Minor leaguer suing the Ducks over religious harassment.

[njmeadowlanders]

*sigh*

Yes, only Christians believe in not berating people. I give up. This thread's screwed five ways from Saturday.

That's not what I said or meant at all. I'm sure all religions believe that. All I said was that I couldn't speak for other religions. That is in no way to say that "only Christians" believe in not berating people. I only use Christianity as one example because I can speak from experience.

Sorry man. This is a touchy subject. My apologies. Still, I'm having a hard time following how this turned into a "religion, good or bad?" debate.

Really? You mean the other thousand or so threads that have the word "religion" somewhere in it didn't turn into that same debate? That's what happens here.

Now, I don't want to get into this, and for the record I am Jewish (moreso culturally than religiously), but every religion has genuinely good people, kind people, nice people, and every religion has bad people, unkind people, and so on and so forth. The problem is you only hear/notice the bad stuff, and that's in all walks of life, religion or non-religion.

[CrookedThumb]

*sigh*

Yes, only Christians believe in not berating people. I give up. This thread's screwed five ways from Saturday.

That's not what I said or meant at all. I'm sure all religions believe that. All I said was that I couldn't speak for other religions. That is in no way to say that "only Christians" believe in not berating people. I only use Christianity as one example because I can speak from experience.

Sorry man. This is a touchy subject. My apologies. Still, I'm having a hard time following how this turned into a "religion, good or bad?" debate.

Hey, it's all good. Don't worry about it. In most cases, any mention of anything remotely related to religion is going to spark this debate. It's just the way it is.

njmeadowalnders - I agree with you 100%. That's the point I was trying to get across, though you put it in much better words.

[IceCap]

*sigh*

Yes, only Christians believe in not berating people. I give up. This thread's screwed five ways from Saturday.

That's not what I said or meant at all. I'm sure all religions believe that. All I said was that I couldn't speak for other religions. That is in no way to say that "only Christians" believe in not berating people. I only use Christianity as one example because I can speak from experience.

Sorry man. This is a touchy subject. My apologies. Still, I'm having a hard time following how this turned into a "religion, good or bad?" debate.

Really? You mean the other thousand or so threads that have the word "religion" somewhere in it didn't turn into that same debate? That's what happens here.

It's like how any MLS thread has to degenerate into a debate (using the term loosely) about American and European naming conventions. Yeah, it's expected, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when it happens.

The story here is about someone being persecuted at his place of employment based on his religion, and some would say, ethnic make-up. Whether or not "religion" is good or bad is, in actuality, irrelevant. What is relevant, to the topic at hand, is the fact that such bigotry still exists in a society that thinks of itself in a Whigish progressive manner and that a large organization knew this bigotry was allowed to flourish under their watch, and they opted not to do anything about it.

Workplace discrimination based on religion, not religion itself, is the issue.

[rams80]

*sigh*

Yes, only Christians believe in not berating people. I give up. This thread's screwed five ways from Saturday.

That's not what I said or meant at all. I'm sure all religions believe that. All I said was that I couldn't speak for other religions. That is in no way to say that "only Christians" believe in not berating people. I only use Christianity as one example because I can speak from experience.

Sorry man. This is a touchy subject. My apologies. Still, I'm having a hard time following how this turned into a "religion, good or bad?" debate.

Really? You mean the other thousand or so threads that have the word "religion" somewhere in it didn't turn into that same debate? That's what happens here.

It's like how any MLS thread has to degenerate into a debate (using the term loosely) about American and European naming conventions. Yeah, it's expected, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when it happens.

The story here is about someone being persecuted at his place of employment based on his religion, and some would say, ethnic make-up. Whether or not "religion" is good or bad is, in actuality, irrelevant. What is relevant, to the topic at hand, is the fact that such bigotry still exists in a society that thinks of itself in a Whigish progressive manner and that a large organization knew this bigotry was allowed to flourish under their watch, and they opted not to do anything about it.

Workplace discrimination based on religion, not religion itself, is the issue.

Well, and this is not to justify the Ducks not doing anything to stop this, as mentioned before NHL parents don't necessarily have a lot of control over their ECHL affiliates. Unlike minor league baseball, where the major league parents typically rule the entire organization with an iron fist, the ECHL-NHL relationships tend to be far looser, with the parent not having as much punitive or decision-making control.

On a related note, I seem to recall that the Bakersfield organization was considered one of the more "classless" (and I use that adjective with the greatest trepidation) in the ECHL back when the Rivs played there.

[IceCap]

*sigh*

Yes, only Christians believe in not berating people. I give up. This thread's screwed five ways from Saturday.

