Vikings Message Board.Com

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Nonsense. Priefer has no case for libel against Kluwe. Priefer is considered a public figure, for whom libel laws change dramatically. If Priefer were a common citizen, he would only have to prove that Kluwe's statements were false. But for a public figure like Priefer to prove libel, he has to not only show that Kluwe's comments were false, but ALSO that actual malice was the reason for stating the falsehood. Basically, he has to prove in a court of law that Kluwe's false comments were made for the sole purpose of smearing Mike Priefer. No matter what any of us believe about Kluwe's comments, that is very hard to prove in court.

No, instead of handling his perceived injustice like an adult, Chris Kluwe did what he always does. He took the juvenile route and went to Deadspin. Like a jilted kid in middle school, he spread rumors instead of confronting the person, or speaking with somebody who could actually address his concerns. Sounds an awful lot like "haters gonna hate."

Ummm how exactly would it be hard to prove malice in this case? Kluwe directly states in his article that his intentions for writing it is to ensure that Priefer be fired and never receive another NFL job based on his "bigotry". If the claims of his bigotry are lies fabricated by Kluwe, malice is proven by the article itself.

I think many people are going to take issue with the way Kluwe handled the situation, because it does not adhere to the social norms of what is expected of someone who has an issue within the work place. But as I've stated before, these are not things that Kluwe is concerned with. His agenda it to bring as much attention to this issue as possible, and that agenda has been fulfilled. He has brought awareness to the media and public of the issue, and by doing so, those who actually can address the concerns are also aware, and have already publicly stated they are investigating the incident. And not only that, but they are also under more pressure and scrutiny to make the proper decision and set a new course of action to ensure these issues do not repeat themselves. This is the idea of being an activist, not just fixing his own personal issue with an employee, but attempting to make a change to a system that has allowed this conduct to happen in the first place.

MrPurplenGold wrote: What do you define as a homophobe? Is a homephobe someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage or do you have to openly discriminate against homosexuals?

IMO the two instances are the same. By saying a homosexual does not have the right to get married, you are saying that they should be treated differently as human beings and deserve less rights than those who are not homosexual. By saying homosexuals do not have the right to get married, you are discriminating against them. Just as once upon a time people discriminated against African Americans, saying they didn't have the right to be free, or against women, saying they didn't have the right to vote.

MrPurplenGold wrote: What do you define as a homophobe? Is a homephobe someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage or do you have to openly discriminate against homosexuals?

I really don't like the religious shield on it. I'd be happier if people who are against it just admitted they were indeed homophobic.

saint33 wrote: IMO the two instances are the same. By saying a homosexual does not have the right to get married, you are saying that they should be treated differently as human beings and deserve less rights than those who are not homosexual. By saying homosexuals do not have the right to get married, you are discriminating against them. Just as once upon a time people discriminated against African Americans, saying they didn't have the right to be free, or against women, saying they didn't have the right to vote.

Then at the same time you are discriminating against those whose religious beliefs dictate that marriage as defined by God is a union between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean that they are discriminating against them because they don't believe in it. They may peacefully allow them to get married in states where it is allowed to happen while at the same time stating that they simply don't believe in it.

The race and gay marriage arguments should be completely separate. They are two completely separate issues with very different circumstances. The only similarities are discrimination.

NextQuestion wrote: I really don't like the religious shield on it. I'd be happier if people who are against it just admitted they were indeed homophobic.

Why does it have to be religion is used as this facade to hide a hatred toward homosexuals? Why can't religion be a core set of beliefs and Homosexuality does not fit that core set of beliefs?

MrPurplenGold wrote: Then at the same time you are discriminating against those whose religious beliefs dictate that marriage as defined by God is a union between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean that they are discriminating against them because they don't believe in it. They may peacefully allow them to get married in states where it is allowed to happen while at the same time stating that they simply don't believe in it.

The race and gay marriage arguments should be completely separate. They are two completely separate issues with very different circumstances. The only similarities are discrimination.

They are very similar scenarios and bigots today use virtually identical arguments to oppose freedom today as they did 50 years ago. Once again, religion is being used as an excuse, nothing more. Nobody can change the marriage defined by God and nobody is trying to, it's marriage defined by government that we're talking about.

Kluwe has wisely put himself on the correct side of history, and has done a lot of great things here in the state to expand marriage rights to everyone, and that is one of the reasons he is such a popular figure. One of the few true role models in the NFL, especially for the Vikings.

MrPurplenGold wrote: Then at the same time you are discriminating against those whose religious beliefs dictate that marriage as defined by God is a union between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean that they are discriminating against them because they don't believe in it. They may peacefully allow them to get married in states where it is allowed to happen while at the same time stating that they simply don't believe in it.

The race and gay marriage arguments should be completely separate. They are two completely separate issues with very different circumstances. The only similarities are discrimination.

How am I discriminating against those people? I am not taking any rights from them, or suggesting that their beliefs are incorrect. They have every right to get married. And if God defines their marriage, all the more to it. We don't live in a inclusive world anymore though, God does not define everyone's marriage, only those who follow him. As a non-religious person, when I get married, God will have no part in my marriage.

And no, you don't have to believe in gay marriage, but as you've said, you should accept it. Just as you should accept that my marriage will not be a religious marriage. And if you can accept that I can get married where ever I want in the US or Canada, you should be able to accept that homosexuals should have those same rights.

