Redskins sexist?

[borg]

Can't date...that's horrible...at least they can still have sex

 

[The Boston Patriot]

You can't bargain away civil rights, including equal treatment, via a contract. Of course you can sign anything, but later you might be able to persuade a judge that certain sections of the contract are unconsciencious or contrary to law, and they may be struck down as unenforcable.

Other than being wrong, a good post.

 

[Rob0729]

Most teams have no fraternization rules with players and cheerleaders. It isn't just the Redskins. Also, I don't think the cheerleaders are under contract. They are employeed by the team on a yearly basis, but no actual contract is actually made.

Many organizations have similiar rules. And a lot of times, it is the lower paid grunt who gets fired while the executive keeps their job.

I really don't have much problem with the rule although it is a little outdated at this time. I heard that most teams implemented it to discourage married players from cheating on their wives at work.

 

[signbabybrady]

Why be the star athlete if you can get the hot cheerleader???





besides the money.

 

[Pujo]

Other than being wrong, a good post.

Well, your quip sure convinced me!

 

[godef]

Yes, the practice is sexist (though the policy exists everywhere), and I'm guessing a cheerleader somewhere down the line is going to get a big payout because of it.

This doesn't have anything to do with sexism. The football players are central to the organization, it could not compete without them. The cheerleaders are peripheral, thus expendable. They do not want them associating with one another for varied reasons and it is less consequential for survival of the organization to boot the cheerleaders. The fact that players are men and the cheerleaders are women is incidental.

 

[Kontradiction]

Good lord, you know it's a slow day when we're arguing over cheerleaders suing the Washington Redskins for sexism because they are not allowed to date the players.

 

[jmt57]

I believe all 32 NFL teams have this policy. And if I'm not mistaken, cheerleaders are not paid any money, it's like they are volunteers, so I don't think they can be classified as employees. And as archaic as it may sound, there are still many companies that ban interoffice dating. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but these companies cite the possibility of sexual harrasment, lower productivity, possibility of favoritism, lower morale by others in the department, and problems in the workplace if/when the couple break up.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I think its racist! I’ll bet they can date cowboys.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Good lord, you know it's a slow day when we're arguing over cheerleaders suing the Washington Redskins for sexism because they are not allowed to date the players.

Its better than a spygate thread!!!!

 

[Pujo]

Whatever, more cheerleaders for me.

 

[castlelong1]

Ot

This is a little OT, but I don't think Hooter's waitresses are that good looking. Some of them are, but none of them look natural at all. Plus, I can't stand it when a girl has 15 lbs. of make-up on her face.

Ignoring the make up thing because I agree, but who cares if they are natural?

Seriously, high heels makes a woman's butt more um, shapely. I don't wonder if she looks good in flats.

 

[signbabybrady]

Re: Ot

Ignoring the make up thing because I agree, but who cares if they are natural?

Seriously, high heels makes a woman's butt more um, shapely. I don't wonder if she looks good in flats.

So fake boobs ok, enhanced butt ok, but enhanced face not ok. gotcha

personally I perfer all things real....I can suck in my gut pretty good but at some point I have to breath out. That doesn't mean I wont look anyway if they are fake though or more than look if the opportunity were there.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Ot

Ignoring the make up thing because I agree, but who cares if they are natural?

Seriously, high heels makes a woman's butt more um, shapely. I don't wonder if she looks good in flats.

Wasn't really talking about that but yeah, I see where you're coming from.

EDIT: To add on to this, I prefer Wing House girls.

 

[PATSNUTme]

The Patriots have the same policy. They also have a policy that some people have to stay 100 feet away from the cheerleaders. It's not fair, I didn't do anything wrong.

 

[spacecrime]

You can't bargain away civil rights, including equal treatment, via a contract. Of course you can sign anything, but later you might be able to persuade a judge that certain sections of the contract are unconsciencious or contrary to law, and they may be struck down as unenforcable.

