Bob Huggins in some hot water

#52
#52
So an offhand comment…even though offensive means someone needs to be fired or fined in America today.

At the same time people in these positions need to consider it hostile witness territory and just give the shortest most politically correct answer on any question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAVPUT
#53
#53
CAVPUT said:
Oh, I see. Free speech only applies to what's socially acceptable or what society or an employer deems appropriate? Or perhaps what's appoved of on a message board?
Click to expand...
In no way, shape, form or fashion was Bob Huggins' freedom of speech abridged here. He had the right to say what he did (meaning he's not going to jail or being punished by the government for saying it), but that doesn't mean he's protected from other consequences like social backlash or punishment from his employer (who, again, is not the government) for bad behavior. Why is this so hard to understand?

If Huggins had expanded on his thought instead of using a "slur" by saying that homosexuality is an abomination before God or that it's wrong to try and normalize homosexual behavior or transvestitism by pushing it and celebrating it and that it goes against the natural order of things, would that have been more "acceptable"? Do you not see the very thin line we're dealing with here? You either have a bill or rights or you don't.
Click to expand...
If Bob Huggins wants to go on a religious rant against homosexuality on the radio, he's absolutely within his rights to do it. He'd probably become a bit of a social pariah, but his rights would very much remain intact. See my first point for an explanation if you don't remember.

Once upon a time, it was socially acceptable (and quite normal) for people to use the N-word in pretty much any setting. Today, if you threw that term around at, say, your workplace, it's not out of the question that you'd get fired. Times change, norms change, and behavior evolves. Just like it's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist, much of American society is now supportive of equal rights and treatment for the gay community. That might upset you, but it's the truth. So yeah, speak out against gay people if you want—just don't expect nearly as many people to agree with you anymore.

Too many have died to defend this country and our freedoms...several in my own family. No, we do have a constitution. We do have a bill of rights. We do have a first amendment. We do have the right to agree to disagree. Huggins might have been locker room crude, but I'll support his right to say what he said. To do otherwise puts this country on a very slippery slope.....or should I say a more slippery slope than it's already on?
Click to expand...
People in my family have served, too. I think the most offensive thing I've read in this thread is your ignorance of what the founding documents of our country actually mean. Your inability to discern that the First Amendment has nothing to do with Bob Huggins' situation means you have quite a bit of learning to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DinkinFlicka, volfanhill and Pennheel
#54
#54
ThatVolGuy said:
In no way, shape, form or fashion was Bob Huggins' freedom of speech abridged here. He had the right to say what he did (meaning he's not going to jail or being punished by the government for saying it), but that doesn't mean he's protected from other consequences like social backlash or punishment from his employer (who, again, is not the government) for bad behavior. Why is this so hard to understand?


If Bob Huggins wants to go on a religious rant against homosexuality on the radio, he's absolutely within his rights to do it. He'd probably become a bit of a social pariah, but his rights would very much remain intact. See my first point for an explanation if you don't remember.

Once upon a time, it was socially acceptable (and quite normal) for people to use the N-word in pretty much any setting. Today, if you threw that term around at, say, your workplace, it's not out of the question that you'd get fired. Times change, norms change, and behavior evolves. Just like it's no longer socially acceptable to be a racist, much of American society is now supportive of equal rights and treatment for the gay community. That might upset you, but it's the truth. So yeah, speak out against gay people if you want—just don't expect nearly as many people to agree with you anymore.


People in my family have served, too. I think the most offensive thing I've read in this thread is your ignorance of what the founding documents of our country actually mean. Your inability to discern that the First Amendment has nothing to do with Bob Huggins' situation means you have quite a bit of learning to do.
Click to expand...
Then we will agree to disagree.
 
