JJM wants a lively board so here it goes...

[oaknightshockey1]

ironic that this thread turned in to a bunch of giving and receiving amongst men...

 

[jedburks]

ironic that this thread turned in to a bunch of giving and receiving amongst men...

touche

 

[popeyecv64]

ironic that this thread turned in to a bunch of giving and receiving amongst men...

is that why the floor is all sticky like a pron theatre ??

 

[jedburks]

is that why the floor is all sticky like a pron theatre ??

How would you know what those floors are like?

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

From Gene W.'s article at Disney:

So Brown would be a willing martyr. And if he continues to confuse faith with a person's fundamental right not to be discriminated against, then Perlman and Osborne should fire him. Because while his religious beliefs are his own -- and his opinions protected under the First Amendment -- Brown remains a representative of a university whose core values stress the "diversity of ideas and people."

Brown has the absolute right to express his views. But at what point do those views bleed into the workplace? It's a small thing, but Brown's office voice message is proudly nonsecular. And Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini has said that Brown discusses religion with his players, but, according to the AP, no team member has complained.

But what does that mean exactly? That the players want Brown to continue mixing religion with football, or that they're reluctant to say anything, in fear that it could affect their standing with a coach who controls their place on the depth chart?

And what if there were a gay player on the Nebraska roster? Or what if one of the players Brown is trying to recruit this week is gay, or has a family member or friend who is gay?

These are not unreasonable scenarios. Would you want to play for a coach who thinks God loves gays less than women or African-Americans? Would you want to play for a coach who preaches compassion and love, but is willing to turn his back on a fellow human being because of that person's sexual orientation?

Discrimination is discrimination. It isn't a buffet line where Brown can pick and choose who can be protected from it. It is repugnant in all forms.

Whether he realizes it or not, Brown's supposed private stance has public -- and Nebraska football -- implications. His beliefs find their way back to his players and the message is this: I've got your back -- as long as you're not gay.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

From Gene W.'s article at Disney:

So Brown would be a willing martyr. And if he continues to confuse faith with a person's fundamental right not to be discriminated against, then Perlman and Osborne should fire him. Because while his religious beliefs are his own -- and his opinions protected under the First Amendment -- Brown remains a representative of a university whose core values stress the "diversity of ideas and people."

Brown has the absolute right to express his views. But at what point do those views bleed into the workplace? It's a small thing, but Brown's office voice message is proudly nonsecular. And Nebraska head coach Bo Pelini has said that Brown discusses religion with his players, but, according to the AP, no team member has complained.

But what does that mean exactly? That the players want Brown to continue mixing religion with football, or that they're reluctant to say anything, in fear that it could affect their standing with a coach who controls their place on the depth chart?

And what if there were a gay player on the Nebraska roster? Or what if one of the players Brown is trying to recruit this week is gay, or has a family member or friend who is gay?

These are not unreasonable scenarios. Would you want to play for a coach who thinks God loves gays less than women or African-Americans? Would you want to play for a coach who preaches compassion and love, but is willing to turn his back on a fellow human being because of that person's sexual orientation?

Discrimination is discrimination. It isn't a buffet line where Brown can pick and choose who can be protected from it. It is repugnant in all forms.

Whether he realizes it or not, Brown's supposed private stance has public -- and Nebraska football -- implications. His beliefs find their way back to his players and the message is this: I've got your back -- as long as you're not gay.

Chatelain: Cutting across the boundary of religion - Omaha.com

 

[Brasky]

 

[Brasky]

 

[HuskerInSecLand]

i am aware of both of those things, but i would go out on a limb and say that sodomy is more predominant in the homosexual community than the heterosexual community (next time you are with a lady, try it and see how that goes over)...and you can bet your bottom dollar RB tries to talk to his players about being sexually pure. if there was an ordinance about giving more rights to those that have extramarital sex, i would bet he would be there speaking against it. it just so happens that this is the issue that is up for debate.

What are these "more rights". This ordinance gives no "additional rights". It just clarifies that you can not take these rights away from a person based upon their sexual orientation.

