Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You guys do know that there are a lot women in the front offices of NFL teams right?
The president of the Raiders (right under Al Davis)was a women. She just step down last year after like 20 years.
I would bet if the NFL (or any pro-sport league) would be like a typical company or gov agency, the gov would be riding their rear regarding the diversity of their organization, and constantly challenge the company to prove the requirement standards are a bona fide occupational requirement. Put it this way, FedEx was sued regarding their lifting requirement and FedEx lost due to the disparate impact it created against females.
We even see now a lawyer piping up (read a couple of weeks ago, cannot locate the article right now) regarding the requirements for the Army infantry course (what ever it is called, i was in the Navy) in the needs to be reassessed to determine the need for such standards that result in excluding females.
I would bet if the NFL (or any pro-sport league) would be like a typical company or gov agency, the gov would be riding their rear regarding the diversity of their organization, and constantly challenge the company to prove the requirement standards are a bona fide occupational requirement. Put it this way, FedEx was sued regarding their lifting requirement and FedEx lost due to the disparate impact it created against females.
We even see now a lawyer piping up (read a couple of weeks ago, cannot locate the article right now) regarding the requirements for the Army infantry course (what ever it is called, i was in the Navy) in the needs to be reassessed to determine the need for such standards that result in excluding females.
When standards are questioned and defensiveness ensues, that is sometimes an indicator that the standard is not a standard but an arbitrary system of excluding a group or groups of people from doing something.
Allowing everyone to be part of everything when there clearly exist certain minimum qualification(s) needed to adequately perform an essential function, exclusion is appropriate if applied properly.
Very little sounds more like discrimination than when the argument for exclusion rests on saying a particular individual or group isn't represented therefore that individual or group has no interest.
The NFL has come out and said that if Arizona passes this law protecting businesses who don't want to be forced to provide services that go against their religious beliefs, they will pull the 2015 superbowl from AZ. They said they don't tolerate any discrimination based upon race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The most basic reason why the NFL and it's owners field competitive teams (the best product they can) is to make a profit.
Now, I don't see a single female player, coordinator or head coach in the NFL. Why is that? They feel they wouldn't be as competitive. So they decide that they will discriminate in order to make a profit.
Funny, that they choose profit over non-discrimination but feel that people with religious views should set those aside for sake of not "discriminating".
Come on NFL. Why do you discriminate for money?
I'm trying to figure out if you just decided to toss out a lame argument you know is lame and you're too lazy (or simply unable) to come up with a better one, or if you're really this clueless.
The NFL not hiring any females isn't gender discrimination unless there is a female with the talent to compete with the male candidates for positions, and she's being denied the opportunity because of her gender. Feel free to make the case that this is happening. It isn't, of course, but you're the one putting forth this ridiculous idea. Well, what do you have? The answer, of course, is nothing.
By the laughable logic you're peddling, whenever a player of one race is cut over a player of another race, it's racial discrimination (it's not, of course, but by the nonsense you're trying to pass off as logic, it is).
I'm trying to figure out if you just decided to toss out a lame argument you know is lame and you're too lazy (or simply unable) to come up with a better one, or if you're really this clueless.
The NFL not hiring any females isn't gender discrimination unless there is a female with the talent to compete with the male candidates for positions, and she's being denied the opportunity because of her gender. Feel free to make the case that this is happening. It isn't, of course, but you're the one putting forth this ridiculous idea. Well, what do you have? The answer, of course, is nothing.
By the laughable logic you're peddling, whenever a player of one race is cut over a player of another race, it's racial discrimination (it's not, of course, but by the nonsense you're trying to pass off as logic, it is).
This thread of yours?
Epic fail!
That isn't correct. Discrimination does not require that qualified individuals are prevented from participating, only that qualified individuals feel they are being prevented from participating because of influence or pressure or other barriers that are "perceived" as a barrier to participation.
To say that there are no females capable of competing in the NFL is ludicrous.
The statement regarding the cutting of one player over another being racial discrimination isn't valid because they are both players and therefore their qualifications to be players isn't in question, it is which is the better player.
If an organization puts in place or maintains an atmosphere that certain groups are unwelcome, that becomes discrimination if the barriers to participation are seen as insurmountable.
Perhaps learning about how discrimination works might clear things up for you.
I have never in my life met a girl or woman who is in to American football. I don't even know if the no-female thing is discrimination as much as it is a landslide of disinterest for females. Obviously there are at least some women who have a desire in working for the NFL, but the ratio is probably waaaaaaaaay off.
I've always thought American football was the goofiest sport on earth, but I'm impressed that the NFL made a decision like this which would also clearly affect financial gain. Good for them.
Most women only watch it because their boyfriends, husbands, or male family members watch it. Only a small percentage of women actually follow the NFL on their own without any male influence. Of course that number has been growing over the years. It's sort of similar to ESPN viewership.
Here is a little civics lesson for you. When the President vetoes a bill, congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote. It is the same for Arizona. The Arizona Constitution mimics the US Constitution in many ways, including vetoes being overridden.
Most women only watch it because their boyfriends, husbands, or male family members watch it. Only a small percentage of women actually follow the NFL on their own without any male influence. Of course that number has been growing over the years. It's sort of similar to ESPN viewership.
In my home there are only two people, me and my elderly mother who lives with me. Come over and watch football with us sometime. We are tuned in every Sunday, Monday night and Thursday night. In fact, you don't have to wait until fall. I watch the NFL show on NBC Sports almost every day and we'll be tuned in to see the draft in May on ESPN. My mother may be old but I defy you to challenge her on why the refs call a penalty. She always knows before they announce it. She loves baseball and University of Arizona basketball, too. I have to subscribe to DirecTV's baseball channel for her. I hate paying for it but she's too disabled to do much else but read and watch TV but since she will watch baseball all day, every day, it's money well-spent. My grandmother was a huge baseball fan, too, listening to every Pittsburgh Pirates game on the radio long before TV was even invented. My grandfather was a fan, too, (they often went to the games at old Forbes Field), but he was nowhere near as knowledgeable about baseball as Grandma was.
As for the bill vetoed in Arizona, I live in the state and can provide a bit of insight on it. It is very unlikely to be rewritten and brought back, even though that is, indeed, a common practice for a vetoed bill. Three of the bill's Republican sponsors have said they have "changed their minds" about the bill now that they have been "educated about the financial implications." (They wouldn't apologize because it was hurtful to a group of citizens, just that it will cause Arizona's business community unnecessary stress.) One of them even admitted he didn't really even know what was in the final bill he voted for. This thing is deader than a doornail for the time being. I think the outcry against this bill that rose up from coast to coast was a big shock to Arizona's rather provincial legislature. They certainly underestimated the resolve of America's LGBT community to fight back against discrimination and the degree to which straight people have joined in the fight to see that LGBT Americans have equal rights under the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
