View Full Version : $5,000 fine for a cap with a cross

01-03-2004, 07:48 AM

01-03-2004, 08:04 AM
I don't know, Will, I heard about that one too. It's hard to say what their motive is, whether they are strict about enforcing the headgear policy or if they are opposed to the cross. Either way, he would probably have grounds to appeal on religious discrimination reasons.

Sam Spade
01-03-2004, 10:31 AM
No, Kitna willingly entered into an agreement. He broke that agreement and the fine is the result. Further, he admits that he was wrong in doing so:

"That's what happens when you don't follow the rules," Kitna told the Bengals' Web site on Thursday. "I won't wear it any more. The Bible says submit to the authorities placed above you. The authorities say that's the rule."


01-06-2004, 02:15 PM
What a crock!! They are basically violating his First Ammendment Rights and he is allowing them to for money.

This is why I don't watch pro sports anymore. :mad:

01-06-2004, 03:22 PM
On one hand I doubt if anyone has a patent on caps with a cross. Therefore, not exactly a product endorsement like it would be for Nikes. However, when you represent your employer it is legitimate requirement that you follow their dress code. For instance U.S. federal employees can not wear political buttons or things of political nature, when acting in official capacity. Don't know if any rules on federal employees wearing religious symbols, but I have seen Jews wearing skull caps. As far as size of fine, it is high by most people's standard, but probably in line considering his salary. Frankly, I had never heard of the person in question until this post. I really don't look to sports figures for guidance on any issue or topic.

01-10-2004, 01:55 AM
Creeping mandatory secularism...

I think we need to think about the phrase "contract willingly entered into."

If the ONLY contract offered requires a person to hide his religious affiliation, then it ought to be unenforceable.

OTOH if he was supposed to be wearing X items of clothing displaying a sponsors' logo it might be another story.

02-06-2004, 01:42 AM
Looks like the fine has been taken away-before the appeal even:


The NFL didn't comment on why, but apparently the rule is only league apparrel during aftergame interviews to "protect" the NFL's advertising/sponsorship deals. The player doesn't seem to be in violation of the spirit of that-he didn't wear a company's logo, etc., but we all don't have access to the exact wording so...


Gabriel Suarez
02-06-2004, 05:21 PM
Two points.

Point #1 - This player whom I've never heard of said, "That's what happens when you don't follow the rules," Kitna told the Bengals' Web site on Thursday. "I won't wear it any more. The Bible says submit to the authorities placed above you. The authorities say that's the rule."

He's free to do what he wants, but his interpretation of submission is wrong. The wording is -

13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

(That is until they cause you or compell you to turn from God. Then such authority is no longer from God).

2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

(Clearly when a ruler no longer enforces what is good, but rather what is evil, there can be no submission to him.

An example is the distribution of bibles to believers against the rules of oppressive governments in the Islamic world and in China. To submit to their rules would be to turn from God.

Another example would be a Christian living in Nazi Germany. Should he submit to Nazi law or help and hide his jewish neighbors? Yet another example would be if a law was passed forbidding worship of God.

The bible is full of situations, from Rahab to Joseph and Mary's flight from Herod, of good people disobeying evil authorities.)

4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
(There is a great deal of stuff in this scripture, but we'll keep it to the context at hand - minister for good. Once he becomes a minister for evil, or for self, he is no longer "of God".)

So there you have it. As far as I'm concerned, this guy didn't do anything wrong, and it appears the admin realized that they could not win.

FWIW, I wonder what they would have done had he been wearing something else....such as an islamic crescent, or a rainbow logo, or an "X"? Could it be (dare we think it) that they gave him the attention he got, not for a suspected contract violation, but only (good heavens) because it was a Christian symbol????