But before I go any further, I fear that we are starting to reach too far into political and religious discussion, and that is against the rules of this board. So I guess, agree to disagree is the best course of action

Homophobia is by no means a crime. It's ignorance and fear. It's a danger because it can and does breed animosity and leads to the deplorable process of dehumanizing real live human beings. DISCRIMINATION

It's not a political issue...it's a moral one. If society allows politicos to legislate morality for them they are a lost cause from the getgo.

There is a deep seeded insecurity and guilt consciousness embedded in our collective. The real battlefield is inside and involves reconciling the heart with the mind. But the fearful and willfully ignorant are blinded. They continually fail to objectify their own objectivity.

"None are so blind as those who will not see".

I think what Pete Carroll is doing in Seattle as far as creating a positive culture and a disciplined adherence to mindfulness is an evolutionary step for the real capacity that professional sports can have on society.

I think the Vikings community has a chance here to help foster a truly inclusive culture and be a model for something universally appealing and perhaps help reverse some of it's recent karma. Yes, I believe in Karma, attractor patterns and a great deal of entanglement theory.

I really hope the team does something positive around all of this and somehow manages to change it's fortunes rather than embody the image that Demi has painted, rightfully so IMO, that they are just a group of highly disorganized clowns displaced from the circus.

Coming from a forest management back round, I can guarantee you that there is an inherent strength in diversity.

I can't help but think of that movie "The 300" and how the Spartans refusal to incorporate the hunchback into their ranks ultimately led to their own demise.

Aloha VMB....

saint33 wrote:
Are you serious? Anyone has the right to be fired for any reason? What world do you live in?

Priefer has freedom of speech, certainly. He's not getting arrested for his comments. But if you don't think discrimination in the workplace is an issue, well you'd be in a very large minority on the matter.

I frankly don't think they cut Kluwe for his stance, but that's not the issue. Having a person with authority in a workplace spouting off discriminatory comments is an issue and reflects poorly on the entire organization and the NFL.

And because Kluwe said it, that makes it absolutely true? Players discount this, by standing up for Preifer. Kluwe has no proof this happened, not one player has stood by his account. People around Kluwe have to be tolerant, yet he can spew vitriol and expect no backlash. America the one way street nowadays. I am going to relieve myself from this thread, I am bound to get very political.

I'd just like to point that while I don't believe Kluwe's story to be a lie, anyone who does is free to make that determination as they see fit. The fact of the matter is, there is no conclusive evidence either way at this point, only speculative evidence. And if you believe in "innocent until proven guilty" then it should work both ways and thus have no clear distinction on who you believe is innocent or whom is guilty. Because those who believe Priefer is innocent, are in turn also accusing Kluwe of being guilty of lying and defamation of character. The evidence is not substantial for either side, we have one voice saying those things were said, another saying those things weren't, a number of people defending the second person's character (but I haven't really seen a quote directly saying that he absolutely did not say those things, just that they are against his character), and a whole bunch of people keeping quiet. We can only speculate to this point who is telling the truth, who is lying and why those who have not spoken out have chosen not to do so.

Breeze and dead_poet, thanks for answering my question!

Wow, the one preaching how evil intolerance is, are now calling other names, and if don't agree with them, well your just a bigot too. This story is about Kluwe getting attention and getting back at his old coach(s). His word against theirs. And people are comparing this to civil rights? to MLK, a man who gave everything for his beliefs? Unbelievable.

saint33 wrote:, God does not define everyone's marriage, only those who follow him.

I think this is where you are mistaken and the disconnect between religious people and non religious people becomes clear. In the eyes of a person of faith God governs everyone's behavior whether you believe in him or not. You have to understand having faith and being a true Christian is not easy as well and Christians and people of other religions have been persecuted since the beginning of time before there were ever arguments about the rights of homosexuals. Kluwe's criticism of Frazier is a clear example of that; Frazier now becomes a coward because he isn't willing to stand up for someone's beliefs that inherently come in conflict with his own? At some point we need to erase the anger and hatred that consumes both sides of the argument and fill it with love and understanding. Forgiveness is the only thing that will move us forward and right now that's the hardest thing for the world to do.

maembe wrote:
They are very similar scenarios and bigots today use virtually identical arguments to oppose freedom today as they did 50 years ago. Once again, religion is being used as an excuse, nothing more. Nobody can change the marriage defined by God and nobody is trying to, it's marriage defined by government that we're talking about.

Kluwe has wisely put himself on the correct side of history, and has done a lot of great things here in the state to expand marriage rights to everyone, and that is one of the reasons he is such a popular figure. One of the few true role models in the NFL, especially for the Vikings.

Fortunately homosexuals were never enslaved or hung from trees beaten and raped, forced to go to separate schools or drink from separate water fountains or eat at separate restaurants. Although I understand that they have suffered and have been beaten in certain instances and even killed, their recent suffering is nowhere near the same struggles that African Americans have faced for hundreds of years and continue to fight today. The civil rights movement paved the way for homosexuals to be able to fight their fight without the violence that once consumed America.

Government does not define my moral view of marriage or anything else. I would say Kluwe is more polarizing than popular; you either love him or hate him.

Vikings have retained Eric Magnuson, former chief justice of MN Supreme Court, to complete independent review of Chris Kluwe allegations.

#Vikings "have retained two partners of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P. to complete an independent review" from Kluwe's allegations.

#Vikings president Mark Wilf says it is "extremely important for the Vikings organization to react immediately and comprehensively" to this.