Vikings Message Board.Com

Eli wrote:This issue has nothing to do with homophobia or Kluwe's effectiveness as a punter. It has everything to do with Kluwe being a smarmy little locker room blowhard who rubbed the wrong people the wrong way. If Kluwe and his minions have convinced you that it's for some other reason, then there's no sense in trying to convince you otherwise.

I'm not convinced of anything with respect to the veracity of Kluwe's allegations. I wasn't in that locker room and don't know anybody who was.

Funkytown wrote: Ah, if only he had rubbed Priefer the right way.

Well played...

I could be more sympathetic if Kluwe was/is a gay guy and got fired because of that fact. That would have meant a DIRECT personal assault on his choice of life style. If the allegation is true about the comment that was made then it is also wrong but it was indirectly "attacking" his belief and not him specifically or his choice of life style. This might be a good time for him to "come out of the closet" if in fact he is a guy. And oh by the way I could not care less if he is or isn't gay that is his choice.
Either way Frazier, who was ultimately responsible for his subordinates, was fired and it is time to move on for God sakes.

Purple bruise wrote:IThis might be a good time for him to "come out of the closet" if in fact he is a guy.

C'mon. He's only a punter, but he's still a guy! (J/K - I had to razz you on the typo )

I think one thing that continues to be ignored in this case is Priefer's rights. Whether you believe in gay marriage or not Priefer has the right to work in a harassment free environment just as much as Kluwe does. What happens if it comes out that Kluwe continued to badger Priefer about his views on gay marriage even though Priefer told him to stop, is that not work place harassment as well? Priefer would have just as much of a right to sue the Vikings organization if he had spoken with the Vikings organization about the harassment Kluwe presented to him and not done anything about it. Which is an angle that no one on this board has presented thus far. What if Kluwe was actually cut because Priefer spoke with the organization and told them that he was facing harassment from Kluwe?

Regardless of your beliefs on gay marriage at this particular point in time it is not a constitutionally protected right and is left up to the states to determine the validity of it. Minnestoa did not legalize same sex marriage until August 2013 and before then it was rumored to be adding a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So at the time of this event same sex marriage was not recognized in the State of Minnesota.

Also, Utah is now suing to suppress same sex marriage saying that it is discriminatory against those that belief marriage is between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is currently hearing those arguments and has inserted an injunction preventing the state from enforcing it's law to allow same sex marriage.

Either way, Priefer has just as many constitutionally protected rights as Kluwe, and Kluwe has shown that he can be abrasive in the past. So just like Kluwe is suing the Vikings organization, had Priefer been fired, he would have had the same right to sue the Vikings organization as well.

MrPurplenGold wrote:I think one thing that continues to be ignored in this case is Priefer's rights. Whether you believe in gay marriage or not Priefer has the right to work in a harassment free environment just as much as Kluwe does. What happens if it comes out that Kluwe continued to badger Priefer about his views on gay marriage even though Priefer told him to stop, is that not work place harassment as well? Priefer would have just as much of a right to sue the Vikings organization if he had spoken with the Vikings organization about the harassment Kluwe presented to him and not done anything about it. Which is an angle that no one on this board has presented thus far. What if Kluwe was actually cut because Priefer spoke with the organization and told them that he was facing harassment from Kluwe?

Regardless of your beliefs on gay marriage at this particular point in time it is not a constitutionally protected right and is left up to the states to determine the validity of it. Minnestoa did not legalize same sex marriage until August 2013 and before then it was rumored to be adding a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So at the time of this event same sex marriage was not recognized in the State of Minnesota.

Also, Utah is now suing to suppress same sex marriage saying that it is discriminatory against those that belief marriage is between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is currently hearing those arguments and has inserted an injunction preventing the state from enforcing it's law to allow same sex marriage.

Either way, Priefer has just as many constitutionally protected rights as Kluwe, and Kluwe has shown that he can be abrasive in the past. So just like Kluwe is suing the Vikings organization, had Priefer been fired, he would have had the same right to sue the Vikings organization as well.

Gotta agree with this+1

MrPurplenGold wrote:I think one thing that continues to be ignored in this case is Priefer's rights. Whether you believe in gay marriage or not Priefer has the right to work in a harassment free environment just as much as Kluwe does. What happens if it comes out that Kluwe continued to badger Priefer about his views on gay marriage even though Priefer told him to stop, is that not work place harassment as well? Priefer would have just as much of a right to sue the Vikings organization if he had spoken with the Vikings organization about the harassment Kluwe presented to him and not done anything about it. Which is an angle that no one on this board has presented thus far. What if Kluwe was actually cut because Priefer spoke with the organization and told them that he was facing harassment from Kluwe?

Regardless of your beliefs on gay marriage at this particular point in time it is not a constitutionally protected right and is left up to the states to determine the validity of it. Minnestoa did not legalize same sex marriage until August 2013 and before then it was rumored to be adding a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So at the time of this event same sex marriage was not recognized in the State of Minnesota.

Also, Utah is now suing to suppress same sex marriage saying that it is discriminatory against those that belief marriage is between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is currently hearing those arguments and has inserted an injunction preventing the state from enforcing it's law to allow same sex marriage.

Either way, Priefer has just as many constitutionally protected rights as Kluwe, and Kluwe has shown that he can be abrasive in the past. So just like Kluwe is suing the Vikings organization, had Priefer been fired, he would have had the same right to sue the Vikings organization as well.

