What the NHL Pride movement gets wrong
By: Restoring America
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Two additional players have refused to wear the NHL's Pride-themed jerseys. Last Thursday, Florida Panthers stars, Eric and Marc Staal, released a statement saying they would not be wearing them. The players were subsequently absent from the pregame warmups that night.
The brothers said the jerseys go against their religious beliefs, but they "carry no judgment on how people choose to live their lives, and believe that all people should be welcome in […] the game of hockey." Other teams whose players have declined to wear the rainbow-themed jerseys include the Philadelphia Flyers, the San Jose Sharks, and the Chicago Blackhawks.
As a heterosexual woman who grew up in the gay community and who, at one point in her life, attended Pride celebrations annually, I am sympathetic to the Staal brothers' perspective. To me, this matter has less to do with someone's view on gay or transgender people and more to do with their right to exercise their freedom. Critics have argued that if a player refuses to wear the Pride Night jerseys, they have no place competing in the sport.
NHL PLAYER RESISTANCE TO WEARING 'PRIDE NIGHT' JERSEYS CAUSES MANY TEAMS TO OPT OUT
First of all, I'm unclear as to why professional athletes of any sport should be expected to wear insignia supporting gay or transgender rights or any political movement. Political ideology isn't relevant to one's ability to play well, and it isn't an athlete's job to win people over to the side of social justice.
Secondly, hockey isn't known to be a particularly woke sport, with fans roughly evenly split across the political spectrum. Finally, Pride celebrations, all 30 days of them, don't start until June.
LGBT activism has become ubiquitous throughout society, absorbed by every major institution and organization, and shoved down the throats of people minding their own business. Bundled in with this messaging is the assumption that every decent person holds the same progressive views, and if they don't, their opinions don't matter.
Being critical of this activism doesn't mean someone is anti-gay or anti-transgender. There are many people who are, themselves, gay or trans, who don't agree with the corporatization of their respective communities or the hostility masquerading as support espoused by so-called allies.
Bombarding people with wokeness everywhere they turn builds resentment instead of changing minds because it doesn't engage with opposing opinions in good faith. Recent statistics have shown an increase in discrimination against Americans who identify as LGBT, suggesting a backlash is, unfortunately, already underway.
Tags
Who is online
32 visitors
Somebody might want to let the progressives know this.
Let the outrage begin.
Why die on this hill, though? If you’re not homophobic - if you’re not prejudiced - why make a big deal out of it? Sports organizations require that the players be part of all sorts of messaging.
Examples:
For this one issue, though - for LGBT Pride - a few players want to draw a line, and they say they are standing up for something important. Or maybe they’re just bigots.
And here is the "outrage" I was referring to in 1. So because they are standing for their beliefs makes them bigots? That's pretty closed and small minded thinking.
Yep!!!
Not at all. I’m not outraged. I’m analyzing behavior.
Unless you think that anyone who disagrees with you should be dismissed as “outraged.” Is that how it is? Kinda seems . . . How did you describe it? Oh yes, “pretty closed and small minded thinking.”
No, they’re bigots if they judge someone because of who or what they are.
Maybe instead of lighting your hair on fire and attacking me as outraged or small minded, you might consider addressing the content of my comment.
Virtue signaling to whom? You? The people of NT?
Guess you didn't read the above. Here ^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the comment for your edification. It is descriptive of those referred to in the comment.
What you are doing is calling anybody who acts as the Staal brothers bigots. YOUR words not mine in 3 above:
They are refusing to capitulate their beliefs just to give somebody that warm fuzzy feeling. Regardless of what the hive think is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The only people "outraged" by it are those that have been virtue signaling.
Then what is the real reason?
I didn’t say they were bigots. I said maybe. I gave lots of examples of messaging and made comments about it. You are ignoring it.
No I didn’t. I talked about the appearance of taking a stand on this issue.
However, do you understand what bigotry is? If you think this is not an example of it, explain why.
Are you suggesting that no one should have a response to this? No one should form an opinion?
