A Georgia high school football coach who was criticized for holding a baptism on school grounds for some of his players has been fired weeks later.
Superintendent Kristen Waters said this week that the coach was dismissed from coaching Tattnall County High School for reasons unrelated to the baptism, but for an incident after a Nov. 3 game. She did not provide further details.
“The safety and security of our students is paramount to Tattnall County Board of Education,” Waters said in a statement to NBC affiliate WSAV of Savannah. “Based on the outcome of an investigation into an incident that occurred Friday night, November 3rd while traveling after the football game, the District decided that it would seek a Head football coach that aligned with the best interests of the students.”
So… technically true: he was fired after doing the baptism thing. But pretty misleading since apparently he was fired over an undescribed “incident”.
My guess is that they probably didn’t want to fire him explicitly for the baptism because of the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed a high school football coach to pray on the field: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/football-coach-fired-praying-field-backed-supreme-court-resigns-rcna103789
To be clear, he wasn’t “praying on the field”. He was leading the whole team in prayer as part of the school event, at the 50 yard line, with the audience watching, inviting others to participate, apparently creating an atmosphere of pressure to participate, etc… He was using his role as a coach and as faculty of the school to formally endorse and encourage his particular religion as part of the identity of the team.
And the stupid fucks at the SCOTUS thought this was not an establishment violation based on lies. Kavanaugh literally repeatedly lied in his opinion on it, claiming repeatedly that it was a private prayer instead of a giant, intentional public spectacle.
Anyone who looks at the photos of clips of the prayer will have ZERO illusion that this was a small private prayer on the field. It was a megachurch-inspired moment.
And then the coach quit after being reinstated because his mission was accomplished and he didn’t actually give a shit about coaching football.
Correct me if I’m misremembering, but wasn’t this also the case where he was supposed to have standing because he was fired, but it turned out that he wasn’t fired?
Like he failed to do something that was required to renew his contract, and so he basically quit the first time, as well.
So he had no standing to file the lawsuit, and therefore, SCOTUS shouldn’t have taken the case.
Part of what I remember is that the coaching job was in Washington, and he sued for the job after moving to Florida. Then, when asked, he said he’d be ready to start coaching in Washington again with like 3 days notice of reinstatement. He won his case, but did not move back up or try to retake his old job in any way. Makes the standing in the case look real funny.
haha the rapists, handmaidens, and millionaire dick riders in SCOTUS don’t give a fuck about laws
Oh sweet Lemon Test. What have they done to you?
A witchfinder in 1674 wrote that lemons are icky so Alito cast the deciding vote to eliminate it.
Nothing worse than an asshole zealot that wont shut the fuck up.
I’ve worked closely with school administrators. That’s exactly what this is. It’s actually good reporting since everyone knows it was the baptism, but the reporter still quotes the statement from the superintendent.
That’s total conjecture on your part. I also went to a high school once so that’s not what happened, he actually assaulted a student and they don’t wanna release the info. I’m making the up and it has the same validity as your statement.
Tbh, I’ve worked with plenty of problematic people and where there’s smoke, there’s fire. There’s probably a multitude of other issues that they were already aware of or uncovered when they started paying more attention.
This is also pure conjecture. But I would be surprised if there weren’t more obviously fireable offenses.
I feel 100% confident in my statement, and I do not regret making it nor do I intend to amend it in any way. Now go eat some tendies.
Only an idiot would feel 100% about a theory they made up without evidence to support it.
Yeah, that occurred to me too. They might have wanted to fire him for the inappropriate baptism nonsense, but didn’t want to make it about a religious issue and so came up with some other reason. Or who knows, if he’s stupid enough to do the baptism shit he’s probably a fucking weirdo and does other things that are bad ideas.
The kids were probably naked. The baptism was in a hot tub.
Maybe pee
oh, it was the Catholic church then?
Nope. It was ANY church.
He also wasn’t fired, just removed as coach. He keeps his teaching job and gets to act like a martyr now
Wasn’t fired. Just removed as coach. He broke the law but gets to keep his teaching job and act like a martyr now. Probably back to baptizing kids in his classroom
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a source for this? The article says this man was dismissed from his coaching position, but doesn’t mention anything about him being a teacher.
Most coaches are teachers, usually they fill in as a social studies, World geography, or US History. I mean, they have to do something during the day
Many schools hire coaches who are not teachers. It’s usually not a requirement for being a coach, and I’ve seen nothing that leads me to believe this man was a teacher as well as a coach. In fact, I’d think that would be at least alluded to if it were the case.
His continued employment is a violation of everyone’s rights.
Oh Georgia, stop acting so southern.
Really fuckin sick of these severely mentally ill people in positions of authority. Fuck your sky daddy and other imaginary friends.
So the headline says one thing and the article says another. Typical garbage reporting.
Edit: i guess no one read the article
Looks like the article headline is on point.
Not really cause he wasn’t fired. Just removed from coaching duties. He’s still employed as a teacher at the school
I mean, yes, it happened at a later moment in time from the baptizing, but it’s clearly being implied that the baptizing was the cause, which is apparently not the case.
It’s the cause, but from a legal perspective, they will label it differently.
Drumming up Christian outrage is good for business according to Comcast corporate.
And let’s be honest beyond them outrage in general.
This is such blatant propaganda lol