That's not what I said or meant at all. I'm sure all religions believe that. All I said was that I couldn't speak for other religions. That is in no way to say that "only Christians" believe in not berating people. I only use Christianity as one example because I can speak from experience.

Sorry man. This is a touchy subject. My apologies. Still, I'm having a hard time following how this turned into a "religion, good or bad?" debate.

Really? You mean the other thousand or so threads that have the word "religion" somewhere in it didn't turn into that same debate? That's what happens here.

It's like how any MLS thread has to degenerate into a debate (using the term loosely) about American and European naming conventions. Yeah, it's expected, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when it happens.

The story here is about someone being persecuted at his place of employment based on his religion, and some would say, ethnic make-up. Whether or not "religion" is good or bad is, in actuality, irrelevant. What is relevant, to the topic at hand, is the fact that such bigotry still exists in a society that thinks of itself in a Whigish progressive manner and that a large organization knew this bigotry was allowed to flourish under their watch, and they opted not to do anything about it.

Workplace discrimination based on religion, not religion itself, is the issue.

Well, and this is not to justify the Ducks not doing anything to stop this, as mentioned before NHL parents don't necessarily have a lot of control over their ECHL affiliates. Unlike minor league baseball, where the major league parents typically rule the entire organization with an iron fist, the ECHL-NHL relationships tend to be far looser, with the parent not having as much punitive or decision-making control.

Well it was mentioned that the Ducks made the coach write a letter of apology (which the coach made a mockery of). So they obviously both knew what was happening and had some leverage with the team.

[rams80]

*sigh*

Yes, only Christians believe in not berating people. I give up. This thread's screwed five ways from Saturday.

That's not what I said or meant at all. I'm sure all religions believe that. All I said was that I couldn't speak for other religions. That is in no way to say that "only Christians" believe in not berating people. I only use Christianity as one example because I can speak from experience.

Sorry man. This is a touchy subject. My apologies. Still, I'm having a hard time following how this turned into a "religion, good or bad?" debate.

Really? You mean the other thousand or so threads that have the word "religion" somewhere in it didn't turn into that same debate? That's what happens here.

It's like how any MLS thread has to degenerate into a debate (using the term loosely) about American and European naming conventions. Yeah, it's expected, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when it happens.

The story here is about someone being persecuted at his place of employment based on his religion, and some would say, ethnic make-up. Whether or not "religion" is good or bad is, in actuality, irrelevant. What is relevant, to the topic at hand, is the fact that such bigotry still exists in a society that thinks of itself in a Whigish progressive manner and that a large organization knew this bigotry was allowed to flourish under their watch, and they opted not to do anything about it.

Workplace discrimination based on religion, not religion itself, is the issue.

Well, and this is not to justify the Ducks not doing anything to stop this, as mentioned before NHL parents don't necessarily have a lot of control over their ECHL affiliates. Unlike minor league baseball, where the major league parents typically rule the entire organization with an iron fist, the ECHL-NHL relationships tend to be far looser, with the parent not having as much punitive or decision-making control.

Well it was mentioned that the Ducks made the coach write a letter of apology (which the coach made a mockery of). So they obviously both knew what was happening and had some leverage with the team.

I think the "Letter of Apology" was a compromise forced by Bakersfield. I can't imagine that if Anaheim actually had the power to terminate the coach on their own, they wouldn't. Because normally if the parent catches of wind of this and they have control over such things, this is an automatic crash landing for the coach's career. A quick check of wikipedia indicates the coach was in Bakersfield for most of the 2000s.

In terms of leverage, I don't think Anaheim had much besides the money they chip in for their affiliate-and that might have been cancelled out last season (if this is when that happened) by Bakersfield being Anaheim's only affiliate thanks to the franchise shenanigans in Des Moines.

[IceCap]

I think the "Letter of Apology" was a compromise forced by Bakersfield. I can't imagine that if Anaheim actually had the power to terminate the coach on their own, they wouldn't. Because normally if the parent catches of wind of this and they have control over such things, this is an automatic crash landing for the coach's career. A quick check of wikipedia indicates the coach was in Bakersfield for most of the 2000s.

In terms of leverage, I don't think Anaheim had much besides the money they chip in for their affiliate-and that might have been cancelled out last season (if this is when that happened) by Bakersfield being Anaheim's only affiliate thanks to the franchise shenanigans in Des Moines.

*removed the wall of quotes to keep things from getting to top-heavy*

If that is indeed the case then the question is "how much of this is Anaheim responsible for, seeing as it happened under their watch?"