As for the disney article I agree with it. How many recruits will we lose that disagree with Ron Brown's position and choose not to be on a team that they know will proselytize these views. Ron Brown's faith was never hidden but it was never a public spectacle before the last few years either. It was controlled or reigned in. Someone had made it clear he was to keep these stands separate from the University. Pelini it appears has given him free reign to use his position to promote his views. He needs to tell him if he wants to create a political pac and use it to further his agenda then he needs to do so. Step down from the position he is using now to promote his political agenda and form his own organization to do so.

When ever politics enter into a realm that they do not belong only harm can result.

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

 

[oaknightshockey1]

What are these "more rights". This ordinance gives no "additional rights". It just clarifies that you can not take these rights away from a person based upon their sexual orientation.

As for the disney article I agree with it. How many recruits will we lose that disagree with Ron Brown's position and choose not to be on a team that they know will proselytize these views. Ron Brown's faith was never hidden but it was never a public spectacle before the last few years either. It was controlled or reigned in. Someone had made it clear he was to keep these stands separate from the University. Pelini it appears has given him free reign to use his position to promote his views. He needs to tell him if he wants to create a political pac and use it to further his agenda then he needs to do so. Step down from the position he is using now to promote his political agenda and form his own organization to do so.

When ever politics enter into a realm that they do not belong only harm can result.

sorry i was not clear. i meant if there was a bill guaranteeing rights to those in extramarital relationships, he would be right there protesting it, but there is no such bill. he wants people to follow ALL the rules set forth in the bible, and the homosexual rights thing just happens to be what is up for debate. he has a right to his opinion, and he can speak out against whatever he wants. i am sure he now sees that he needs to make it clear that he is not speaking for the university, and as long as he does that, HE CANNOT BE FIRED FOR IT. the University of Nebraska is a PUBLIC institution. they can't fire him for exercising his rights to free speech.

 

[huskers1217]

Mike Caputo gets an invite to Minnesota Vikings mini camp

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

lol.......it's not even an issue guise.

Just something fun for the media to talk about.

Tom Osborne likely encouraged Ron Brown to say what he said.

 

[HuskerInSecLand]

sorry i was not clear. i meant if there was a bill guaranteeing rights to those in extramarital relationships, he would be right there protesting it, but there is no such bill. he wants people to follow ALL the rules set forth in the bible, and the homosexual rights thing just happens to be what is up for debate. he has a right to his opinion, and he can speak out against whatever he wants. i am sure he now sees that he needs to make it clear that he is not speaking for the university, and as long as he does that, HE CANNOT BE FIRED FOR IT. the University of Nebraska is a PUBLIC institution. they can't fire him for exercising his rights to free speech.

So you are saying that because a person is homosexual that people should be able to refuse service to them in a restaurant, be refused a cab, be refused a hotel room?

This is all that the ordinance says. That if you offer these to the general public you cannot refuse them simply because some one is gay.

It is no different then the days when blacks were refused service in restaurants, required to drink from different sources than whites and delegated to the back of a bus. These are not special rights. These are rights that are guaranteed to every human being and ironically endowed by our creator yet it is his self-proclaimed followers that want to limit them.

And while I agree with you that RB would probably oppose an ordinance stating these rights could not be taken from those who engage in extra-marital sex it makes it no less extreme and no less harmful to the university's image. You can not separate his words or actions from the university. this is the stand Pelini would take with a player. He needs to take it with his staff also.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

So you are saying that because a person is homosexual that people should be able to refuse service to them in a restaurant, be refused a cab, be refused a hotel room?

This is all that the ordinance says. That if you offer these to the general public you cannot refuse them simply because some one is gay.

It is no different then the days when blacks were refused service in restaurants, required to drink from different sources than whites and delegated to the back of a bus. These are not special rights. These are rights that are guaranteed to every human being and ironically endowed by our creator yet it is his self-proclaimed followers that want to limit them.

