Fitzhugh buys Titans tickets in response to Black boycott

Press release from Craig Fitzhugh campaign

House Democratic Leader and candidate for Governor, Craig Fitzhugh has bought Tennessee Titans Season Tickets after Republican candidate for Governor Diane Black returned hers because of her unwillingness to support several Titans’ players right to free speech.

According to the Nashville Tennessean, The Republican congresswoman and candidate for governor says she and her husband Dave have canceled their season tickets because of the national anthem protests by some players last season.  After reading that, Leader Fitzhugh then promptly acquired season tickets himself to support his home state team.

Craig Fitzhugh stated, “Being the only candidate for Governor in either political party to serve in the military doesn’t make me more patriotic. I choose to stand when I hear the National Anthem played anywhere, on TV, by an ice cream truck, or at a Titans game.  I’m making a statement when I stand and others choose to make a statement by not standing. America is great because the Constitution protects both statements and I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

 

24 Responses to Fitzhugh buys Titans tickets in response to Black boycott

  • Stuart I. Anderson says:

    What is sad is the fact that Fitzhugh is actually engaging in what the liberals believe is “virtue signaling” i.e. its somehow virtuous to support those who take it upon themselves to besmirch a public ceremony that is intended to show love of country with a political demonstration in favor of/opposed to something or other that the protestors themselves can’t quite articulate.

    • Leslie Parsley says:

      It’s even sadder that members of the GOP besmirch First Amendment rights while also ignoring SCOTUS’s decisions upholding the right of players to protest. What is even more appalling is that people like you insult the players by making snide and untrue statements that the players can’t even articulate what they are protesting for or against. Since the players who are protesting are in the main Afro-Americans, the >>REAL<>YOU<>CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM<<.

      By the way, you are aware are you not, of the millions of dollars these players have donated to causes such as Meals on Wheels, funding for which your president all but killed – a program that fed home bound people of all colors. United We Dream, Black Veterans for Social Justice and many other educational programs and camps have been set up to teach young blacks about their contributions to our country, about the history of the Civil Rights Movement, and about their rights. Maybe that's an underlying cause of your own protests, come to think about it. You know – "keep 'em down and ignorant."

      • Leslie Parsley says:

        CORRECTION: “Since the players who are protesting are in the main Afro-Americans, the >>REALYOUCRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM<>REAL REASON YOU ARE PROTESTING THEIR PROTESTS” is glaringly obvious, and maybe it is you who doesn’t understand >>CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.<<

        Sorry about the glitch.

  • Randy S. Lamb says:

    To attempt to force by legal, or illegal, blackmail- economic or otherwise, the denial of the exercise of someone’s Constitutional right because you disagree with it is to disrespect the Constitutional Right itself! Such behavior by Black, a duly elected representative of the government operating under that same Constitution, does not bode well for the future of the greatest Constitutional Republic ever, IMHO.

    Lawyers and the military take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United Steas. We don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing which provisions, Amendments nor laws we like nor which ones we don’t like in that regard. Elected representatives take the same oath and are bound by the same oath. Fitzhugh is both an elected representative and former military.

    I used to think that supporting the Constutution and the laws of the United States carries neither a Liberal nor Conservative label!

  • James White says:

    Randy, the Constitution says Congress shall make no law, it doesn’t say ‘an NFL employee can do anything they want while during paid time and working on private property’.

    • Leslie Parsley says:

      Apparently, you don’t believe in the third branch of government either.

    • Randy S. Lamb says:

      James, Congress isn’t making a law. It’s a Constitutional right. I ‘m pretty sure private employers can’t violate an NFL player’s Constitutional rights, either. I stand for it with my hand over my heart, but I respect their right not to do so. As an attorney, I am called to protect rights that I often don’t agree with. The employers paying them play ball- that’s all! Curious: Are all those stadiums private property?

      • Stuart I. Anderson says:

        When you’re “on the clock” you have a perfect constitutional right to stand up in your office and proclaim any likes and dislikes that you may have. Your employer, in turn, has a perfect right to hand you a couple of cardboard boxes in which to gather your personal belongings and show you to the door with the promise that you will receive your last paycheck in the mail and a heartfelt “best of luck to you.”

