Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daseal
And yes, we CAN sue if the employeers qualifications are unreasonable. Which in this case it was decided that they were. He was kept out because of his age, yes it goes by years out of high school, but you know what, that argument doesn't hold water, because of the NFL draft Clarett should have been out of HS for 3 years. He graduated early, in December of 2000, I'm pretty sure. The NFL then quickly said, oh well we didn't mean for it to work like that! So they sued with anti-trust laws, which were OVIOUSLY broken.
|
I know we CAN sue if we feel employer qualifications are unreasonable. Hell, in this over-litigious society
anyone can sue for just about
anything. But that isn't the issue, either. When a court rules the way it does here, then privacy rights in this country and freedom of association are quickly becoming obsolete.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daseal
This is far from absurd. If there was a court order given for you to live in my house I can not stop you. I can appeal and hope that goes through, but if it is finalized nothing I can do.
|
You think it is 'far from absurd' for me to seek a court order demanding entry into your house for no other reason that I think I "deserve" to be there? Yes, Daseal. Give that one some thought, will you? Sleep on it tonight and hopefully you will awake tomorrow morning with a better understanding of how hysterically absurd that notion is. Any judge would have thrown my suit out the window, which is what Schindlin should have done with Clarett's.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daseal
So go spend some money on Capitol Hill and lobby to get anti-trust laws voided. Goodluck.
|
What are you talking about? Get the anti-trust laws voided? Daseal, when I read posts like this, I get the feeling you are beginning to lose control. Earlier, you made this statement: "You're forgetting a key aspect of the Clarett case. THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS which you seem to be completely skipping in your analogies." I responded by saying that I am not questioning the fact that Clarett went through the legal process, I'm saying that the court decision is wrong. The fact that this judge made a completely wacked out ruling has nothing to do with whether the anti-trust laws need to be changed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daseal
Wrong. They have to pass a physical which makes them eligible. They won't let someone my size in unless they play kicker! They do need to justify their rules, otherwise they will be overturned like we saw. Also, the NFL is discriminating. It's age, don't let the wording fool you. You think they would let a genius who graduated highschool at 13 play in the NFL when he was 16? Nope, they'd find ways around it.
|
Passing a physical most certainly is not the only way to make a player eligible. That's a test teams initiate to determine if a player is in proper physical condition to make the roster. It is not used to determine if someone is eligible to play in the NFL. Your size, and Clarett's size are not the issue here. They are not denying him entry because they think he is too small. I don't have a copy of the NFL rulebook, but I'm certain there is a restriction for Einstein-like wizards who graduate at 13 years old, as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daseal
Who gives a shit?
|
The NFL gives a shit. You asked earlier "who says Clarett isn't qualified?" I answered your question.
Anything else, Daseal?