And while I agree with you that RB would probably oppose an ordinance stating these rights could not be taken from those who engage in extra-marital sex it makes it no less extreme and no less harmful to the university's image. You can not separate his words or actions from the university. this is the stand Pelini would take with a player. He needs to take it with his staff also.

i agree, and i am not personally saying that i am opposed to the ordinance. but i do think he has a right to his opinion, and a right to speak his opinion, just like everyone else. you can't take someone's freedom of speech away.

as far as looking bad on the university, that is the media stirring shit up as usual. i just saw something on sportscenter that mentioned RB in the same sentence as the boston fans that called the washington player the N-word on twitter and the saudi arabian government not allowing women to compete in the olympics. that is just plain wrong in my opinion. RB was not spewing hate speech or actively discriminating against people. he merely exercised his right to speak his opinion, saying that he believes that homosexuality is wrong. that pisses me off quite a bit...i'll try to find the video if i can.

 

[HuskerInSecLand]

i agree, and i am not personally saying that i am opposed to the ordinance. but i do think he has a right to his opinion, and a right to speak his opinion, just like everyone else. you can't take someone's freedom of speech away.

as far as looking bad on the university, that is the media stirring shit up as usual. i just saw something on sportscenter that mentioned RB in the same sentence as the boston fans that called the washington player the N-word on twitter and the saudi arabian government not allowing women to compete in the olympics. that is just plain wrong in my opinion. RB was not spewing hate speech or actively discriminating against people. he merely exercised his right to speak his opinion, saying that he believes that homosexuality is wrong. that pisses me off quite a bit...i'll try to find the video if i can.

And my position is you can not separate his "personal" speech from his "public" position. No you can not limit his freedom of "personal" speech, but you can limit his "public" position. If his personal views and therefore speech is harmful to the university and he insists on exercising that right then he needs to be removed from the public position that his personal views are harming.

And I did hear his speech. he told the people on the council that they would have to answer to God because this position is unbiblical. It is unbiblical in his view. My interpretation of the Bible says we are not to judge the non-believer but the believer. My interpretation is that it says they will know us by our love and compassion.

But that is a different argument. My argument is that he has become a detriment to the program.

We will now never get a player who's brother, sister, cousin, friend, etc. is gay because RB has made his person views public and this player will know what is in store if he comes here.

We will never get a player with sympathetic leanings because RB has made his personal views public and this player will know what is in store.

I know there are a lot out there who will say we don't want those "libtards" anyways. Well I say as hard as it is to recruit to Nebraska why in the hell would anyone want to make it harder. If this kid can play football and keep his nose clean I want him here not at tOSU or Meechigun kicking our asses.

I agree all day long that he has the right of freedom of speech. What I disagree with is that he has a right to this public position when that exercise of freedom of speech is harmful to the university.

 

[Brasky]

lol.......it's not even an issue guise.

Just something fun for the media to talk about.

Tom Osborne likely encouraged Ron Brown to say what he said.

April 27th Seg 11. Damon Benning is certain Ron Brown will lose his job over this. Sooner than later.

1620 The Zone Podcasts - Play Now

Also: Excellent caller on Jed. Catches Jed admitting he in fact knows nothing and is a joke to the whole state of Nebraska.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

And my position is you can not separate his "personal" speech from his "public" position. No you can not limit his freedom of "personal" speech, but you can limit his "public" position. If his personal views and therefore speech is harmful to the university and he insists on exercising that right then he needs to be removed from the public position that his personal views are harming.

We will never get a player who's brother, sister, cousin, friend, etc. is gay because RB has made his person views public and this player will know what is in store.

We will never get a player with liberal leanings because RB has made his personal views public and this player will know what is in store.

As hard as it is to recruit to Nebraska why in the hell would anyone want to make it harder.

I agree all day long that he has the right of freedom of speech. What I disagree with is that he has a right to this public position when that exercise of freedom of speech is harmful to the university.

yeah...it is just a bad situation all around, in my opinion. what i hope is that he chooses to be a little more quiet and then this can blow over.

 

[Red_Alert]

You can be sure that if it were to come down to pickets that were getting MSM exposure, RB would retire 'voluntarily'....

 

[Brasky]

^^^^If Rachel Maddow catches on to this it's over.