#55
#55
CAVPUT said:
Oh, I see. Free speech only applies to what's socially acceptable or what society or an employer deems appropriate? Or perhaps what's appoved of on a message board? If Huggins had expanded on his thought instead of using a "slur" by saying that homosexuality is an abomination before God or that it's wrong to try and normalize homosexual behavior or transvestitism by pushing it and celebrating it and that it goes against the natural order of things, would that have been more "acceptable"? Do you not see the very thin line we're dealing with here? You either have a bill or rights or you don't. Too many have died to defend this country and our freedoms...several in my own family. No, we do have a constitution. We do have a bill of rights. We do have a first amendment. We do have the right to agree to disagree. Huggins might have been locker room crude, but I'll support his right to say what he said. To do otherwise puts this country on a very slippery slope.....or should I say a more slippery slope than it's already on?
Click to expand...
You are confusing a couple of things The Constitution and what free speech means. It basically means the government can’t arrest you except under certain circumstances like yelling fire in a theater. Huggins has the right to say what he wants but doesn’t mean he can’t be punished by his employer. For example, if I have an employee that comes up to me and says F… You, I can fire him and free speech doesn’t protect him. He can’t be arrested for it but I as his employer can fire him. When people use the term “free speech” they are usually referring to the rights granted in the First Amendment. Huggins rights under the First Amendment weren’t violated. If you want to argue that he should be able to say whatever he wants without repercussions by an employer or society that is a different argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DinkinFlicka, Pennheel, volfan__18 and 1 other person
#56
#56
OrangeVolMan said:
You are confusing a couple of things The Constitution and what free speech means. It basically means the government can’t arrest you except under certain circumstances like yelling fire in a theater. Huggins has the right to say what he wants but doesn’t mean he can’t be punished by his employer. For example, if I have an employee that comes up to me and says F… You, I can fire him and free speech doesn’t protect him. He can’t be arrested for it but I as his employer can fire him. When people use the term “free speech” they are usually referring to the rights granted in the First Amendment. Huggins rights under the First Amendment weren’t violated. If you want to argue that he should be able to say whatever he wants without repercussions by an employer or society that is a different argument.
Click to expand...
Yep. People conflate the ideas of "free speech" and "people can't get upset by what I said."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#57
#57
CAVPUT said:
Then we will agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
There's really nothing to disagree about, other than your personal opinion of whether or not it's acceptable to use slurs. I know someone who calls me a f*g likely has very little respect for my humanity (and way too much hate in their heart), but you're gonna do whatever suits you.

Your understanding of the First Amendment, though, is not correct. My suggestion for you is to learn why social backlash against unpopular beliefs is not akin to being stripped of your freedom of speech by the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DinkinFlicka and Pennheel
#58
#58
ThatVolGuy said:
There's really nothing to disagree about, other than your personal opinion of whether or not it's acceptable to use slurs. I know someone who calls me a f*g likely has very little respect for my humanity (and way too much hate in their heart), but you're gonna do whatever suits you.

Your understanding of the First Amendment, though, is not correct. My suggestion for you is to learn why social backlash against unpopular beliefs is not akin to being stripped of your freedom of speech by the government.
Click to expand...
So social backlash leading to a firing or in Huggins case, the threat of termination unless he stops said speech and undergoes the so called diversity training to correct his way of thinking is free speech? The first amendment can only be violated by a govt leading to an arrest? If a group of right wingers decided to force the shut down of a gay pride parade, is that okay? It's not the govt or an employer doing it so that makes it kosher? Again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I don't agree with his crude verbage as I pointed out in my original comments and think it shows a lack of manners and intelligence, but regardless, I support his right to say it. I'm offended by seeing Christian symbols in urine being called art. I'm offended with protestors burning the flag. Several other things offend me, but I'll never try to have those individuals fired or shut down because I'm offended. I'll also not force them to sit down and be "counseled" in order to correct their thinking just like I'd never try to force a homosexual person to sit through bible study in order to "correct" their thinking. I'll pray for that, but if it's to happen, it won't be by force or threat. It will come by free will or not at all. Again, there's little to be gained by continuing this discussion as we're not going to change each other's minds. Still, it's a positive that there's civility and an atmosphere that allows us to both put forth our respective beliefs in a civil manner without threat or insults. We disagree but I respect the manner in which you replied. Well done.
 
