pioneer98 wrote:
Using the analogy of hiring someone for a job to drafting an NFL player...if you worked in a company and were in charge of hiring people, and then your brother applied for a job, the correct thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the process entirely and let others make that particular hiring decision. Because there is no way you can make a "correct" choice. If you hire your brother it looks like nepotism. OTOH if you don't hire him despite his great credentials it may look to some like you did it just to avoid it looking like nepotism, and maybe cost the company a valuable employee. Either way you are conflicted. Recusing yourself is the only answer, and most companies have policies along these lines today.
So every GM or HR Director should be asked if they are Christian, and every player/employee should be asked their sexual orientation......... and then we decide who gets to hire/draft whom, so as to avoid conflict?
Yes. The alternative is what we are doing - have a big debate about stuff like this every time it comes up, and just deal with it when it arises.
The point is, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a guy accept a big public award for being an outstanding Christian, support anti-gay marriage stuff....but then cry foul when people wonder if that is shading his views on gays in the NFL. I don't know how you can say they have no right to be suspicious at all. You either have to deal with the criticism when it comes up or you have to be way, way less public about your religious views. You can't have both.
I guess we'll just have to disagree. I'm pretty openly Christian........ I've hired Christians and non-Christians. Nobody has EVER questioned my motives for a hiring. I think you CAN have it both ways. You can (and almost everyone does) keep their religious/political views separate from your business dealings.
I think Dungy is dealing with the criticism fairly well, so I guess he's made his choice (if he can't have it both ways). He'll take the criticism every time.
Jocephus wrote:lol so if sam was married *then* we'd hear dungys real opinion?
I'm simply saying that gay marriage and gay lifestyle aren't exactly the same issue. That's obviously true, otherwise gays wouldn't be fighting for marriage rights.
lol...gay lifestyle. ok. what about that hetero lifestyle?
i dont even know what to say anymore. its like fighting donald sterling in court. just keep at it, keep pushing semantics, excuses, banal reasons until the other person just puts there hands up and says "whatever".
Jocephus wrote:lol so if sam was married *then* we'd hear dungys real opinion?
I'm simply saying that gay marriage and gay lifestyle aren't exactly the same issue. That's obviously true, otherwise gays wouldn't be fighting for marriage rights.
Being gay is not an idea, a lifestyle or a choice, no matter how hard you or tony dungy or BW or James Franklin try to spin it. That's why it's wrong to reframe the argument as accepting but not supporting the "lifestyle". It's a dumb way to try to justify being bigoted.
Schlich wrote:Don't say gay lifestyle, that's offensive, just a friendly tip, heed it or don't.
Thanks Schlich.
All I really meant is that "not being married" vs. "being married" obviously matters to homosexuals. There is a difference........... so I'm not sure why we keep talking about "gay marriage" with regard to Michael Sam
i think the difference is "the right to marry" and have all the legal protections that married people do. im sure there are several gay men and women who have no interest in marriage. just like i, as a heterosexual, do not care for the idea either. but im not opposed to people who do, be they gay or straight.
Jocephus wrote:i think the difference is "the right to marry" and have all the legal protections that married people do. im sure there are several gay men and women who have no interest in marriage. just like i, as a heterosexual, do not care for the idea either. but im not opposed to people who do, be they gay or straight.
Sure, but there are legitimate reasons why people oppose gay marriage, that have nothing to do with being "anti-gay".
Jocephus wrote:i think the difference is "the right to marry" and have all the legal protections that married people do. im sure there are several gay men and women who have no interest in marriage. just like i, as a heterosexual, do not care for the idea either. but im not opposed to people who do, be they gay or straight.
Sure, but there are legitimate reasons why people oppose gay marriage, that have nothing to do with being "anti-gay".
