Tony Dungy woudn't want to "deal with" Michael Sam

When asked about the dissolution of his tri-marriage, Manning told reporters: "I'm trying to be a good spouse here, but let's just say we had some overprotection issues."

 

Stir it up some more -- remove all the legal benefits from marriage, make it a purely ceremonial thing.

 

We must protect this solemn tradition from being ruined by those nefarious gays!

 

I don't know that this is the most telling/indicative first post ever, but it's in the conversation:

 

That isn't a first post.

 

Perhaps so.

But I prefer to allow the lesser lights to engage in the usual speculation regarding posters' potential previous personas.

 

No, but I'd sure like to buy him a drink and shake his hand.

 

Even though the "Freedom of Speech" misinterpretations have been beaten to death, one point the screechers are trying to get across is this, IMO:

It's one thing if someone calls a news conference or stands on a podium saying things that, shall we say, go against the social grain. We all know that "there can be consequences from what you say!" and yada yada yada.

But when people are simply replying to questions posed to them honestly and politely --- as Dungy did --- then it's really not asking too much to let the comment go without the usual fake outrage that accompanies it.

No, it's not a Freedom of Speech issue and never will be. But there's something to be said for a response more along the lines of, "We'll just agree to disagree."

 

But they won't. He's branded a bigot and some will attempt to ruin him. Or at least haul his ass off to a re-education camp or sensitivity training or whatever the hell it was they sent Chris Culliver to after the Super Bowl two years ago.

 

he is a bigot, the brand is earned. He's intolerant of people who don't fit his moral universe. But when Michael Sam isn't moral enough for him but Michael Vick is, then he can go fuck himself and should be run off to an education camp. And if he chooses to hide behind his religion then his religion is fair game for ridicule.

 

Does not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle automatically make one a bigot?

Not trolling. Asking seriously.

I know many, many people who think homosexuality is wrong but don't actively discriminate against anyone.

While Dungy has well-established views, I highly doubt that he would've bypassed the opportunity to draft a player who could've helped his teams on the basis of that player's sexuality.

So how exactly is he a bigot for saying he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam?

 

Well, he supports denying a minority group a right (marriage) afforded to the majority. What would you call him?