They support all sorts of things and people. They were their nation’s flag. They endorse products. They have a cancer charity. But they won’t stand up (by merely wearing a jersey they have to wear anyway) against violence and discrimination against a group of people because they are gay. What would you call that?
The only response or opinion acceptable is one the alt+right populist propaganda outrage machine tells you to have.
Forming the issue as a political stance is exactly all we need to know about the bigoted populists. Being gay or trans isn't a political stance.
It's pretty much the textbook definition of hypocritical bigot.
I call that standing up for one's beliefs. What you are implying is one of the most fucked up assumptions I've heard.
So states aren't fucking over LGBTQ+ students and adults?
As opposed to a few football players not wanting to stand for the National Anthem?
They are free to have their own opinions just the same as I do to think they are hypocritical gay hating bigots.
The NHLs hockey jersey for support of LGBTQ+? It's pretty much fucking ON TOPIC.
2? No? The whole organization, might get some fans to challenge their beliefs. The more people that are challenged and change to stand up for the rights of all the stronger our communities and our country will be in the end.
Not before the populist right got all butthurt and called for boycotts and mass firings and made the League change the rules last year.
HA! More personal attacks? You should use some facts, logic and reason to challenge my position.
Okay now that you've move the goal posts of the conversation lets see where this goes?
See logic and reason...
Breads and circuses were the last refuge of Rome before it's fall too. I know... hyperbolic, but apt.
Some fans might care about the rights of an oppressed minority too.
Ouch! Even more personal attacks. Can't logic your way out of wet paper bag then get personal. That's the way Trump does it that's the way we do it in America!
It's the simplest of logic. Stand for the rights of other and they will stand up for you. I oppose bullies. I'm not so much opposing these two social rejects in question, but the whole anti-LGBTQ+ stance the populist right wants to scapegoat. Before them it was Muslim Americans, before them it was Hispanics, Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Polish, Chinese, Irish... whatever... Bigotry is wrong. Right now the right is starting their campaign legislating against trans children and their parents, bills are being formed to expand that further to try and outlaw the whole trans care system. Strategies are being formed to overturn same sex marriage using the same faulty logic that overturned Roe. It's wrong.
By all means, feel free to disagree with me. It would be wonderful if you supported that position with a reasoned argument, so we had something to talk about other than how . But to claim that my position was arrived at without logic or reason is simply dishonest, as I have laid out actual reasons and logic behind my thoughts.
The thing is, they aren’t really being asked to even go that far. The team or the league or whatever is not asking them to stand up for anything, just to shut up and play hockey. Instead, these guys went out of their way to make an issue of it.
I’ll compare this to Colin Kaepernick. I don’t need him to think America is a great country, but I would prefer if he just stood there like everyone else while the anthem played. Instead, he had to go out of his way to let everyone know how much he doesn’t like America.
‘’And we aren’t supposed to come to the same conclusion about the hockey players who won’t wear a rainbow?
People say a lot of things that conflict with their actions.
No, it's easier to legislate hate at the State level.
Nope, not oblivious. Just opposed to it.
I will continue to champion the ideals we say this country is founded on, but has a shitty history trying to live up to.
The article, and your argument, is asking everyone who doesn't agree to be silent.
It's disingenuous to claim they are being picked on.
I actually don’t know if that’s true. I don’t know the NHL rules on uniforms. Regardless, I’m free to have an opinion about it and express that here. As public figures operating in a public context, their actions are particularly open to public scrutiny and judgment. And if you or they don’t like it, that’s just too bad.
So why can’t I have that approach with the hockey players?
Anyone can influence others through words or deeds. Public figures often have more power of influence than non-celebrities. It’s possible that Kaepernick’s actions encouraged others to commit violence against police. Perhaps it encouraged protesters to be more destructive than they otherwise might have been.
It’s also possible that these hockey players will embolden someone to discriminate or attack someone for being LGBT. At minimum, though, they have sent a message about who they are, and people will have opinions about that.
