I don't hate Craig James. I have no respect for him as he took money to play at SMU. Along with Eric Dickerson, they are the reason why SMU got the death penalty. Over the years since his arrogance has confirmed my feelings. At least his daughter got a great education. I have no sympathy for him. He's like Mark May.

Do you not respect any player that took money to play in college?

quote:

---

You have an issue with "at-will" employment.

---

I don't have a problem with it at all - so long as the "at will" is relegated to direct capabilities of your job and not what you may or may not do or believe politically or religiously outside of your job.

What I do have a problem with is the selective enforcement of "at will" with respect to whatever the idiotic hot button SJW issue of the day is, and the fact that an employer can effectively silence somebody outside the confines of employment from free speech or a host of other rights by using threat of termination as leverage.

I have little use for the .gov as it is, but one of the few responsibilities they have is to ensure that we can say what we want, even if it offends the delicate sensibilities of some idiot out there that has made a life out of being professionally offended - and do so without fear of being fired specifically for those views, without fear of being lynch mobbed for those views and without fear of harm to your family or property as a result of those views.

Firing someone for a stance they publicly endorsed on a political/religious issue WHILE running for office, and not on air, is pretty sketchy IMO.

Even if that opinion were pro-baby seal clubbing, I'm reasonably sure the employer would still have difficulty in that one

It's a free speech issue. James will win !!!!!!

It's not a free speech issue at all.

Making "at will" only tied to a direct job function destroys the entire point of at will employment.

Also, the governments job isn't to make sure we can say what we want. It's that the government won't punish you for what you say.

The idea that our words are free from consequence in private sector just makes no sense.

What model tank is that and how big is the main gun on it?

I agree with BMX.

When should a business have the right to fire an individual who it feels has made comments that publicly embarrass the company or could in some other way reflect poorly on said company? Happens all the time with all sorts of comments.

The number of people that don't understand that free speech still comes with consequences is astounding to me. My company, multiple times, has fired employees for posts made on social media because within that social medium they had identified themselves as an employee of our company. We make employees sign statements annually acknowledging this potential consequence. I still think Fox is on shaky ground because they could have easily investigated James prior to hiring him and found those comments. Terminating employment when you knew exactly who you were hiring is definitely gray area.

No,it's not a gray area. If they can fire him for saying something, it doesn't matter if they knew he was likely to say it.

Only issue is whether they fired him for his religious beliefs.

quote:

---

It's a free speech issue. James will win !!!!!!

---

Boy, someone always has to make this mistake. Every, single time.

Maybe Craig should just stick with sports

Fox did not fire James for his political statements. They fired him once they realized that his poll numbers were at 2%. No one liked him.

quote:

---

It's a free speech issue. James will win !!!!!!

---

James is suing the government?

What if a Muslim made a derogatory comment about Jews. Would y'all still feel the same?

quote:

---

No,it's not a gray area. If they can fire him for saying something, it doesn't matter if they knew he was likely to say it.

Only issue is whether they fired him for his religious beliefs.

---

It wasn't that he "was likely to say it". He said it years before they hired him. They hired him with full knowledge (or opportunity to have the knowledge) that he said he was against gay marriage. You can't hire someone and HEB fire them two days later for a statement that was publicly known years ago. You shouldn't have hired him in the first place. That's what makes it look like he was discriminated against. They fired him because they didn't like his views, not because he caused embarrassment to his employer during his time at the company.

quote:

---

What if a Muslim made a derogatory comment about Jews. Would y'all still feel the same?

---

This is racist

quote:

---

Making "at will" only tied to a direct job function destroys the entire point of at will employment.

Also, the governments job isn't to make sure we can say what we want. It's that the government won't punish you for what you say.

The idea that our words are free from consequence in private sector just makes no sense.

---

Unless there are outright agreements in place prior to terms of employment, "at will" should be relegated to direct causes of work, not political statements or religions statements made - whether they are before or during employment.

Otherwise, you are essentially a slave to the whims of management in terms of your speaking ability outside of work. I'd hope that everybody would agree that is not the way we want the work/personal relationship structured, because it does not allow a line of demarcation between the two.

If there are signatory agreements stating that "XYZ forms of speech on facebook, TV, newspaper, etc. that disparage the company or that we can unequivocably prove had a negative effect on the company, we can terminate you", then you are talking about a different story.

