas. Especially given that the talent required to be an NFL ref is certainly attainable by women.

Well the NFL is a private organization and may take whatever action it feels appropriate.  It is a business, like any other, and therefore has to take into account the impact of public relations on that business.

There are some pretty intense contract clauses in all professional bodies that speak directly to public statements and behaviors---which is actually common to almost all employment.

Although I agree with you Rattler.  Perhaps its time that churches should be forbidden from firing people who go out in public and say that the whole religion is fake, or who star in lesbian porn.  A little diversity would help everyone I should think.

I thought it was the homosexuals and women rights activists that were trying to get people to look at the job performance rather than the person anyways.  Weird to to see you completely agree, while at the same time lambasting them.

I think I see where Rattler is coming from.

The guy expressed a counter to the typical narrative that the NFL wants total control over.

Due to social media and 24x7 news cycle, companies have had to put more language in employee handbooks regarding making public commentary. Problem is it has been tough to define boundaries of what constitutes comment contrary to the employer and what constitutes freedom of expression without being derogatory.

Many employers are beginning to ban recommendations by employees in LinkedIn. As they put it, those people are not authorized to make opinions while it can be implied as coming from the firm they work for. In this case Marks is making a statement about how the league likes to have control how their actions are perceived.

[RattlerGator]

Its hard to say that you are actively looking to diversify with some jackass telling people not to bother.

(1.) No hell it isn't, Stephen, that's called America -- the freest country on the planet. There is absolutely nothing contradictory in my response. And your blind response (IMHO) mimics the totalitarian instinct I so despise in folks who I can often find common cause with, and that totalitarian instinct ultimately winds up driving me away.

Sen'Derrick didn't tell anyone not to bother. The man offered a freaking opinion on the actions of the League in which he works; he isn't organizing any opposition or anything of the sort. And he probably offered the opinion in response to a question posited by some media members.

It.
Is.
An.
Opinion.

And you want to somehow punish him for it !?! Do you not see the totalitarian instinct in your response !?! Turn loose Sen'Derricks nuts, Stephen, and let the grown-ass man breathe. Gay people acting as if they can't rock and roll in the marketplace of ideas (and opinions about those ideas) is a betrayal of a history of legitimately demanding the ability to do so as equals.

(2) Sen'Derricks opinion on Michael Sam is shared by the overwhelming majority of sports fans who follow pro football. Michael Sam would not have been drafted, ordinarily. And any man who clearly shows he is more interested in being a celebrity than a football player, as Michael Sam has very clearly done, isn't attractive to an NFL team -- for damn good reason.

The tide is turning, Stephen. Alvin Brown's very understandable push-back to the ambush in Hemming Park by gay activists is very representative of just how sick people are of activists overplaying their hand on issue after issue after issue.

[RattlerGator]

Feel free to stop with the sophomoric BS, it is recognized for what it is. Yes, we're talking about America and the NFL. There's nothing incongruent about that, or them. And I recognize someone dancing a jig when they can't contest the point made, Stephen.

No one, least of all me, questioned the right of a private corporation to do X, or a religious denomination either. And I suspect you know that, given your repetition of the apples-to-oranges church scenario.

I gave a strong opinion regarding Sen'Derricks two stated opinions. One of which was about a guy desperately trying to become a gay celebrity and using the NFL in his attempt to do so. You can calm down. Some of us have certainly recognized that it is certainly *not* "the homosexuals and women rights activists that were trying to get people to look at the job performance rather than the person anyways" -- no, far too many are screaming look at me, look at me, VALIDATE ME . . . or I will try and ruin you.

Nothing Sen'Derrick said merits discipline, or even the hint of it, and it is genuinely sad to me that you appear to disagree.

[Tacachale]

Is there any indication that Marks will be punished for his remarks, or is this just a theoretical debate?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Is there any indication that Marks will be punished for his remarks, or is this just a theoretical debate?

Nope.  I-10 suggested that Marks shouldn't be punished in his post containing the link which stated 3 facts:

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL.
2.)  Sara Thomas is an employed female referee in the NFL
3.)  Michael Sam is an unemployed gay male athlete not in the NFL.

Opinions were stated regarding the reasoning behind Marks' original comments.
Stephen literally called someone's opinion, 'dumb'.

That pretty much leaves us here with 3 remaining facts:

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL.
2.)  Sara Thomas is an employed female referee in the NFL
3.)  Michael Sam is an unemployed gay male athlete not in the NFL.

I hope that clears it up for you, Taca.

[Tacachale]

Is there any indication that Marks will be punished for his remarks, or is this just a theoretical debate?

Nope.  I-10 suggested that Marks shouldn't be punished in his post containing the link which stated 3 facts:

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL.
2.)  Sara Thomas is an employed female referee in the NFL
3.)  Michael Sam is an unemployed gay male athlete not in the NFL.

Opinions were stated regarding the reasoning behind Marks' original comments.
Stephen literally called someone's opinion, 'dumb'.

That pretty much leaves us here with 3 remaining facts:

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL.
2.)  Sara Thomas is an employed female referee in the NFL
3.)  Michael Sam is an unemployed gay male athlete not in the NFL.