They have had ample opportunity, but it doesn’t appear to be forthcoming. Instead, all I have seen is attacks on those of us who might disagree. The only defense of the hockey players has been “it’s their right . . . Shut up!”
I guess some people “insult” easy.
Who you hang around is irrelevant. People are influenced by others and that’s a fact. Even the Staal brothers know that or they wouldn’t object to the Pride uniform. After all, if these things have no influence, it won’t matter if they wear the jersey, will it?
Whining about them being called bigots is a deflection. I have yet to see anyone here defend or justify their choice beyond “it’s their right,” followed by something along the lines of “how dare you!”
Don't be obtuse. Your too smart to play dumb and I have too much respect for you to think you are. Let's stop trying to push each others buttons just for the sake of doing so? Okay?
I'm not demanding anything. I'm pointing out hypocrisy and bigotry.
I don't think I have.
Framing the issue as poor insignificant hockey players are being picked on is incredibly disingenuous. They aren't being picked on. They are being called out on their stance based solely on hypocrisy and bigotry. Bigotry born by mistranslation and bias.
Then your sanctimonious “exception” is a lie. But keep deflecting since you have no defense for the Staals.
Well, they aren’t doing that and neither are you.
Maybe try compassion instead.
I read their book. It's a number 1 seller and I have several copies on my book shelves.
Bottom line is that those two brothers took a stand based on their religious beliefs and the LGBT community and the liberal left went ape s*#t over it. Blatant double standard here. If the two brothers had been LGBT demanding to wear pride themed colors the LGBT community and the hard core liberal left would fall over backwards to accommodate them.
Yes, people no matter they liberal or conservative, straight or gay tend to question one's opposition to them.
No... You'll need to explain your thinking here.
This is true and the Anti-LGBTQ+ community is bending backwards to accommodate them. What would we be talking about if they were pro gun control because of their religious beliefs and wanted to wear anti-gun patches?
Not my argument, but I think you know that. No, I’m suggesting you find some compassion for victims of anti-LGBT violence, as opposed to crying crocodile tears for these two hockey players. But I have already explained that, as well.
So you’re calling me a bozo, now? It’s ok for you to call me names? But it’s not ok to call hockey players names? Seems hypocritical.
And by the way, I haven’t called them names at all. I have commented on their words, actions, and possible motivations, but I haven’t called them names.
So they claim. I’m not convinced.
[DELETED]
Sounds like a you problem. They don't owe you an explanation.
Who? The Staals? They offered an explanation. Did you read your own seed?
Why did you seed the story if you don’t want people to react to it?
Agree to disagree
You stated you weren't convinced. That's a you problem.
"No... You'll need to explain your thinking here."
Sorry, I don't need to explain anything. As far as I am concerned, what I posted speaks for itself.
That really upsets you, doesn’t it?
Okay...
[Deleted]
Not true. You have called the brothers hypocrites on at least one occasion if not more. I think that more than qualifies as name calling.
Not true, but then another misrepresentation of my words is not surprising. None of you are actually reading what I write, and none of you are contributing anything to an analysis of the story. You just feign outrage over pretended insults that wouldn’t even be directed at you, if true.
What I said was that their actions or words seemed hypocritical. I have also invited others to weigh in on whether or not they are hypocrites. I have not called them hypocrites myself. (I actually ran a search of the whole page just to double check.) Though for the life of me, I can’t imagine why you should care either way.
Same shit, different day. Attacks on me; whining about words I’m not saying; and zero attempt to actually analyze the seed or my comments for their content.
Let the name calling and labeling begin. Define bigot. So everyone with religious beliefs is supposedly a bigot?
Kinda presumptuous and judgmental comment it seems to me
[DELETED]
Once upon a time, the gay movement was about tolerance and the right to live their lives without being targeted for their lifestyle. That battle was won decades ago.
The switch has flipped, the demand is not tolerance, it's to be celebrated.