#59
#59
CAVPUT said:
So social backlash leading to a firing or in Huggins case, the threat of termination unless he stops said speech and undergoes the so called diversity training to correct his way of thinking is free speech? The first amendment can only be violated by a govt leading to an arrest? If a group of right wingers decided to force the shut down of a gay pride parade, is that okay? It's not the govt or an employer doing it so that makes it kosher? Again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I don't agree with his crude verbage as I pointed out in my original comments and think it shows a lack of manners and intelligence, but regardless, I support his right to say it. I'm offended by seeing Christian symbols in urine being called art. I'm offended with protestors burning the flag. Several other things offend me, but I'll never try to have those individuals fired or shut down because I'm offended. I'll also not force them to sit down and be "counseled" in order to correct their thinking just like I'd never try to force a homosexual person to sit through bible study in order to "correct" their thinking. I'll pray for that, but if it's to happen, it won't be by force or threat. It will come by free will or not at all. Again, there's little to be gained by continuing this discussion as we're not going to change each other's minds. Still, it's a positive that there's civility and an atmosphere that allows us to both put forth our respective beliefs in a civil manner without threat or insults. We disagree but I respect the manner in which you replied. Well done.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that businesses have the right to not support his right to say things that negatively affect the business?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DinkinFlicka and Pennheel
#60
#60
CAVPUT said:
So social backlash leading to a firing or in Huggins case, the threat of termination unless he stops said speech and undergoes the so called diversity training to correct his way of thinking is free speech? The first amendment can only be violated by a govt leading to an arrest?
Click to expand...
You're getting the gist, yes. If Bob Huggins behaves in a way that reflects poorly on his employer or violates their code of conduct (and I'm sure the contract he willingly signed has a section or two about conduct), they have every right to act in their own best interest by punishing him—up to and including separating from him. If Huggins decided to revert to the 1950s and started calling black people the N-word in a very public way, do you think the university would be within their rights to fire him? Or should they be forced to associate with his toxic behavior in a way that permanently damages their reputation and hurts their basketball program?

Congress didn't make a law saying it's not okay to use the word "f*g." Huggins can say it all he wants, but there aren't many employers who will tolerate it. It's 2023, not 1983.

If a group of right wingers decided to force the shut down of a gay pride parade, is that okay? It's not the govt or an employer doing it so that makes it kosher? Again, we will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Assuming you're talking about a public Pride event like the one that's held in Knoxville every year, this would absolutely be an infringement of First Amendment rights. That "group of right wingers" could protest the event and tell every single participant that they're going to hell (which has happened to me many times), but they don't have the right to prevent the exercise of protected speech that has quite literally been permitted by the local government.

Besides, this is nothing like the situation with Huggins—a contracted employee being sanctioned by his employer for behavior that doesn't align with their code of conduct.

Personally, I don't agree with his crude verbage as I pointed out in my original comments and think it shows a lack of manners and intelligence, but regardless, I support his right to say it. I'm offended by seeing Christian symbols in urine being called art. I'm offended with protestors burning the flag. Several other things offend me, but I'll never try to have those individuals fired or shut down because I'm offended. I'll also not force them to sit down and be "counseled" in order to correct their thinking just like I'd never try to force a homosexual person to sit through bible study in order to "correct" their thinking. I'll pray for that, but if it's to happen, it won't be by force or threat. It will come by free will or not at all.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, though. Huggins is free to work elsewhere if he wants to keep calling people f*gs in interviews. He has a right to believe what he wants to believe and say what he wants to say, and businesses/organizations have a right to uphold their standards of conduct by employing people who don't violate them. Homophobia is bad for business.
 
#61
#61
ThatVolGuy said:
You're getting the gist, yes. If Bob Huggins behaves in a way that reflects poorly on his employer or violates their code of conduct (and I'm sure the contract he willingly signed has a section or two about conduct), they have every right to act in their own best interest by punishing him—up to and including separating from him. If Huggins decided to revert to the 1950s and started calling black people the N-word in a very public way, do you think the university would be within their rights to fire him? Or should they be forced to associate with his toxic behavior in a way that permanently damages their reputation and hurts their basketball program?

Congress didn't make a law saying it's not okay to use the word "f*g." Huggins can say it all he wants, but there aren't many employers who will tolerate it. It's 2023, not 1983.


Assuming you're talking about a public Pride event like the one that's held in Knoxville every year, this would absolutely be an infringement of First Amendment rights. That "group of right wingers" could protest the event and tell every single participant that they're going to hell (which has happened to me many times), but they don't have the right to prevent the exercise of protected speech that has quite literally been permitted by the local government.

