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
86 visitors
Somebody might want to let the progressives know this.
Let the outrage begin.
Far too many refuse to accept that fact.
I believe it already has.
When you are called a bigot for not wearing something you don't support, then reason and logic is in short supply.
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.
You nailed it.
The people who talk the most about tolerance are often the ones demonstrating the least of it.
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?
Just as with Trump--if liberals don't think you show what they consider the "proper" amount of support (or condemnation in Trump's case), then you are a bigot, or a white supremacist, or anti-alphabet soup.
A child-like argument made by children.
Guess you didn't read the above. Here ^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the comment for your edification. It is descriptive of those referred to in the comment.
If you can show where the hockey players judged anyone, do so.
If you can not, then it makes your little quip about them being bigots prove exactly what we have been talking about. You seem intolerant of the players because they refused to wear something promoting something they don't agree with.
I bet you took a whole 'nother view of players kneeling, didn't you?
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.
I believe the players expressed their views succinctly.
Did you bother to read why they wouldn't wear the jerseys?
Why must alphabet soup be celebrated anyways? Did the NHL promote a 'heterosexual month"?
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.
Play the games if you wish. Your comment is pretty clear. You are even wondering yourself if they are bigots because they won't support the cause!
Absolutely nothing they did or said qualifies them as bigots, and you wondering that they MAY be is just out of bounds and rather silly.
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?
Not at all. I am proposing that suggesting the players are bigots as you have done is simply wrongheaded thinking sans logic and reason.
You may hold whatever opinion you choose, I don't care.
People who demand that others stand up for things they personally don't support is perplexing, to say the least. Shouldn't the players--as you suggested above--have the ability to form their own opinions?
The argument that people who don't support certain causes makes them bigots is silly and a weak argument.
Did you even read their statement?
I don't know how any of this statement qualifies them as bigots, but I am ready to listen to some spin on it.
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.
That is simply false. I see absolutely no one condemning anyone other than those intolerant people labeling the hockey players as bigoted.
I don't see anyone saying don't have a special night, event, or month, just acknowledging the fact that not everyone feels the same support for whatever cause others are supporting.
This is just a few players not wanting to wear something. The players didn't knock anyone.
the only real intolerance here is coming from folks condemning the players for having their own opinions.
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.
Stick to the topic--hockey players refusing to wear something they don't personally support.
Do you think a couple of hockey players wearing a little rainbow will change laws?
It was more than a few, and they did it, just like the hockey players did what they did.
Well, you are always free to form your own opinion without using facts, logic or reason.
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, so now we have established the fact that you don't know the difference between how laws are passed and hockey players wearing a patch.
The whole organization (NHL) indeed might do that. A few players not going along won't affect that in any way.
If the NHL changed its own rules, it did so for economic reasons.
Fans who buy tickets and watch on tv pay for the league to survive.
I have, and it isn't my problem you are having difficulty recognizing it.
How do these players actions and statements affect you? Or gay people?
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.
And absolutely no one is asking them not to.
That is the whole point you seem oblivious to.
Do whatever you want, don't just demand that everyone jumps on board.
The players aren't asking anyone else to do anything, so I really don't see why the invective is hurled their way.
Failure to read the players' statement and comprehend it leads to posts like yours.
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.
I have, and do.
But not nearly as wonderful as you recognizing it when it is clearly before you.
The logic you miss is that the players are free to not wear something supporting something they don't support. Instead of being hypocrites and quietly going along, they took a stand. That doesn't make them bigots to me. The players are not asking anyone else to think as they do, and are not asking the league or team to stop the promotion. If that seems unreasonable to you personally, so be it. We will always disagree on that then.
Kaepernick had every right to do what he did. Doesn't mean I agreed with his actions. I wish people would look at what the hockey players did in the same way. Kaepernick didn't hurt anyone and neither did the hockey players.
Seems like an odd way of looking at a statement of WHY they did what they did.
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!”
Well, you will have a real point if and when the hockey players run for office, are elected, and vote on laws. Until then, you are really stretching.
I had no idea that forcing beliefs on someone or demanding they do what YOU want are ideals at all, never mind ones that out country was founded on.