I hope that clears it up for you, Taca.

Ha, thanks for clarifying.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

yes. the line of reasoning is dumb, for the reasons stated. It requires that people believe imaginary ulterior motivations.

Thats dumb, dumbly expressed, for a dumb purpose.

I have no doubt that Rattlergator is smarter than the opinion as he stated it.

I had the privilege of sitting with Tim Tebow and the Brunsons during the Passion Play this past sunday night, and it would be similarly dumb to think that Tim was 'desperate' to be a christian celebrity instead of a football player.  His expressions of faith are as much a part of who he is as Sams expressions of love.  Its just a dumb way of looking at the world, pretending that they conform to your persecution fantasies, I think.

As I was typing this, I kept repeating in my head, "Don't engage, don't engage, don't engage......"  Oh well... seems that I still don't listen to myself enough.  Anyhow...  Welcome to the new Zen approach from NRW:

The line of reasoning believing that there are ulterior motives behind a few recent decisions made by the NFL is no less dumb nor no less genius than a line of reasoning believing that these same decisions were made altruistically.

I'm not going to call either line of reasoning dumb, nor am I going to call either really insightful because each extreme has the potential to carry just as much truth as the other.   There is the truth behind the why those decisions were made by the NFL, and we can all debate our opinion on why, but our opinion won't change the facts:

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL.
2.)  Sara Thomas is an employed female referee in the NFL
3.)  Michael Sam is an unemployed gay male athlete not in the NFL.

Frankly, calling someone else's opinion dumb while elevating your own is a petty way to debate anything when you have nothing to substantiate your argument other than 'opinion'.

On another note, your Tim Tebow reference is misplaced.  The majority on this thread, myself included, rarely, if ever, criticized Tebow for his faith or his desire.  He was lambasted (crucified?  it's still Easter holiday, right?), though, for his inability to competently throw a football and a refusal to play a position more suited to his athletic abilities.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL. And expressed those opinions in contradiction to the contract he signed, thereby breaking the terms of said contract.  Yet he is employed.

Focus here for a second and explain to me what terms of said contract he has broken.

[jaxjaguar]

Does anyone have any updates on the Club section renovations?

[Keith-N-Jax]

Dont think it will be done anytime soon, the vote for the funding has been push back to a later date. Lamping said Kahn would front the money if needed.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

1.)  Sen Derrick Marks has his opinion on why things happen in the NFL. And expressed those opinions in contradiction to the contract he signed, thereby breaking the terms of said contract.  Yet he is employed.

Focus here for a second and explain to me what terms of said contract he has broken.

I think Id rather focus for a moment why you mentioned the sexual orientation and gender of Sams and Thomas without mentioning any of the grounds which might be at play with Marks' statements?

I mean at the end of the day, if the NFL is going to discipline or fine Marks, it will be on his actions and words, not Sams' sexuality or Thomas' gender, right?

Just reiterating facts. 

I'm not Sen'Derrick Marks, so any assumption I make regarding why he made his comment or how I think he thinks would be my opinion, which may or may not align with yours and is just as irrelevant as yours in the grand scheme of things.

So you don't know of any specific clause in Mark's contract that he may have violated to substantiate why he should be punished by the NFL?

I think we're done here.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Ah, so now its dumb to make assumptions as to his motivations?

Interesting.

Yawn....

I'm pretty sure what I said was:

...I'm not going to call either line of reasoning dumb, nor am I going to call either really insightful because each extreme has the potential to carry just as much truth as the other...

and

...Frankly, calling someone else's opinion dumb while elevating your own is a petty way to debate anything when you have nothing to substantiate your argument other than 'opinion'...

Now I'm done.

[Downtown Osprey]

On another note, your Tim Tebow reference is misplaced.  The majority on this thread, myself included, rarely, if ever, criticized Tebow for his faith or his desire.  He was lambasted (crucified?  it's still Easter holiday, right?), though, for his inability to competently throw a football and a refusal to play a position more suited to his athletic abilities.

While we are off topic. Why does anyone think Tebow could play another position at the NFL level? A (very) few have switched positions at this level. Some recently like Edleman, but over the history of the NFL the number is miniscule. Tebow is no physical athletic freak. Not more so than any other NFL prospect. There are thousands of phenomenal athletes. Why don't they all just switch positions to play in the NFL. Because it doesn't work that way. What makes anyone think Tebow could be a TE? He ran one route as a pro for the Jets. The pass from Sanchise literally hit him in the helmet. His best chance is probably RB, but they are a dime a dozen and any in the NFL have been honing their RB skills for years. Why not LB? He is virtually the same size as Poz. Why, because it's extremely rare to do that successfully at this level. And I suspect it's likely not hubris or stubbornness or refusal to do so. He likely knows he can't. In addition, what's wrong with him not wanting to switch. He's not whining and crying that no one will pick him up. He was a good college QB that didn't make it in the NFL. There are hundreds like him. I've seen him play a lot and can't point to anything that would say yea he'd be NFL quality at another position.

+1

[MusicMan]

The term "Club."  I cannot think of anyone in America calls a NFL team a Club. That's for hockey. Not Football.

It's a team. Not a club.