Besides, this is nothing like the situation with Huggins—a contracted employee being sanctioned by his employer for behavior that doesn't align with their code of conduct.



Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, though. Huggins is free to work elsewhere if he wants to keep calling people f*gs in interviews. He has a right to believe what he wants to believe and say what he wants to say, and businesses/organizations have a right to uphold their standards of conduct by employing people who don't violate them. Homophobia is bad for business.
Click to expand...
So if a business decided not to hire or to fire a homosexual because it goes against the owners religion and/or standards of conduct, is that okay? What about the baker who felt it was not good for business to bake a cake for a same sex marriage because it violated his standards of conduct and beliefs? Again, it's a slippery slope. When it comes to free speech, you start cherry picking and there's no telling how far or which way it can go.

With that, I don't see this discussion needing to go any further. Appreciate the civility and discourse.
 
#62
#62
Despite the disagreements between people in this thread over a sensitive subject, I will say that it's been a civil conversation. You don't see that often. That being said, something that was said earlier and that I thought about regarding this subject came to mind. If this was racist (saying the N word) , I believe he would have been fired the day this came up,and rightly so. We can't have double standards. Free speech has it's consequences especially in the public realm in cases like this.Anywho,that's my two cents on the subject.
 
#63
#63
CAVPUT said:
So if a business decided not to hire or to fire a homosexual because it goes against the owners religion and/or standards of conduct, is that okay?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court—with a majority opinion authored by Trump-appointed Justice Gorsuch—determined in 2020 by a 6-3 margin that "workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender." In Gorsuch's words, "An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Article here. So, the answer to your question is no, that's not okay, at least according to the body tasked with interpreting the laws of our great land.

What about the baker who felt it was not good for business to bake a cake for a same sex marriage because it violated his standards of conduct and beliefs?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting question, because the Supreme Court kinda weighed in on that issue as well back in 2018. They narrowly sided with the baker, but the larger issue of "whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment" hasn't been resolved.

I believe there's another case pending before SCOTUS that was filed by a baker who has never been asked to make a cake for a same sex couple, but nevertheless wants protection from being forced to do it. I wouldn't be surprised if the current court sides with the baker, but we'll see.

Again, it's a slippery slope. When it comes to free speech, you start cherry picking and there's no telling how far or which way it can go.
Click to expand...
For starters, the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy.

But this is not cherrypicking. I'll repeat that Bob Huggins can feel any way he wants about gay people, and the First Amendment guarantees his right to make that slur a part of his everyday vocabulary if he chooses, but not many people or businesses would associate themselves (or their reputations) with him if he went that direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#64
#64
WVU kept their FB coach because they couldn't afford to fire him.

WVU kept Huggy because it was cheaper to reduce his salary by $1MM than fire him and deal with his buyout in court.

It's really gonna be bad for them when Texas and OU move out and the TV check shrinks even more....
 
#67
#67
Pennheel said:
Whatever someone might feel about the topic in their personal lives,he said it several times on a radio show. That's never good PR... It doesn't seem to matter though because West Virginia is coming off as desperate by keeping him. That's their choice. I don't see him lasting much longer there with his inconsistent recent record.
Click to expand...
I guess the AD thinks of it as a vote of confidence to counter negative recruiting about his age, or will say he does.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#70
#70
ThatVolGuy said:
In no way, shape, form or fashion was Bob Huggins' freedom of speech abridged here. He had the right to say what he did (meaning he's not going to jail or being punished by the government for saying it), but that doesn't mean he's protected from other consequences like social backlash or punishment from his employer (who, again, is not the government) for bad behavior. Why is this so hard to understand?


But isn't Huggins' employer the government, or at least a subdivision of the State of West Virginia?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#72
#72
I’ve seen headline after headline that he made a homphobic slur. He made a religious slur too. If he had said “Muslim f***” or Jewish f*** his ass would be fired. He’s just getting away with it because it’s cool to hate Catholics these days.
 
#73
#73
sonofUT62 said:
I’ve seen headline after headline that he made a homphobic slur. He made a religious slur too. If he had said “Muslim f***” or Jewish f*** his ass would be fired. He’s just getting away with it because it’s cool to hate Catholics these days.
Click to expand...

Do we have a Religion forum around here someplace?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top