Then you have grossly misunderstood my comments and the article.
Being called bigots solely because they didn't support a cause you do is hardly fair. It IS disingenuous, however.
I never said you couldn't. In fact, I have told you and others you are entitled to your opinion. Don't insult me by pretending otherwise.
You may be right. I hang around people who can think for themselves and don't know anyone who did something because a celebrity did it. I fail to see how Kaepernick's actions would lead anyone to commit violence. I am sure some idiots MIGHT use it as an excuse, but I wouldn't be buying it.
That is a real stretch, too--as much as your stretch on Kaepernick.
Since the hockey players did not discriminate or attack anyone, the point is rather silly.
Just like the people who chose to wear the patch did.
Calling them bigots is out of line and not based on facts.
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!”
I can't believe I need to explain the insult to you but here we are.
It is an insult to my intelligence for you to pretend that I have said you aren't entitled to an opinion.
Are you even aware how that comment comes across? In the first part, you say who I hang around with is irrelevant, then you try to claim people are influenced by others. I AM influenced by those I associate with, as is almost everyone.
Conversely, it won't matter if they don't, right?
No one is whining. I am pointing out I take exception to your using the term bigot to describe people who don't do what you want them to and for no other reason.
Why do you think the players have to justify anything at all to you? Or why do you think I have to on their behalf?
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.
I am not aware of their specific denomination or what interpretations of the Bible it uses.
Thanks for informing me.
Where did you find their church's stance on it?
Then your sanctimonious “exception” is a lie. But keep deflecting since you have no defense for the Staals.
No, just a misconception on your part.
Aren't you taking exception to them for not wearing what you wanted them to?
That's simply ludicrous. They don't need defending from people insisting they are bigots.
What they need is to educate people who think because they don't wear something they are bigots so that those poor souls can become better informed.
Well, they aren’t doing that and neither are you.
Yes, I admit defeat.
It proved to be an impossible task.
Maybe try compassion instead.
Compassion?
I have plenty of compassion for folks who are called bigots for no other reason than they refused to wear something supporting something they don't agree with.
They are the ones deserving of my compassion in this.
Not bozos calling them names for not supporting your pet cause of the day.
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.
titles?
if you didn't call them names it wouldn't apply to you now would it?
[DELETED]
[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.
So, what bothers you most--the fact that they have made money, are Christians, or simply refuse to wear an emblem of something they don't personally support?
Is their support or lack of it having any effect on anyone else but themselves?
I’m not “bothered” because I’m not invested in them in any way. But they do appear to be hypocrites.
What is it you think they do or don’t support? No one is asking them to be gay - just to support the basic humanity of those who are.
So, to you, they are bigots and hypocrites. Dude, do us all a favor and just shut up. They bullshit you are rambling off is tired and has no effect any more. Yes, we get it, your offended. We don't care you're offended.
Okay, but your post reads far differently. You specifically called them out for making money and being Christian. And not supporting what you deem acceptable to you personally.
Again (sigh) did you READ their statement?
Now, with another opportunity to see what the players had to say about it, what do you see that is bigoted in their statement?
What do you see them supporting here?
That seems clear enough to me, but what do you think it means?
Or what? How embarrassing that you want to defend the rights of these hockey players, but you want to silence me because you don’t like what I have to say.
Aren't you embarrassed for accusing the players of being bigots because they don't subscribe to your particular notions of how they should act, and you don't like it?
No, because I’m not trying to silence them. I’m disagreeing with them. Period, end of story. Jeremy doesn’t like what I have to say, so he wants me to stop talking. Do you have any words for him about freedom of speech? Open debate? Tolerance?
No, I called them out for being full of shit. For being hypocrites.
Wearing a jersey or a patch on a jersey that is part of the uniform your boss gives you is not a real big ask, generally speaking. You have to wear the jersey regardless of whether you like its style or design. You know that, going in. Sometimes they put extra patches on it. Maybe it’s to honor someone who died. Or support cancer research. Whatever. The whole thing really costs you nothing, and you always wear whatever they say they want you to wear.