Its like the Seinfeld episode where Kramer is attacked for not wanting to wear an AIDS ribbon at a march. "You must wear the Ribbon!"
Except instead of just fellow marchers attacking people for not engaging in compelled speech, it's billion dollar corporations, the media and people's employers pressuring speech and demanding conformity.
Kramer, said "This is America and I don't have to wear anything I don't want to." Not really anymore, the personal now must be displayed in public.
Not hardly.
Non discrimination laws by state
In many places in the United States, a person can legally be denied employment, housing, or credit just because they’re gay.
LGBT people are also more likely than others to be victims of violent crime because they are gay.
LGBT people nine times more likely than non-LGBT people to be victims of violent hate crimes
Key Findings
Title IX forbids employment discrimination against homosexuals. Nor can a lender discriminate on the basis of sexual identity. Gay people are not subject to legal discrimination any more than any other class of people.
BT people are also more likely than others to be victims of violent crime because they are gay.
That's true. Straight people are not very likely to be victims of violent crime for being gay.
I guess as long as someone, somewhere, is the victim of a hate crime the whole group is oppressed (the overwhelming support of government and industry be damned). Since white people are sometimes victimized in hate rimes, white people are oppressed and persecuted and America apparently refuses to tolerate white people.
I just . . . There are no words for this. It’s like saying white people are not likely to be victims of violent crime for being black. Or are you being funny on purpose?
Title IX is a narrow law that requires gender equality in an educational setting that receives federal funding. It doesn’t have anything to do with private employers, public accommodations, banking, housing, or a million other settings in which a person could be discriminated against.
My mistake, it was Title VII. It does outlaw discrimination against gay people in employment.
This is as of the Bostok decision, but that was only 2020 - not decades ago. Naturally, there are exceptions. It doesn’t cover small employers. There are also religious exceptions. And it only applies to employment, of course.
Sure employment discrimination against homosexuals was very widespread before 2020. Corporations sure hate gay people.
I don't think you are grasping the point. Groups facing actual persecution don't have the government and billion dollar corporations promoting their interests. They are actually persecuted, not "persecuted" because an athlete won't participate in their public relations events.
Naturally, there are exceptions. It doesn’t cover small employers. T
Just like every other group, so small employers can discriminate against white people too.
d it only applies to employment, of cours
and Equal Credit Opportunity Act applies to lending etc..
The very fact that you have to scrounge around to find exceptions that MIGHT allow someone, somewhere to discriminate against gays makes my point. Groups facing actual persecution don't have the law to protect them, and don't claim discrimination when they can't force others to act as they demand. They are simply persecuted .
You are correct. It has gone from having equal treatment because of orientation, which I was all for, to having special treatment which I am against. If that makes me a bigot, then so be it.
They do? They go against their religious beliefs? Is that really true? What religion are they? (Performs quick Google check) Says here, they claim to be Christians.
So are they really good Christians? Or are they bigoted hypocrites? We report. You decide!
First, let’s see what Jesus had to say about being gay. (Performs quick read of the Gospels and Acts) Gee, not a fucking thing. Not one word.
What, matter of fact, did he preach about? Hmmm. Blah blah Kingdom of God blah blah. Oh, here’s something about the other cheek. I think it’s a metaphor for non-violence, but I could be wrong.
Well Eric and Marc have been penalized half a dozen times between them for serious fighting. So much for that part of their religious beliefs.
As I read the Bible, I see Jesus talk a lot about the acquisition and hoarding of extreme wealth.
How are the Staals doing threading that needle? In their respective professional hockey careers, Marc has made over $56 million and Eric has brought home over $87 million. Did they give it all to the poor? Fuck no! They live in mansions.
There’s also a lot of stuff in here about grace, mercy, compassion and all that mushy stuff - like, don’t condemn people even if you think they’re wrong.
So, even if you think the religious law forbids something, it is God who will judge them, not you. ‘Why is this part important?,” you might ask.