Regardless, what happened is simply inexcusable. If it comes to light that the Ducks are clear in all of this, then that's fine. At the very least, however, the Bakersfield ECHL franchise has a lot to own up to. Hopefully they get dragged through the mud.

[rams80]

I think the "Letter of Apology" was a compromise forced by Bakersfield. I can't imagine that if Anaheim actually had the power to terminate the coach on their own, they wouldn't. Because normally if the parent catches of wind of this and they have control over such things, this is an automatic crash landing for the coach's career. A quick check of wikipedia indicates the coach was in Bakersfield for most of the 2000s.

In terms of leverage, I don't think Anaheim had much besides the money they chip in for their affiliate-and that might have been cancelled out last season (if this is when that happened) by Bakersfield being Anaheim's only affiliate thanks to the franchise shenanigans in Des Moines.

*removed the wall of quotes to keep things from getting to top-heavy*

If that is indeed the case then the question is "how much of this is Anaheim responsible for, seeing as it happened under their watch?"

Regardless, what happened is simply inexcusable. If it comes to light that the Ducks are clear in all of this, then that's fine. At the very least, however, the Bakersfield ECHL franchise has a lot to own up to. Hopefully they get dragged through the mud.

This thread on Into The Boards seems to have more info regarding the matter. Try not to blow your stack at Bakersfield fans who are circling the wagons in the manner most fans do when seeing their team come under fire. Interestingly the coaches were suspended for a couple of weeks for an "internal team matter" that season.

Thread about suspensions.

[IceCap]

I think the "Letter of Apology" was a compromise forced by Bakersfield. I can't imagine that if Anaheim actually had the power to terminate the coach on their own, they wouldn't. Because normally if the parent catches of wind of this and they have control over such things, this is an automatic crash landing for the coach's career. A quick check of wikipedia indicates the coach was in Bakersfield for most of the 2000s.

In terms of leverage, I don't think Anaheim had much besides the money they chip in for their affiliate-and that might have been cancelled out last season (if this is when that happened) by Bakersfield being Anaheim's only affiliate thanks to the franchise shenanigans in Des Moines.

*removed the wall of quotes to keep things from getting to top-heavy*

If that is indeed the case then the question is "how much of this is Anaheim responsible for, seeing as it happened under their watch?"

Regardless, what happened is simply inexcusable. If it comes to light that the Ducks are clear in all of this, then that's fine. At the very least, however, the Bakersfield ECHL franchise has a lot to own up to. Hopefully they get dragged through the mud.

This thread on Into The Boards seems to have more info regarding the matter. Try not to blow your stack at Bakersfield fans who are circling the wagons in the manner most fans do when seeing their team come under fire. Interestingly the coaches were suspended for a couple of weeks for an "internal team matter" that season.

Thread about suspensions.

Thanks for those, I suppose. Nothing out of the ordinary to be perfectly honest.

Though z-man was a hoot. We should send him an invite.

[Drakonius26]

Here's what I dont understand... aside from logodude confirming his identity as, Mel Gibson.

If Bakersfield has had issues like this in the past as rams80 said, (and despite the Ducks not being able to do as much as they would if they had more leverage, most notably with a stronger business relationship with their ECHL affiliate) wouldn't the ECHL take action themselves and punish the Bakersfield team in someway. After all, Jewish people like and play the sport of hockey, and usually minor leagues tend to really brown-nose their fanbase by being a community/fan-friendly alternate to the professional ranks, so I would think this could leave a major black-eye to not just the franchise but the league as a whole.

[loogodude90]

So stating that Jews have a lot of political power in America makes me an anti-Semite? Wow. Maybe I should really become an anti-Semite just to spite you. You're certainly building a case for me to do so.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

For the record, I think it's a stretch to compare "Jews have political power" to him being Mel Gibson or a New World Order conspiracy theorist. It's not cool to brand someone an anti-Semite because he has a different opinion than yours and is willing to say it.

Just putting it out there...

[IceCap]

For the record, I think it's a stretch to compare "Jews have political power" to him being Mel Gibson or a New World Order conspiracy theorist. It's not cool to brand someone an anti-Semite because he has a different opinion than yours and is willing to say it.

Just putting it out there...

It's not as if "Jews have power" is as innocent as having a "different opinion." See below.

So stating that Jews have a lot of political power in America makes me an anti-Semite?