But then one day you decide you can’t wear a certain patch or color scheme. Ok, fine. I’ll allow that that’s possibly a good stance to take. What if, for example, the league wanted you wear a swastika? I, for one, wouldn’t do that. Here, the rainbow is objectionable. Why? The hockey players say religion.
So, I looked at their religion, and I looked at their life choices. And upon completing my analysis, I call “Bullshit!” on their claim of piety and self-righteousness.
The point of the pride rainbow is not to say who can play hockey.
I am not in the least embarrassed about anything I have said here today.
That's okay, I am empathetic and will be embarrassed for you.
Gee, and to think some folks can read the same sentence and come to the conclusion that the players weren't talking about just people who play hockey, they were including team management, and of course, fans.
Who are you to question their commitment to their own religion?
Why shouldn’t I? They put it out there.
Why are articles posted on this site? Just so we can all stand up and agree with everything? You and Jeremy and Sean are sure eager to shut me up. What are you afraid of?
First off, tell the damn truth. Up to now, I have NEVER told you to shut up, although the temptation has been there.
You can have your opinion. How many times do I need to repeat that to you before you get fucking hint that I am not telling you to shut up?
I take exception to you insinuating the players are bigots because they chose not to support this cause.
You just got through questioning my right to comment on their religious belief:
And rather than debate the matter, you said you “take exception” to my opinion. Does that not mean you object to me expressing it?
Also, I have invited you to respond to others who literally told me to shut up. You’ll defend the Staal’s and their right to expression, though. Seems hypocritical.
But I’d be glad to be wrong. I’d also be glad to see you - or anyone - make a real attempt at defending the Staal brothers.
No, it means I consider it a very weak, poor argument but that doesn't mean I don't think you can hold it however much I think it is wrong. If not debate, what are you doing?
Please know I am not responsible for what anyone but ME says. I keep on telling you I think you have every right to express yourself, why do you seemingly insist I haven't?
If you have a problem with what someone else says to you, please take it up with THEM. I am not here to fight your battles with others.
You should be positively giddy with glee then.
I have, but I can't make you read or comprehend the posts.
I'll try one last time to get through:
The brothers are well within their rights. the NHL is well within in its rights to support whatever it is they want. Just because someone doesn't support something does not make them bigots. They said absolutely nothing derogatory about it.
That may be or it may not be, depending on NHL rules. Nevertheless, the point is irrelevant to this discussion because I have not opined on their legal rights.
That has never been my position. I would never claim someone was a bigot solely because they didn’t support something for the simple reason that that’s not what the word means. Your repeated insistence on this straw man is a deflection.
My position is that their claim of religious belief appears bogus and hypocritical. There is no valid Christian justification in my view for their position and I have explained why I think that is so. I have cited multiple scriptures and referenced specific teachings by Jesus in his ministry.
These fakers have cited nothing other than “religion.” And neither have you or anyone else. Instead, you ignored my references and rational argument and complained that I am calling people bigots for no reason, which is not true.
I'll just put you down as "against the freedom of expression if it clashes with what you support" then and be done with it.
Another lie. Another personal attack.
Wake me when you have something to say about the actual issues.
You should be.
Since I have been talking about the issue, you being awake won't make any difference in your vision.
No, you haven’t. You’ve been talking mostly about me. Your comments on the topic have been limited to words to the effect of, “they have the right.”
[Deleted]
Your whole argument consists of:
"They claimed it is against their religious beliefs. I don't think they are the kind if Christians I want them to be. Therefore, they are bigots because they refuse to jump aboard the alphabet train."
So weak.
So typical.
So expected.
That is NOT what Tacos! wrote. His argument, obviously (read his words), is that the Staal's claim that wearing a jersey in support of LGBTQ+ goes against their religious beliefs does not hold water. He has argued that they are Christians and that Christianity (Jesus-centric religious philosophy) does not have any belief regarding homosexuality, etc. He has further argued that their own behavior goes against actual Christian beliefs.
So your rebuttal, if you disagree and are not simply trolling, would be to show how Christianity requires believers to reject homosexuality, etc.
I don't need, want, or desire you to explain plainly written English to me.