Well, it’s because Pride is not simply about endorsing guys doing it with other guys. It’s about standing up for what’s right. People are killed because they are gay. People are assaulted because they are gay. People are denied jobs or fired from the ones they have because they are gay. People are denied housing because they are gay. And in about half the states, these last two points are still supported by law. Pride is a chance to speak up against that injustice even if you think God doesn’t want people to be gay.
Or, when given the painless opportunity to stand in solidarity with your fellow human beings, by just wearing a rainbow on a jersey you have to wear anyway, you could skip it. You can say, “yeah I don’t really give a shit that all those terrible things that happen to people just because they are gay.”
You might wonder, if it is the Staals’ place as Christians to concern themselves with the troubles of LGBT people. I think it is.
Are you the Grand Inquisitor, determining who is and who isn't a "real Christian?"
That’s a lot of drama.
Do you blindly accept the claim of “it’s my religion” to justify any action without further examination? Isn’t examining what people say and do precisely what we do on this site? Why do you object to scrutiny of their claim?
No, but absent other evidence, I accept someone's word about their beliefs and understand that not all Christians think exactly alike. Nor all Muslims, or Communists etc... Plenty of wars prove that point.
hy do you object to scrutiny of their claim?
Because telling other people that their religious beliefs are wrong and insincere is not really anyone's business. I may not agree with their beliefs, or their justification for it, but who am I to say the beliefs aren't sincere simply because I don't like them. If there's no reason to believe they aren't acting in good faith,(and there's no reason I've seen to doubt these players) than it doesn't behoove anyone to start branding others heretics.
And normally, I wouldn’t. But these guys - these celebrity athletes - issued a public statement. By its very nature, that invites public comment. And then Jeremy went and posted the story here on this site where we routinely talk about these things.
To you and everybody else who insist I have no business commenting on this, I have to ask: Are you all out of your fucking minds? Where do you think we are????
There is a reason, as I explained elsewhere. I find their interpretation of Christ’s teachings to be wrong, and I find their pretended piety to be bullshit by reason of their obvious inconsistency in adherence to it.
Everyone has a right to their beliefs and the freedom to celebrate, or not celebrate, other people's attributes,....after all, this is the USA.
I certainly wouldn't allow myself to be compelled to participate in celebrating or recognizing someone simply because of their sexual orientation.
It's none of my business.
I have not said otherwise.
However, when a celebrity, makes a public statement about those beliefs, the public has a right to react to them. In case you haven’t figured it out, that’s what we do around here.
Would you like to take a stab at defending or explaining their choice?
Turning a blind eye to injustice tends to embolden it. Do as you will, of course, but when I have the opportunity to make a simple gesture that might show support to victims, I don’t push it away.
We won’t judge you but we think you’re going to Hell for who you are and how you live. Also, we’d go to Hell too if we showed you any support.
But yeah, no judgment.
They are Canadians, no bigotry there. ; > )
Some people may just want to play/watch sports without all the superfluous bullshit. Then along come some people that feel the need to label them bigots (or racist or homophobes or whatever the name of the day is) rather than respect them for what they want or don't want to do. In this case I have to wonder if the people judging and screaming the loudest are even hockey fans or just looking to bully people into submission..
If that were true, those same people wouldn’t want to put up with the national anthem every game, the music, the ads, the trivia contests, the kiss cams, etc. They’d also object to military days or breast cancer awareness days. But they don’t. They only object to this one thing.
No one ever said they were, did they? Why make “points” that no one disagrees with?
However, as public figures making public statements about what they support, it would be foolish and naive, in the extreme, to imagine that the public should not have an opinion.
Even worse, it strains credulity to imagine that the story should be posted to a discussion site, but no one should post an opinion disagreeing with it. And yet, here you all are - complaining that lil ole me should dare to take issue with their statement.
It is no longer enough to live and let live. Now if you are not an activist to their cause you are a bigot. They are just trying to bully normal folks into submission.
There are plenty of people that don't partake in the things you mentioned and few if any people try to shove it down their throat like you and so many lefties seem to.