No, but you certainly need to clarify such remarks. One of the myths spread about Jews used to justify persecution of them was that they secretly controlled society though political and economic manipulation. When you say "Jews have a lot of political power" you have to qualify what you mean by that because whether you intended to or not you're playing into an age-old stereotype used as justification to persecute my people. Now I don't know what ethnicity you are, but I do know, from the "Stuff White People Like" thread, that you're not a WASP. So surely you're aware of how sensitive things can get when you're dealing with well-known stereotypes that have been used as justifcation for persecutions in the past.

On top of that you seem to be under this illusion that Jews are the only minority that has political agencies and lobbyists set up. Ever heard of the NAACP? The Southern Poverty Law Center? Jews aren't the only ones with these agencies and watchdog groups in place.

Anyway it's not just the "Jews have power" thing that finally convinced me of your true beliefs. Way back when, in a discussion about the Iranian Women's soccer team you accused me of holding negative opinions of Muslims because I'm a Jew, despite me not saying anything that could be construed as being anti-Muslim. In a debate about Israel you failed to differentiate between Jews and the government of Israel, claiming all Jews had the blood of the Israeli government on their hands. Finally here you've claimed I said that Jews were the most persecuted minority in America when I never said anything close to that. You obviously, at the very least, have some warped and misguided views of the Jewish people.

On top of all of that you've gone out of your way to trivialize the hardships that Jews have suffered. Have we suffered the most of any other group? No (and to engage in a "who's suffered more?" debate is beyond moronic). We have suffered our fair share of hardships, however, I do take offence at your attempt to both trivialize those hardships and your attempt to derail a discussion concerning the continued existence of anti-Semitism in a world that supposedly knows better.

Wow. Maybe I should really become an anti-Semite just to spite you. You're certainly building a case for me to do so.

If one negative experience with one Jew (who you've never met face to face) is enough to make you an anti-Semite then you didn't have very far to go to begin with.

[Drakonius26]

Oh please. You honestly think that Jews are more discriminated against than most other minorities in America?

Did I say that? No. I never said that, or even implied that. You're reading what you want to read.

Jews hold a ton of political power in America. That's why this lawsuit is able to go forward.

Ah the "evil Jews control the world" bit. Keep it classy loogodude.

And for the record the lawsuit is going forward because it's clear the Ducks and/or Condors violated anti-discrimination laws. The lawsuit would be going forward if the player in question was black. It has nothing to do with him being Jewish.

And if you didn't notice, about half the posts in this thread are just people posting their general thoughts about religion. Seriously, go and check. Yet, as usual, you single me out. Get a life, man. Move on.

I've singled you out because you're overly argumentative/confrontational, seem to argue the most inane points, put words in my mouth (first you claimed that I hate Muslims because I'm Jewish, now you've said I claimed Jews were the most persecuted minority in America), and just generally take a confrontational attitude towards my people in general.

I've singled you out above all others here based on your posting history on related topics. You obviously don't like us, you've made that much clear. In a topic where a Jew has been discriminated against you're doing all you can to steer the topic off track. Why? You don't like us and want to keep the fact that we still indeed face bigotry in this world brushed aside so you and people like you can go on hating us while pretending it's socially acceptable to do so.

I don't know what the happened to you. Maybe a rabbi ran over your puppy as a child. Whatever your reasoning, I don't appreciate your trivialization of my people's history. Did I say we were the most persecuted group in the world? No. We have suffered hardships, however, and I don't appreciate it when someone tries to trivialize those hardships.

EDIT-

Sorry, you posted while I was writing my response Gothamite. I don't, however, intend to drop it. Not as long as this anti-Semitic troll keeps his "damn Jews" shtick going.

I think you've already said enough previously, to Ice, and others here on this thread. Besides, if Jews had that much political power in America, then tell me how did Obama, either Bush, Clinton, or Reagan get into office? Not to mention, how could a lot of people who're not of the Jewish faith be successful in a country, that from what you've previously posted hold so much power in this country. No offense, but the "Jews have all the political power in America" conspiracy comes mostly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a pretty well known anti-Semite text.

[IceCap]

I think you've already said enough previously, to Ice, and others here on this thread.

I appreciate that, but if he's going to continue to post half-truths, fabrications, and inane claims then I'm going to respond by telling him he's an idiot.

Besides, if Jews had that much political power in America, then tell me how did Obama, either Bush, Clinton, or Reagan get into office?

Well I think the majority of Jews supported Obama and Clinton, but still, your point stands. Jews in the United States have been a solidly Democratic voting bloc since at least the late 1800s. If Jews held so much sway then more Dems should have been elected, right? Hell, if Jews had so much sway over the US government the Supreme Court would have sided with Al Gore in the 2000 election.