I know what Tacos wrote and addressed it.
Thanks anyway.
No, you merely attacked Tacos!. Focus on what he wrote and make an argument. Twisting his words and making it personal is just trolling.
I really do admire your desire to defend what Tacos wrote, but as an adult I feel he made his point quite well without any help from you.
I did, so it wasn't necessary for you to write that.
Funny stuff coming from you.
You misunderstand (shock). I am not defending what Tacos! wrote, I am pointing out your misrepresentation of same and your focus on him personally.
"I have not opined on their legal rights."
Perhaps not but you sure have zero problem maligning them and calling them hypocrites for their religious beliefs simply because you don't like or accept their beliefs.
It’s not simple. I laid out a pretty detailed analysis of the issue. If you can say that I maligned them simply because I don’t agree with them, then you clearly didn’t read my analysis.
troll someone else
That’s hilarious coming from you
you would do well to stay out of it.
I understood what he wrote. I don't need an explanation from you
Or what?
there is no what, just a bit of free helpful advice.
you're welcome.
"I'd be real glad to see you - or anyone make a real attempt at defending the Staal brothers."
People have done so several times and you have shot them all down, denigrated, and/or deflected every time. You do not want to hear anything except your own viewpoint and that is it.
I did in fact read it. I just disagreed with it that's all.
Thank you for seeing this as it actually is.
They have not. The sole argument offered has been that it’s their right. Considering that we’re talking about a uniform required by a private employer, and no one has cited NHL rules, the people making that argument don’t even know if it’s true.
In any event, my comments never touched on their rights, but rather on their claim of religious belief.
Which part, and why?
The fact that the team AND the NHL has handed down no punishments and didn't suspend the players for exercising their rights should provide you with some clues that their actions are acceptable to folks who don't think that they are bigots because they don't support some thing.
No, it just tells me that the NHL probably can’t do anything about it, or the fight isn’t worth the trouble. They obviously want everyone to participate. It doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not anyone connected to the league thinks the players are bigots. Personally, I don’t care what they think, and my analysis was never about that.
That’s why every time you, or others, start waxing sanctimoniously about their rights, I remind you that that’s irrelevant to the topic. I have never made the argument that they are required to take part. Every time you guys bring it up, it’s an attempt at deflection.
Look, I get why you want to brush aside any talk of rights.
After all, you consider them bigots.
I haven’t brushed anything aside. I have responded to this irrelevant point multiple times now. I AGREE that they may have the right, depending on NHL rules. However, that was not my concern, nor was it a stated reason for their choice, and so my analysis did not include it. That’s why debating it is not relevant.
In a public setting, in America, you of course have a right to be a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole. That’s the First Amendment. But just because it’s a legal right, that does not mean it’s the correct moral choice. The stated reason for their choice was religious morality.
For the gazillionth time, my focus is on whether or not they made the proper moral choice based on their claim of religious belief. You and everyone else still have yet to address that.
People HAVE addressed those things with you. I just don't understand why you think anyone needs to justify their position to satisfy YOU.
The players don't want to promote the alphabet lifestyle. Big deal, hurts absolutely NO ONE, especially if you discount the hurt feelings.
Calling them bigots is an example of narrow-mindedness, wanting others to conform to your ideals.
You proclaim them bigots for not kowtowing to the liberal mantra.
Gee, then wouldn't your little trip down "Bigot Lane" also be completely irrelevant?
Where?
No sense in pointing out what you refuse to see.
Am I a bigot because I support the players' choice?
Hypothetically? Depends on the reason for their choice and your reason for supporting it. But unlike you, I’m not here to talk about other members. I’m here to talk about the subject of the seed.
If it concerns you that your beliefs are perceived as bigotry, perhaps you should reflect on that.
what makes them a bigot?
A bigot negatively judges someone because of their membership in a group or some immutable characteristic like race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. That is my understanding and use of the word. (It doesn’t have shit to do with whether or not someone agrees with me.)
Pride, as I have previously explained, is not about getting people to celebrate hot guy-on-guy action. It’s about getting people to acknowledge that the “alphabet groups,” as they are derisively called (including by you), are worthy of basic human dignity and respect. Further, we acknowledge that that has not been the case, historically, and still isn’t in many places.
