They'll still have to pay the remainder of his contract, but by no means do they need to continue to employ him. They can do the same if it went the other way. The Mariners are weighing the media here. They know if they keep him, they'll get media backlash. Release him, and they stay out of the press. Pretty easy call on their part right or wrong.
This is one of those discussions that comes down to the scope of how each individual participating in the discussion is viewing "freedom of speech". There are two types:
1) People who see that the person's ability to speak freely was not illegally lessened.
2) People who see that the person's ability to speak freely were physically lessened.
Both views are correct, and both views can fit under the idea of "free speech". The consequence of losing a job does factor into whether or not a person will say something, but that is not a violation of a person's constitutional rights. These arguments are basically just a bunch of people saying
He sucks. Cut him. Use this excuse to further some bullshit Mariners Care committee agenda item and use the open roster spot to build the team with a young guy
NFL is the No fun league. All business. Show up on Sunday, do your job. It's one thing that set the league apart from others. The NFL is the cause. They've lost control of that and it's affecting them in the ratings.
Comments
However, the MLB Players Union is baddass. He gets paid even if they do fire his ass
Here's a hint: if you say stupid shit, your employer can fire you.
When it comes to freedom of speech, the ability to speak your mind without censorship or restraint, there can be an equal and opposite reaction.
His employer is free to do as they see fit, and should, if they feel it destroys their brand.
But ... its fucked up. Had he Twitted in support of the riots, all would be fine in Mariner world.
In your heart, you know I'm right.
1) People who see that the person's ability to speak freely was not illegally lessened.
2) People who see that the person's ability to speak freely were physically lessened.
Both views are correct, and both views can fit under the idea of "free speech". The consequence of losing a job does factor into whether or not a person will say something, but that is not a violation of a person's constitutional rights. These arguments are basically just a bunch of people saying
"I'm type 1"
"Well ur dumb, cause I'm type 2"
As long as it is the correct speaking out.
Easy call.
But dude. Don't get drunk on the disabled list and tweet about locking animals in cages and expect anything less.
Rioting, dragging people, and burning the city ...
You are an animal.
Period.