And I never stated that words have no consequences - only that the purpose of the .gov is to ensure we have the ability to speak and that speech is protected across the spectrum, even if that speech happens to offend somebody.

The question is this - had James said that he publicly supported gay marriage, do you think Fox would have fired him on political/religious grounds? If the answer is "no" (which it is), then there is a double standard and he has at least a case to argue that his firing as a result of something he said long before he was hired by Fox is discriminatory (mostly because it is the current Belle of the Ball in the fairly land known as social justice world).

Now, if Fox comes out and proves that they fired him because he's a d-bag, or that he pulled his wang out in the middle of a meeting or something, completely different story.

Maybe you are correct. Being able to fire anyone you want at any time might be legal, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do.

quote:

---

What if a Muslim made a derogatory comment about Jews. Would y'all still feel the same?

---

What if a Muslim and a Jew walked into a bar? What would the bartender say?

quote:

---

What if a Muslim and a Jew walked into a bar? What would the bartender say?

---

"How about that Abraham fellow, amiright?!"

CrottyKid:

But forcing people to employ those they don't want to employ is the right thing to do?

Doesn't this belong on the Politics/Religion/Moral High Horse board?

No. I guess not, but firing someone at your every whim seems unethical and dictatorial. I am not saying the law should make you keep an employee. I am saying that you are a jerk if you fire some guy just because you don't like something about him that doesn't affect his work and he is an otherwise good employee.

quote:

---

What model tank is that and how big is the main gun on it?

---

It's a Nissan tank and the gun size is real big.

quote:

---

These are also people who say they are persecuted when they are not allowed to persecute others.

---

Take it to the Politics board. I'm sure you'll get your support group needs there

Which religion sacrifices five hookers to appease the gods?

But the timeline is this:

1) Craig James ran for office. He made socially conservative statements in a public forum while running for office.
2) Craig James did not win the election.
3) Craig James was hired by Fox Sports
4) after hiring Craig James, they "discovered" the above statements
5) Fox Sports fired Craig James

Sounds to me like Fox Sports didn't do their homework. He never said the statements while an employee of Fox Sports, right?

As I understand it back when it happened, James was hired by a lower level guy, like a VP for Fox SW or something. When the big shots found out, they immediately nixed the hire, but James had already been on the air one day.Whether that turned out to be exactly how it went down, I do not know.Certainly, I would not trust James' lawyers to have it exactly correct.

quote:

---

No. I guess not, but firing someone at your every whim seems unethical and dictatorial. I am not saying the law should make you keep an employee. I am saying that you are a jerk if you fire some guy just because you don't like something about him that doesn't affect his work and he is an otherwise good employee.

---

Keep in mind that this is the narrative that James' lawyers are pushing. Also keep in mind that on air personalities is not your average job opening. A polarizing figure may not be wanted, even if he is an otherwise good analyst. An example on the other end of the political spectrum would be Keith Olberman.

quote:

---

What model tank is that and how big is the main gun on it?

---

It looks like a Hellcat tank destroyer from WWII, which has a 76mm gun. Fastest armored vehicle in the war

I have nothing against Craig James. He did help sink Texas Tech's football program although I've always wondered what ever happened to Adam James

I disagree with James's opinion and think he's a tool for what he did to Leach.

That said, I don't see how Fox Sports's firing him is justified.

Can we clarify a couple of things.

1. "At will" employment, by definition, means that your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, as long as they don't run afoul of state or federal discrimination laws. Likewise, an employee can quit at any time for any reason. In fact, whomever terminates the employment doesn't need to give the other any reason whatsoever.

To say that you think "at will" employment should only apply to work related activities is the exact opposite of the "at will" employment doctrine. What you describe is employment with "for cause" termination. This type of employment would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement or employment contract.

2. Federal discrimination laws do not protect lgbt employees. Some local ordinances and state laws provide protection, but the lgbt community is generally not a protected class for these purposes. The EEOC is now starting to consider sexual orientation discrimination as falling under the umbrella of sex discrimination.

3. The Constitution applies to actions by the United States government, NOT private employers or individuals. You *generally* have no freedom of speech in the workplace.