What do you think?

Sounds like he broke the rules. Just wonder if it is universally applied?

 

While this seems like a stupid rule, it doesn't look like it had anything to do with him wearing something with a Christian symbol on it. The rule likely would have been applied had he worn any other type of forbidden attire.

 

Was there something that led you to believe that Congress made that law???? That is a stipulation of the NFL players association CBA. The Congress has nothing to do with it.

While I can appreciate what seems to be the testimony he is giving, he is not affected by teh first amendment. He signed a contract, under the CBA, which prohibits wearing certain things. He is bound by that.

 

Jailminister said:

He is not claiming this, but does it violate his constitutional rights?

Nope. He violated the NFL's dress code.

 

I have been told that is why he is appealing. Not because the rule is unfair, but because it is unfairly applied.

 

The fine was crap! If I played in the NFL, I would have a nice white head band on, with "Jesus is Lord" written right accros it! Kind of like Jim McMahon did with the Bears in the 80's. I forget what he wrote.

I would run out of the tunnel right before I made my start in the superbowl, so that everyone would see who my Lord is!
Okay time to wake up!

 

It is difficult to make a judgement here, because I do not know exactly what the particular NFL rule says. Even if it does seem to violate an NFL rule, does the first ammendment freedom of religion overrule this policy? It may. For example, an actual case: a school boards rule was that a teacher could not wear a religious display anywhere on their person. A substitute teacher was terminated for wearing a necklace with a cross. The court ruled that she had the right to do so and the school board policy was an unreasonable restraint on freedom of religion. I for one certainly do not see where the NFL was harmed by this players actions!

 

Watchman said:

It is difficult to make a judgement here, because I do not know exactly what the particular NFL rule says.

Basically, it says that immediately following a game, players may not wear clothing sporting logos other than NFL ones.

Even if it does seem to violate an NFL rule, does the first ammendment freedom of religion overrule this policy? It may.

The First Amendment limits what government may do (i.e. "Congress shall pass no law . . ."). It doesn't stop the NFL from banning clothing with other logos on it, any more than it stops, say, a Christian school from banning clothing with logos on it.

 

I would wonder how long 'immediately' is. If he were stopped in the parking lot 30 mins. after the game wearing a FUBU shirt (Clothing line For Us By Us), would that count? I think this is silly. Since it was not a 'sport's logo' or trying to sell something, I believe this fine should be thrown out.

Diane

 

I agree that the fine should be thrown out as well, but considering that $5,000 if probably pocket change for him, it probably doesn't matter.

 

dianetavegia asked:

I would wonder how long 'immediately' is.

The purpose of the rule is "brand visibility"; if the players should appear on TV after the game, the NFL wants them to be wearing NFL logos. It doesn't prevent the players from wearing whatever they want - crosses, Nike swooshes, no logos at all - after their work day is over.

 

I think that Kitna did what he should have done. He apologized for breaking the rule. Kitna is a great man of God, it seems, and I trust that he knows best. This doesn't seem like a case where "civil disobedience" should be done. Kitna is setting a great example here. Perhaps Judge Moore should take a lesson? (Just kidding, all!)

 

Kitna did the right thing in apologizing and payin' whatever fine for rules violations.

Even if you give him the "Benefit of the Doubt"----saaaaaaaaaay, he was in a hurry to get out of the locker room----and not thinkin'---he grabbed the hat and put it on!

I was riding down the highway at night and was going about 60-62 miles per hour---I notice red tail lights ahead and before I knew it---I was right up on the car ahead---my bumper about 10 yards from his bumper---and I had my bright lights on----IOW---I wasn't payin' attention! Turns out that the car ahead of me was a State Trooper on his patrol---he pulls over to the shoulder of the road and lets me pass----then HE gets behind ME---and it wasn't bright lights---it was "Blue" lights---he pulls me over!!

"Do you know why I pulled you over, Mister Crowe??"

"Yes, Sir! Officer! I sure do!! I wasn't payin' any attention to the car in front of me---I got a little too close and I had my bright lights on!! It was all my fault!"

Now, he had a right to give me a ticket---BUT---he didn't! He could have but didn't! The NFL could have---and did!!

"Mr. Crowe! Next time--keep a safe distance---and no bright lights behind another vehicle!"

"Yes, Sir! Officer! Have a good night!"

"You, too! Sir! Good night!"

NFL to Kitna---"Next time pay attention to your hat!!"

He may be a Believer but Kitna had no more right to disregard the rules as I had in running dangerously close to another vehicle at night with my bright lights on---I'm a Believer---but I'm not exempt from rules of the highway!

 

I wonder what this board would be saying if player were fined for a Muslim emblem on his hat?

We need to stop looking for persecution around every corner.

 

OOPS! I timed out on my editing.
Basically what I wanted to say was:
It is really the Supreme Court, sadly, that says what the constitution says.
Also, going back to the substitute teacher: It was school board policy, she knew it, all teachers knew, and knew that it applied to ALL THE TIME on school property. It turned out: Policy wrong, Teacher righ.