Not to mention, how could a lot of people who're not of the Jewish faith be successful in a country, that from what you've previously posted hold so much power in this country. No offense, but the "Jews have all the political power in America" conspiracy comes mostly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a pretty well known anti-Semite text.

See, this is what I was getting at. If he wanted to say that Jews have political agencies and lobbyists set up to advocate for causes close to Jews, ok, fine. What he's saying is, indeed, factually correct. The problem is that he was not that specific. When you say something like "Jews have a lot of political power" you have to explain what you meant, because you are dealing with a statement that's very close to an age-old stereotype used as justification for the persecution of Jews.

Furthermore Jews aren't the only group that has such agencies and lobbyists. Every minority group has them. The Jews are hardly unique in that regard.

[rams80]

Here's what I dont understand... aside from logodude confirming his identity as, Mel Gibson.

If Bakersfield has had issues like this in the past as rams80 said, (and despite the Ducks not being able to do as much as they would if they had more leverage, most notably with a stronger business relationship with their ECHL affiliate) wouldn't the ECHL take action themselves and punish the Bakersfield team in someway. After all, Jewish people like and play the sport of hockey, and usually minor leagues tend to really brown-nose their fanbase by being a community/fan-friendly alternate to the professional ranks, so I would think this could leave a major black-eye to not just the franchise but the league as a whole.

The ECHL does...when they become aware of incidents of this nature (or similar PR black eyes-IIRC one or two guys have been banned from the league for going into the stands...and said things hitting the national media.) Bakersfield handled this within closed doors (albeit poorly), it didn't go public/viral at the time, and therefore the ECHL didn't know about it.

[wildwing64]

From this blog entry:

In a very random turn of events, Jason Bailey is back with the Ducks' ECHL affiliate.

...

So when Bailey was demoted from the AHL's Binghamton Senators on Thursday, he just happened to be headed to Elmira.

The Jackals' head coach, Malcolm Cameron, isn't the same coach who had Bailey two seasons ago and was named in the suit against the Ducks (though like Marty Raymond, Cameron isn't an employee of the Ducks).

[-Akronite-]

I strongly disagree with the 99.9%. I would be more likely to say that over 99.9% of religious people aren't good and kind. And non-religious people are generally "better" and "kinder" than religious people, based on my experience.

Yeah, I've met a bunch of atheists, specifically at my school, and I've never once had someone try to force their religion (or lack thereof) on me, however it happens all the time when I encounter Christians. I mean, I'm a Christian, but not a big one at all, even though I'm getting Confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church this spring (only to not start a huge fight in my family though). Pushy Christians keep pushing (no pun intended) me away from the Church.

This... is the biggest problem with organized religions. They don't give two raunchy craps about whether you're actually getting something out of it or even if you actually believe anything they tell you at all... just as long as you're willing to "play ball" and add to the strength in numbers they use to justify their existence.

Well said, illwauk. It's organized religions that's the problem with most religions as they're designed to take advantage of believers and use religion to swindle people out of their money too. Most decent Christians I've met are not members of the church, from the sense they don't belong to a church, but have been baptized and go during Easter/Thanksgiving/Christmas. Usually people who worship independently are more accepting and don't lay down the unwritten rule of "If you don't belong to MY church, then you AREN'T a true *insert religion here*"

As far as atheists go, most of them are the biggest hypocrites alive. Often blaming religion for the world's evils, and then saying they're tolerant of others, only to then spout off why your religion - whatever it may be, is bull There might be some who aren't that way, but every one I've met so far is like that. I guess you could consider them Darwin's Witnesses, since they do worship him unofficially.

Personally, I don't care what god you believe in, or if you believe in him at all, since as far as I'm concerned everyone is capable of the greatest good or evil - no matter what their background is.

I love how the first bolded paragraph explains what you do in your second paragraph. Just thought it was funny how you criticized atheists for being hypocrites about tolerance and then did the exact same thing back. Not that I disagree (other than that Darwin bit, the guy doesn't define people's lives any more than Newton or Einstein do beyond their Earth-changing discoveries).

As for the OP... If it's true than those guys. If it isn't than that guy. Seems pretty straight-forward.

[Drakonius26]

I said most, not all, most act in that way towards people. I have seen it from afar, and personally my opinion is based off of experiences at work and at college. The only reason why people get truly offended by someone else's opinion is because they themselves are that way at heart, no matter what their beliefs might be. I'm sure there are tolerant atheists, so that's why I didn't hang a generalization on them (i.e. all *insert creed, race, or religion* here are hypocrites and/or :censored).

[Gothamite]

True, except for the very silly "worship Darwin" crack, which did a whole lot to undermine the point you were trying to make.