They aren’t being asked to participate. The hockey players are not being asked to have gay sex. They’re just being asked to do their job while the team and the league promote whatever they want to promote.
I’m not shoving anything down their throat. I’m opining on their stated reason for not wearing the uniform of the day.
Were that the situation, they could have simply said, “no comment.” However, that was not the case. They issued a statement. They didn’t have to say anything.
As I stated earlier, it was fine when the gay community were demanding equality and fairness, which I had no problem and agreed with. That has now morphed into special treatment that I damned well do not agree with. Many in the alphabet population are now throwing fits when people do not go out of their way to appease them.
Reminds me of the backlash when people that thought players of a privately held team should not be forced to stand for the National Anthem and should be able to do what they want and not have their patriotism second guessed..
Please tell me you don't actually believe that. No comment replies and ignoring the question would not stop the journalist and others looking for bigots everywhere to draw their own conclusions. You see it every day on the cable "news" stations.
Although I agree some of the alphabet population are doing that I have to wonder how many of the people screaming bigot from the roof top aren't liberal elites who think they know what is best for the community or just want to show everyone how woke they are.
I know it’s upsetting to be thought of, or spoken about, as a bigot. Maybe some of that can be avoided by not referring to people as “the alphabet population.”
Conservative non-elites don’t think they know what is best for the community? They don’t want to show everyone how righteous they are? Everyone’s got an opinion. They’re not bad people for expressing it.
I can’t help what other people speculate about. But here, they issued a statement, so we have something real to consider. Other players - and even whole teams - aren’t taking part. I’m not talking about them because I don’t have their stated reasons in front of me.
Yep. And I have always said those players should stand there like everybody else during the anthem.
Alphabet Soup People? How degrading...
Possibly the members of this "alphabet population" could refer to themselves a simply fellow human beings.
By trying to separate themselves into multiple categories causes some of the animosity amongst other populations.
By separating themselves, they also look for recognition that most other groups do not.
DEMANDING this recognition to be accepted does not make many friends.
Not what he said. Read it again
“…Possibly the members of this "alphabet population" could refer to themselves a simply fellow human beings.”
If only those ‘fellow human beings’ could ignore the alphabet.
Some truth to that, however, to do so, the "alphabet" needs to back off and stop demanding they be accepted by everyone.
Human beings don't work like that naturally.
Equal Equals Equal. = = =
Well, this made no sense i context to anything I posted, but, hey......
At least it isn't a stupid meme
So, how dare they demand equal rights?
This is already settled and your side lost.
“…Some truth to that, however…”
No however, bugsy.
There is either acceptance or disapproval.
Acceptance with understanding there may be disagreements is being an adult.
Disapproval without understanding is but being childish.
The word has all but lost it's meaning thanks to some that call everyone names that do not agree with them. Not so sure how upsetting it is to be called a name by someone that really has no clue what they are talking about.
Are you hungry?
“…The word has all but lost it's meaning…”
…welcome to being ‘woke’…
No, you can accept them as humans, but you can disapprove of their lifestyle.
I personally don't care, but when it becomes "in your face and we demand you accept what we do", it tends to turn others off.
Who in this country does not have equal rights, and what rights do they not have that everyone else does?
“…I personally don't care,…”
….but of course you do, or you would let it go, let ‘them’ be, and simply move on.
They are not the ones who have done the separating. They are not the ones who criminalized them or the way they live. They are not the ones who have targeted them as victims of discrimination or violent crime.
Granted the quote is wrong, but are you suggesting that what was written was ok?
It remains legal to deny employment and housing based on sexual preferences and sexual identity in over half the United States. Opposition to equity for all persons base on race, sex, ancestry, religion, sexual preferences or gender identity is bigotry. Team management has every right to support equality by indicating so on their uniforms and to dismiss any of the team members who object to wearing them...
Almost three years ago, SCOTUS issued it decision in Bostock v. Clayton County,which held that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes employment discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender.
