Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[dead_poet]

Kluwe is a tool.

He's not even gay yet is suing for sexual orientation discrimination. How could he be discriminated against for being gay when he isn't?

You're kidding, right?

[NextQuestion]

You're kidding, right?

It's not even worth a response. Pure troll bait.

[Mothman]

It's not even worth a response. Pure troll bait.

It seems like a legitimate question to me: how are the laws prohibiting discrimination worded? Kluwe is claiming he was discriminated against because of his beliefs and public statements about sexual orientation, not because of his sexual orientation. There might still be a discrimination case there but would there be a sexual orientation discrimination case? Usually, specific criteria have to be met when law is applied.

[NextQuestion]

I don't think it really matters if he's straight or not. If it was racism then nobody would question why Chris would be mad at Priefer. It's a touchy subject because homosexuality isn't fully accepted in the world. If a superior of mine were to drop homophobic, racial, sexist, etc bombs...I'd report it! I'm white, straight, and a man...those alleged words by Priefer are hurtful to me.

[NextQuestion]

Amid the new lawsuit, which Halunen claims is on the basis of (1) religious discrimination, (2) human rights statute for sexual orientation discrimination, (3) defamation and (4) interferance with contract negotiations, Kluwe's reps also revelaed that the report confirms homophobic remarks made by current special teams coordinator Mike Priefer, who was the main target of Kluwe's allegations.

"We do know that it has been corroborated that Priefer did, in fact, make the 'nuke the gay' statement by witnesses," Halunen said. "We know Priefer initially denied any knowledge of the statement. When asked a second time, he again denied but until it was corroborated by witnesses, he finally relented, told the truth and admitted it."

[Mothman]

I don't think it really matters if he's straight or not. If it was racism then nobody would question why Chris would be mad at Priefer. It's a touchy subject because homosexuality isn't fully accepted in the world. If a superior of mine were to drop homophobic, racial, sexist, etc bombs...I'd report it! I'm white, straight, and a man...those alleged words by Priefer are hurtful to me.

That's not the point. As I said, typically, specific criteria have to be met when the law is applied so in regard to a suit claiming sexual orientation discrimination, the question is not if Kluwe should be mad at Priefer, if the latter's language was hurtful or if Kluwe should have reported it. The question is: do the laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation apply to the specifics of this case? I have no idea but in a legal sense, it's possible that it will matter that Kluwe is straight.

[Mothman]

Which still leaves the question of context, unless we all just want to pretend that doesn't matter.

[Funkytown]

"We do know that it has been corroborated that Priefer did, in fact, make the 'nuke the gay' statement by witnesses," Halunen said. "We know Priefer initially denied any knowledge of the statement. When asked a second time, he again denied but until it was corroborated by witnesses, he finally relented, told the truth and admitted it."

...

[Cliff]

That's not the point. As I said, typically, specific criteria have to be met when the law is applied so in regard to a suit claiming sexual orientation discrimination, the question is not if Kluwe should be mad at Priefer, if the latter's language was hurtful or if Kluwe should have reported it. The question is: do the laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation apply to the specifics of this case? I have no idea but in a legal sense, it's possible that it will matter that Kluwe is straight.

This is an interesting thought. I know that sexual discrimination cases can certainly be brought up be heterosexual people, but he was really fired (if what he says is true) based on his beliefs about gay marriage, etc ... and not actually because he himself was gay.

When people talk about discrimination based on beliefs it generally centers around a religious context. The idea of being discriminated against because of your moral code ... I don't know if there are protections for that. Anybody else?

[Cliff]

Sounds like according to NextQuestion

Please refrain from singling out specific posters, that is not allowed.

[Eli]

I don't think it really matters if he's straight or not. If it was racism then nobody would question why Chris would be mad at Priefer.

If Kluwe and Priefer were both black and Kluwe claimed racial discrimination, then that would most definitely raise some questions.

[Cliff]

Sorry, to the point, players say a lot of things socially unacceptable on the field all the time. Yet, usually they are not going to be sued.

Kobe Bryant has said things on the court. I think we all know that. Are we saying the player who Kobe Bryant said it to can now sue Kobe Bryant? Hardly.

Kluwe isn't just suing because he was offended by what Priefer said. Though he does argue he should be fired and not in a position of authority if he does say such things.

Kluwe is saying that Priefer got him cut because of what he said in regards to backing LGBT rights.

So in a round about way, you're kind of supporting Kluwe's argument. You're saying Kobe Bryant shouldn't have action taken against him for what he said on the court. Meanwhile, Kluwe is saying he was cut (aka fired/had action taken against him) because of what he said in regards to supporting LGBT rights.

Proving Priefer said what Kluwe claims he said seems to serve more to prove the fact that he would be so anti-gay that he would take action to get someone fired for supporting gay rights. At least that's what it seems like to me.

[Cliff]

Kluwe will never win a wrongful termination suit. He was fired/cut because he was an average punter who ran his mouth about numerous things causing a distraction. Players have been released for distractions before. He was released for being a distraction, not what his distraction was.

And even if for some reason what he claims was true it's easy for the Vikings to point his stats as enough of a reason for termination.

Perhaps we'll know that for sure when/if the Vikings release their report.

[Funkytown]

Context? What, was he practicing for his audition for Last Comic Standing? Seems like an excuse to me. Before people were all, "Oh, he probably didn't even say it. Kluwe is a liar." Now it is, "Okay well, he did say it, but let's learn the context." Really? What will the next excuse/justification be? Considering their relationship, I don't think it was a "funny haha" type moment. And even if it was, according to Priefer, isn't it up to Kluwe how he feels about it? Don't say stupid things unless you are prepared for the consequences. I know I'd take a comment from a friend a lot differently than from some pr!ck at my job. How's that for context? Regardless, if it wasn't a big deal to Priefer, and the context was okay in his mind, why lie about it multiple times?! Seems suspicious to me. I'd think it should be suspicious to anyone. He's a lying coward. Doesn't fess up until multiple witnesses come forward? Wow, what a great man. He has a lot of integrity, doesn't he? Whew! I'm blown away!

[dead_poet]

Players have been released for distractions before. He was released for being a distraction, not what his distraction was.

Interesting. I hope you're not equating free speech to criminal behavior. Can you provide some examples of similar player distracting behavior that caused their release (that were not criminal/illegal acts)?

And even if for some reason what he claims was true it's easy for the Vikings to point his stats as enough of a reason for termination.

It's not that cut-and-dry. For example, Priefer apparently asked Kluwe to start kicking it higher/shorter to allow the sub-par coverage units time to cover the kick. That drops Kluwe's numbers, even if that's exactly what he was instructed to do.