It is a statistical fact that LGBTQ people are disproportionately victims of violent crime and discrimination. Pride says that is wrong. Pride says a gay man is just as good and worthy as any other man.
I wouldn’t think that’s such a controversial position - especially for a Christian. Christ valued and loved ALL people equally and unconditionally.
So if these hockey players think that these people are so unworthy of this basic support, and the reason for their choice is because they’re gay or part of some other “alphabet group,” then yeah: they’re bigots.
If people don’t like being thought of as a bigot, then maybe try not acting or speaking like one.
so, even going by your definition of "bigot" the players have done nothing to warrant your bile.
The one I got from the dictionary, but ok, be skeptical.
Do you even read my comments?
I am not skeptical of the definition, I am skeptical of you calling them bigots using the very definition YOU picked out.
Of course I read your comments. That is how I know you consider them bigots for no good reason!
Clearly, you did not.
Clearly I did. How else would I know you consider them BIGOTS because they don't support what you want them to?
Continually misrepresenting what I wrote only proves my point that you aren’t reading. All you have contributed to the topic is to cry about how butthurt you are over one word.
That is such fucking bullshit. You consider them bigots and hypocrites. You don't even HAVE a point, just whining because the players refuse to support something you want them to.
I consider calling them bigots and hypocritical to be the result of your very own prejudices and a lack of tolerance on YOUR part.
Why do you keep posting the same lies? Don’t you have something better to do? Do you imagine that your whining is somehow persuasive? Seriously, talk about the story or my analysis, or kindly fuck off. Your childish attacks only make you look bad.
[deleted]
Oh look another comment from you that is only a personal attack and has nothing to do with discussing the topic. Like I said, if you can’t engage in the basic function of the site, kindly fuck off.
[deleted]
When your topic is me, it’s an attack. Talk about the seed or fuck off.
Bingo!
More like repeatedly falling back on the "misrepresenting" defense to escape admitting he could have misjudged the brothers and possibly been wrong. Instead repeatedly attacking the brothers for their religious beliefs because they did not match his viewpoints and judging them according to his beliefs and standards.
Wrong about what? Not one person has produced an analysis or argument that they made the right choice. All you people do is whine about my negative opinion or a word (or word form, really) that I used. In spite of repeated pleas to get you to engage with the actual content of my analysis, you have failed to do so even one time. Every comment you and the others have made is about how mad you are at me.
The only logical conclusion is that you don’t argue the rightness of their choice for a simple reason: you can’t.
You are roght.
If you don't support some favored cause, allegedly that makes you a bigot and hypocrite.
Could that argument be any more sophomoric?
Wrong in your interpretation of their motives. And yes, people have given you counter arguments that you have chosen to deny as wrong and denigrate their views, again just because they do not match your particular and you repeatedly claim you were misrepresented. And do not ask me to list where it has been posted. You want to know, look it up for yourself as I will not do your homework for you. You do not want discussion or debate, you just want all those that disagreed with you to confirm to your particular views. Because it has to be your way or the highway. The world does not work that way. I am done with you. Have a good day.
Where?
Because you shouldn’t have to support your claims with evidence? Ok
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.
their statement is on another continent from the stuff you invented.
I mean, if you have nothing to say, why do you keep going through the motions? ( that’s rhetorical btw)
not my problem you think people who don't cheer the alphabet groups are bigots.
Again: if you have nothing to add to the topic . . .
again, can I help you?
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.
That is perfectly fine. No one is under obligation to support something they don't want to.
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.
Talk about misconstruing points or just flat out inventing things!!
Sorry, I just refuse to call people bigots and hypocrites because they don't support your cause. I'll leave all that to the ill-informed and mis-informed.
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.
yeah that has to be one if the most ineffective arguments ever made!
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.
He made a very good point without altering his comment.
which would be what, exactly?
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.
them making money has zero to do with anything but nice deflection
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?
want to bet the folks accusing the players of being bigots and hypocrites would have an apoplectic fit over that?