Do you have any evidence of this? As far as know, even the Priefer camp is not alleging what you're saying. It seems rather silly to speculate on something that nobody is even claiming happened and doesn't even sound realistic.

maembe wrote: Do you have any evidence of this? As far as know, even the Priefer camp is not alleging what you're saying. It seems rather silly to speculate on something that nobody is even claiming happened and doesn't even sound realistic.

As of right now, none of us have any evidence to support Kluwe nor do we have any evidence to support Priefer. All I'm doing is giving a particular analysis of what Priefer could have experienced based on Kluwe's past behavior. Kluwe sent a derogatory letter to a politician, so I don't know why this particular situation would be so unrealistic. I am also not using it as speculation, I'm detailing it as what the Vikings as an organization could use once the investigation is complete as a reason to keep Priefer even if it is proven that he made the statements that he did make.

Purplemania wrote: Kinda like the whole Incognito-Martin thing where everywhere was on Martin's side, but now that Richie's story has been told as well, many people are fleeing towards Incognito's side?

Haha, Incognito really cleared his name with those text messages that were published last week. Guy is a drug addict and doesn't respect women one bit.

Whatever.

MrPurplenGold wrote:I think one thing that continues to be ignored in this case is Priefer's rights. Whether you believe in gay marriage or not Priefer has the right to work in a harassment free environment just as much as Kluwe does. What happens if it comes out that Kluwe continued to badger Priefer about his views on gay marriage even though Priefer told him to stop, is that not work place harassment as well? Priefer would have just as much of a right to sue the Vikings organization if he had spoken with the Vikings organization about the harassment Kluwe presented to him and not done anything about it. Which is an angle that no one on this board has presented thus far. What if Kluwe was actually cut because Priefer spoke with the organization and told them that he was facing harassment from Kluwe?

No one has presented this angle because it is all speculation on your part. Kluwe continued to badger Priefer? Where has it ever been claimed that Kluwe badgered Priefer in the first place? Priefer is claiming that he never made any of those remarks in the first place, so if that is true, why would Kluwe badger him about it? I don't know why you would mention a scenario where there hasn't been any evidence to support it.

Purple Reign wrote: No one has presented this angle because it is all speculation on your part. Kluwe continued to badger Priefer? Where has it ever been claimed that Kluwe badgered Priefer in the first place? Priefer is claiming that he never made any of those remarks in the first place, so if that is true, why would Kluwe badger him about it? I don't know why you would mention a scenario where there hasn't been any evidence to support it.

Right now everything Kluwe says is just speculation because none of it has confirmed to be true. Until the truth comes out everything is speculation so all that we can do is speculate on the circumstances. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying anyway. I'm not saying Kluwe badgered Priefer about the comments that he made about putting homosexuals on an island and nuking them, I'm saying Kluwe could have continuously tried to push his beliefs on Priefer about gay marriage, which if Priefer does not want it, is work place harassment. There's no evidence to support anything, so if we're going to go off purely an evidentiary standpoint, there's no reason for us to have any of this discussion because neither side has shown anything anyway. What would it benefit Priefer anyway to come out and say I'm tired of Kluwe being pro gay marriage, Kluwe was cut and I'm sure he thought all of this was a dead issue, it's been over a year. The only person seemingly questioning Priefer's character is Kluwe. Kluwe has also clearly shown that he is willing to be abrasive to force his views on people. So once again, I don't see how it's that far fetched.

MrPurplenGold wrote: Right now everything Kluwe says is just speculation because none of it has confirmed to be true. Until the truth comes out everything is speculation so all that we can do is speculate on the circumstances. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying anyway. I'm not saying Kluwe badgered Priefer about the comments that he made about putting homosexuals on an island and nuking them, I'm saying Kluwe could have continuously tried to push his beliefs on Priefer about gay marriage, which if Priefer does not want it, is work place harassment. There's no evidence to support anything, so if we're going to go off purely an evidentiary standpoint, there's no reason for us to have any of this discussion because neither side has shown anything anyway. What would it benefit Priefer anyway to come out and say I'm tired of Kluwe being pro gay marriage, Kluwe was cut and I'm sure he thought all of this was a dead issue, it's been over a year. The only person seemingly questioning Priefer's character is Kluwe. Kluwe has also clearly shown that he is willing to be abrasive to force his views on people. So once again, I don't see how it's that far fetched.

Kluwe, who is a person involved in the situation, claiming these things happened is evidence. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence none the less.

You, a person not involved, claiming things that have otherwise never been suggested by those involved is a very different thing and holds absolutely no merit.

saint33 wrote:
Kluwe, who is a person involved in the situation, claiming these things happened is evidence. Not conclusive evidence, but evidence none the less.

You, a person not involved, claiming things that have otherwise never been suggested by those involved is a very different thing and holds absolutely no merit.

Exactly - very well put.

Valhalla wrote: Sounds possible, this is a discussion board, there is no official evidence here in a Court of Law.

True, but what's the point of speculating about something that hasn't even been mentioned by either party? You can speculate about a lot of things, but unless you have some basis/evidence for it, I just don't see the point of throwing it out there. Priefer hasn't said anything about Kluwe harassing him, so why would someone speculate that he was?