        • Stuart I. Anderson says:

          And the fact that the Titans and/or the NFL didn’t avail themselves of that opportunity to hand the demonstrating Titan players their “cardboard box,” and indeed, expressed support for their sickening “demonstration,” makes what Diane Black did in returning her tickets commendably laudable.

      • James White says:

        Randy, does the Federal government on the stadium? Can You come over to my property and say anything you want? Can you cuss out the judge when you are in court?

  • Eddie White says:

    Amen to what Stuart Anderson just stated. He hit the nail on the head. The problem with arguments like Lamb and Parsley like to make is that their “constitutional rights” issue will only apply to the liberal issues they support. No constitutional rights for the poor small businessman who does not want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

  • Steve L. says:

    And I, as well as MILLIONS of other Americans, have the right to cancel season tickets, stop watching the NFL, and stop buying the goods advertised. Without someone yelling RACIST or FASCIST. Simple facts for me folks. I consider these spoiled children’s’ behavior rude and uncouth and I will not willingly pay or encourage such rudeness. Congresswoman Black and I agree on this issue, if little else.

  • TommyRay McAnally says:

    IF YOU WANT TO PROTEST I ECHO, DO ON YOUR OWN TIME NOT COMPANY TIME. WHERE IS YOUR COMMON SENSE? IF YOU DON’T STAND UP FOR THE AMERICAN FLAG GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS AMERICAN COUNTRY. NOW. Although Haslam Harwell,Mathney,Ragan,Ramesy and a lot more on the HILL THREW VETERANS UNDER THE BUS WITH the PASS OF THE VETERANS PREFERENCE PASS OVER LETTER. BY THE WAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. DID HASLAM EVEN SERVE?

  • Randy S. Lamb says:

    You guys might be a lot smarter than I am, but I still don’t think that you can fire someone for exercising their Constitutional right. If you have an employment contract to where they have agreed otherwise and violate that contract, that is a different matter.

    Ms. Black has a right to do what she wants as s private citizen. If she chooses to violate her oath of office to support and defend the Constitution- to me that is a different matter.

    Consumer rights and Constitutional rights are different matters. Don’t want to support the teams that acknowledge this Constitutional right,- then don’t.

    If you don’t like the Constitutional right, maybe you’re asking that the wrong person leave.

    Are all NFL stadiums privately owned? Aren’t some government financed and even local government owned?

    Just my opinions. We all have them.

    Courts decide Constitutional rights, until the Constitution is otherwise amended- the law is the law!.

    It takes a lot to argue issues without name calling, but lawyers have to do that too.

    I used to represent a lot of criminal defendants who didn’t particularly like laws designed the rights of others, so they ignore me. If some folks can ignore the legal rights of others- why can’t they?

    This is a road to nowhere, more so about politics and opinions than law.

    My last words.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Part of the use of this site is the fact that, in addition to giving each other grief over political differences, we also learn from each other. Randy, I believe “. . .you can fire someone from exercising their constitutional right.” Haven’t you seen the ex-employee who is making the rounds of talk shows because his was fired from one of the Silicon Valley tech firms for circulating an e-mail (I believe) criticizing the lack of intellectual diversity he believed was intentionally practiced by the firm? Actually it gets worse than that. The left now has this charming strategy of looking into the employment status of individuals affiliating with organizations that they regard as particularly odious and sending information to their employer with the aim of getting those employees fired, in some cases successfully although the employee did nothing to involve or mention his employer.

      States like Tennessee are “employment at will” states where, if you are not a member of a “protected class” under statute, you can be fired at any time for any reason including exercising rights mentioned in the constitution. All of this is N/A of course regarding NFL football players because each one of them has contracts which I have every confidence contains very strict rules regarding public behavior giving the owners broad latitude for suspension/termination for what the contract states is public misbehavior, though that behavior may very well be constitutionally protected from infringement by the government .