Yeah, you can. A condition of employment is often one where you cannot talk of what you do outside the office/factory. A violation of the first amendment? Nope. Ditto settlements where both parties agree not to discuss the settlement.

This is easier. There is no "civil right" to have a sexual relationship with another employee of the company that pays your salary. The cheerleader is not being prevented from dating the player. SHe is being prevented from doing so while an employee.

Many companies do not all dating within the organization.

Nothing to get all flustered over.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Yeah, you can. A condition of employment is often one where you cannot talk of what you do outside the office/factory. A violation of the first amendment? Nope. Ditto settlements where both parties agree not to discuss the settlement.

This is easier. There is no "civil right" to have a sexual relationship with another employee of the company that pays your salary. The cheerleader is not being prevented from dating the player. SHe is being prevented from doing so while an employee.

Many companies do not all dating within the organization.

Nothing to get all flustered over.

Actually the first amendment only says the Gov't can't limit you speech, so that is not relevant.

Federal law says you can not treat male and female employees differently. The fact that only one is eligible for punishment and not the other is why it is discrimination.

Also case law has said that the right to marry who you want is a fundamental right who you want that can be dictated by others. For example a man wrote in his will that his son was to receive a sizable portion of the his estate if he married a Jewish women, but if he did not marry or married outside the faith the estate was to go to Israel. The son married a shicksta yet the court found the will provision to be against public policy and gave the son the money.

 

[Pujo]

Yeah, you can. A condition of employment is often one where you cannot talk of what you do outside the office/factory. A violation of the first amendment? Nope. Ditto settlements where both parties agree not to discuss the settlement.

This is easier. There is no "civil right" to have a sexual relationship with another employee of the company that pays your salary. The cheerleader is not being prevented from dating the player. SHe is being prevented from doing so while an employee.

Many companies do not all dating within the organization.

Nothing to get all flustered over.

You're confusing civil liberties with civil rights (http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html). Civil liberties, enumerated in the constitution, restrict what the government can do. Civil rights, the source of which are usually statutes, mandate some level of equality based on specific protected characteristics, like race and gender. Civil rights cannot be bargained away as a condition of employment (if an employer makes a black person sign a contract saying they would accept lower pay for the same job performed by a white person, a judge would likely throw out that portion of the contract). Obviously the civil right in this case isn't the right to have sex, but the right to equal employment opportunity. And yes, plenty of companies have rules against employees dating, but those companies would be on some thin ice if their policy was only to fire the woman in the event of am improper relationship.

Now I don't know how all that would play out if a cheerleader took the team to court - there's all sorts of legal doctrines I'm unfamiliar with - but your free speech is example is completely irrelevant to the matter.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Not sure if it applies, but cheerleaders have been none to date members of management and even owners. Ravens ex owner Modell, his son had a role in the organization and he was dating a cheerleader, while he was still married.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Pujo for your point to be correct, it would have to happen that first, the team hired a male cheerleader as well, second, a player had a relationship with that male cheerleader, and third, said male cheerleader was not fired. That would be sexist. But just saying a cheerleader cannot date a player is not sexist because you are not discriminating because of sex, you are discriminating because one employee has a relationship with another. Nothing in that statement inherently applies to gender, just the role of the employee.

You're confusing civil liberties with civil rights (http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html). Civil liberties, enumerated in the constitution, restrict what the government can do. Civil rights, the source of which are usually statutes, mandate some level of equality based on specific protected characteristics, like race and gender. Civil rights cannot be bargained away as a condition of employment (if an employer makes a black person sign a contract saying they would accept lower pay for the same job performed by a white person, a judge would likely throw out that portion of the contract). Obviously the civil right in this case isn't the right to have sex, but the right to equal employment opportunity. And yes, plenty of companies have rules against employees dating, but those companies would be on some thin ice if their policy was only to fire the woman in the event of am improper relationship.

Now I don't know how all that would play out if a cheerleader took the team to court - there's all sorts of legal doctrines I'm unfamiliar with - but your free speech is example is completely irrelevant to the matter.