Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
<snip>
@ SirLK26: If "someone saying he didn't want a black player" is impermissible discrimination, how is someone saying "I don't want a gay player" not impermissible discrimination.
<snip>
Jackie Robinson was a huge "distraction" - was Branch Rickey right or wrong to put him on the team? If Rickey was right to put him on the team in that time and place. Isn't Dungy wrong in this time and place to exclude Sam?
[Yes, I know. Sam is not the talent that Robinson was, but, again, the debate here is not whether he had the talent to be drafted but, regardless of talent, and as with Robinson, whether Sam's mere presence would be too disruptive and hinder the team.]
<snip>
Bottom line for me, if he can play with the big boys, all else is moot.
|
Because if someone were to say they wouldn't draft a black player in this day and age, it would be straight up racial discrimination. What distraction would a straight male black player who played college ball at a high level bring?
If Sam were gay, but Dungy knew he wouldn't be a distraction, Dungy would draft him. He's not "discriminating" against Sam because he's gay, but because of the distraction he would bring. There's a difference.
Jackie Robinson was worth every bit of distraction he brought, being one of the best major league players ever and all. Sam might not even make the Rams' roster. I think the distraction versus what you get out of the distraction should definitely play a part.
I think if you were an NFL coach, you would have a different view. Football isn't all about talent. It's about teamwork, camaraderie, and all that good stuff. Not saying definitively the Rams won't play well together because of Sam, but Dungy apparently thinks things might not work so well over there. And, according to Derrick Brooks, it's likely that's a near-unanimous consensus among NFL teams.