Doesn't the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is sex discrimination?
Bingo.
Like I stated before. Equal and fair treatment I am all for. Special treatment, oh Hell no!
Substitute ‘recognition’ for ‘treatment’ and you have a point.
No one does that because to do so is a crime.
"hey are not the ones who have targeted them as victims of discrimination or violent crime."
No, they claim they are victims, they get in your face and demand that we accept their way of life. If they just went about their lives peacefully, they would not be bringing this strife upon themselves.
If you don't want to be front and center with your stupidity, don't go to peaceful protests and cause a ruckus, including throwing punches at people you don't like.
That may get you a trip to the hospital, or rightfully so, because of self defense, a trip to the morgue.
Again, I don't care what kind of lifestyle they live. I have accepted them as humans but I DO NOT have to accept their lifestyles.
Show us where this happens.
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this seed, the Supreme Court only made it illegal for housing providers or employers to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation or gender identity in 2020 in the Bostok case. Further, the ruling has the usual ministerial exemption (a often interpreted very broadly), and it also exempts businesses with less than 15 employees.
But again, that’s just a few years ago. It would be dishonest to look at this ruling and say that America has some kind of history of treating LGBT people equally and fairly. As of the date of the opinion, 21 states still did not have laws outlawing this discrimination. So it wasn’t illegal, and people did do it.
And just as laws granting legal equality to women and people of color hasn’t changed behavior overnight, neither will this decision. I’m sure if you’re honest, you’ll admit that you pulled “no one does that” out of your ass.
How are they getting in your face that’s so out of line? In my experience, everyone’s life is in my face. Straight couples hold hands and kiss in public. Their relationships are everywhere in entertainment. People of different races, religions, and culture are in our face, too. What’s so unusual about LGBT people?
Gee, they seem pretty peaceful to me. Are you suggesting there is something inherently and extraordinarily violent about LGBT people? I have never before heard this connection between Pride and violence. Please elaborate.
What are you talking about, now? Are we still talking about hockey? Here’s a video of this seed’s Marc Staal throwing a few punches:
He seems pretty violent. Is it because he’s secretly gay?
Or are you talking about this?:
Seems like you are misrepresenting that fight there. It starts with both players throwing a punch. It does not show what led up to the fight or even who threw the first punch. If you are trying to prove a point with that video, at least try to be objective about it.
No point. In fact, I posed multiple questions to you and you failed to answer any of them.
And they were answered by me and others. You just did not like the answers you got because they did not fit your particular worldviews that you expect everybody else to share and you responded with denigration and deflection. So spare us any perceived or false umbrage on your part. You have a good night Sir.
Actually I thought I was still talking to bugsy. Your contributions have been empty and continue to be so. I was hoping I might get an adult conversation from a different person. You don’t need to chime in since you have nothing to say.
You were not answering bugsy. See post #6.1.45 above. I am sorry that you just do not like people disagreeing with you. I will just put you on my ignore list so chiming in will no longer be a issue. Goodbye.
Why should a person have to wear a logo supporting something they don't like?
For example; Should a store that sells guns, along with many other products, be able to make employees wear an NRA or Smith & Wesson cap to promote sales in the gun department?
When I played team sports we wore the uniform.
If we wanted to be on the team...
Was it a derivative of an indigenous peoples name?
Nope, The Slaughterhouse Poor Boys...
Ha, no doubt..
Never heard of them. Did you have a gutted carcass as a mascot?
I imagine that was the uniform....
They wore their uniform.
They're being paid millions of dollars, that's why. They are free to quit, of course.
Yes. These hockey players already do stuff like that. Their uniforms are covered with corporate endorsements. So is the playing surface and the arena.
You can not make an employee wear a political or religious symbol
And anyway, I would not necessarily consider Pride support to be either political or religious. Is it political or religious when these guys wear pink to support breast cancer research?
By the logic shown here, could Hobby Lobby make employees wear religious pins?