GatewayRedbirds.com

pioneer98 wrote:The only correct way for Dungy to deal with this situation would have been to not answer the question at all, because no matter what answer he gave could have been questioned in light of everything we know about Dungy. If he'd have said "Yeah, I would have drafred him", it might fit our current norms better, but then a certain set of Christians would be saying "Oh, he's just saying that to look good and keep his job". If he says "No, I wouldn't have drafted him" then we get the conversation we are having right now. The only way out is for him to not answer the question at all.

pioneer98 wrote: Using the analogy of hiring someone for a job to drafting an NFL player...if you worked in a company and were in charge of hiring people, and then your brother applied for a job, the correct thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the process entirely and let others make that particular hiring decision. Because there is no way you can make a "correct" choice. If you hire your brother it looks like nepotism. OTOH if you don't hire him despite his great credentials it may look to some like you did it just to avoid it looking like nepotism, and maybe cost the company a valuable employee. Either way you are conflicted. Recusing yourself is the only answer, and most companies have policies along these lines today.

Socnorb11 wrote: So every GM or HR Director should be asked if they are Christian, and every player/employee should be asked their sexual orientation......... and then we decide who gets to hire/draft whom, so as to avoid conflict?

Michael Scott: There could be others. I need to know. I don't want to offend anybody else.
Dwight Schrute: You could assume everyone is, and not say anything offensive.
Michael Scott: Yeah. I'm sure everyone would appreciate me treating them like they were gay.

cardsfansince82 wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote: So every GM or HR Director should be asked if they are Christian, and every player/employee should be asked their sexual orientation......... and then we decide who gets to hire/draft whom, so as to avoid conflict?

Ideally hiring decisions are based on merit and don't take into account anyone's religion or sexual orientation at all. In fact, we should make a law about it.

Fat_Bulldog wrote:Getting close. Another 10 pages and we should all have a sufficient understanding of each one's take on this.

Socnorb11 wrote:Aren't the voter ID laws mostly targeted at illegal immigrants?

Socnorb11 wrote:

pioneer98 wrote: Using the analogy of hiring someone for a job to drafting an NFL player...if you worked in a company and were in charge of hiring people, and then your brother applied for a job, the correct thing to do would be to recuse yourself from the process entirely and let others make that particular hiring decision. Because there is no way you can make a "correct" choice. If you hire your brother it looks like nepotism. OTOH if you don't hire him despite his great credentials it may look to some like you did it just to avoid it looking like nepotism, and maybe cost the company a valuable employee. Either way you are conflicted. Recusing yourself is the only answer, and most companies have policies along these lines today.

So every GM or HR Director should be asked if they are Christian, and every player/employee should be asked their sexual orientation......... and then we decide who gets to hire/draft whom, so as to avoid conflict?