      • Randy S. Lamb says:

        Stewart, you are right about the “at will” doctrine. My point wast hat Black took an oath to uphold and defend that same Constitution that provides this particular right. If she can’t do that, then maybe she should admit that and step down. Maybe she is- sorta.

        Protected class and all that gets complicated. I have noticed in most pictures that there are a lot of folks on the sidelines and in the stands doing all sorts of things but honor the flag. Flags are improperly displayed, used as clothing and all sorts of no-nos. That is hardly ever addressed. It makes me wonder if it is not more about who is doing it that can bring the protected class into play.
        I have no problem with the respectful taking of the knee.

        I do enjoy civil discussion, and I love to learn.

        Keep it nice!

  • Randy S. Lamb says:

    So you think that the Constitution should allow the enforcement of religion? If so, which one and which denomination.

    There is not enough room or time to get into Constitutional law here. Discrimination as it is defined by law by those who serve the public- which is a licensed privileged, has been ruled unconstitutional. It’s the law. If they can pick and choose, so could doctors, hospitals, policemen, fireman, paramedics, the military, gas stations, grocery stores, etc.

    I’m quite sure the cake bakers have no problem serving other sinners because if they did they would have NO customers! Right?

    Merely baking them a cake no more makes the baker a sinner than merely selling a gun used in a killing makes the seller a killer!

    Gonna stop here.

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      No, not all discrimination. “Serving the public” has nothing to do with it except in the case when you have been granted legal monopoly and part of the deal is that you get a monopoly but you agree to serve everyone. Bakers have no such agreement so they can serve anyone they want to serve with the exception that they cannot refuse to serve someone on certain specific grounds like race, religion, etc. where such statutes forbidding this behavior exist. On the other hand, where sexual orientation is not mentioned in the statute (like the federal and Tennessee statutes), refusal of service based on sexual orientation is legal though not practiced for the obvious reason in that it doesn’t come up except in the case of providing service for what is obviously a ceremony celebrating the marriage of homosexuals.

      In the case of service for homosexuals getting married where there is a specific statute mandating such service the question that is now before the courts is whether the state is abridging the server’s freedom of religion by so mandating service where doing so violates a sincerely held religious belief of the server.

      That I believe is the state of the law.

      • Randy S. Lamb says:

        In a recent court case, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, The Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Judge Diane Wood came to a decision that discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation is a form of sexual discrimination, and should be prohibited, based on the Civil Rights Act. This resulted in the amendment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to include sexual orientation. Since then, sexual orientation is a protected class, just like gender and race.

        Stewart, has this been changed?

        • Stuart I. Anderson says:

          But unlike gender and race there are major religions in the U.S. that regard entering into a homosexual sexual relationship as sinful behavior for which position they can cite certain biblical passages. Insofar as the marriage ceremony between homosexuals is obviously a precursor to such a relationship such marriages, for example, cannot be performed in the church’s of those religions and as an extension of this participating in such marriage ceremonies are sinful.

          Obviously whether you and I or a majority of Americans agree with this biblical interpretation or, indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees is irrelevant. The point is that well established religions adhere to this interpretation and thus it obviously is a sincerely held religious belief. Now, even if Judge Wood reasoning is valid, the constitution is superior to Title VII so no law is to be interpreted in such a way as to mandate the violation of an individual’s constitutional rights.

          The last I heard this entire issue is before the Supreme Court with a decision expected in the near future.

  • Steve L. says:

    And my last words are: Not one conservative has asked that the Police or FBI arrest these folks and throw them in jail for ANYTHING. Many Americans are offended at this rude behavior. Quit putting this on First Amendment rights. We are offended that publicly financed sports facilities are used as podiums for political activity that offends us. It is not against the law. It is in poor taste. You support it. Not me.

  • Misty Pardner says:

    Well, those tickets probably just emptied Fitzhugh’s campaign account.

  • William Upton says:

    This Fitzhugh really is a simpleton and a scumbag. You don’t disrespect the flag or the anthem. I have no respect for players who pull this crap or the NFL and fans for supporting them. Boycott the NFL!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *