Pride Jersey Controversy

[Which Tyler]

Not quite sure where to put this, is part sport as a whole, part rugby league, part politics... The Folau issue also brings it firmly into Union territory as well.
Probably deserves a thread of it's own, for both importance, and ease of moderating.

TL;DR:
An Aussie NRL team wanted to wear a rainbow trimmed shirt to show inclusiveness, especially of LGBT+ community.
7 players refused to wear the shirt, or play in the match, on religious grounds.
Backlash and recriminations on both sides.

Good article here having a look at the subject of homophobia in Australian sport.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62331136

[Puja]

"Each to their own… if we're asked to respect the pride community then we should also respect the Christian or religious community as well," said New Zealand Warriors player Shaun Johnson.

I hate this argument. The two are absolutely not equivalent. For a start, it's not "the Christian or religious community" it is a select group of that community who take the extreme position that, not only does God hate gay people, but that he wants his followers to vocally set themselves against gay people (despite Jesus being quite clear on the whole "it's not your job to judge" and "even if someone is not of our beliefs, you should treat them kindly" things).

Secondly, tolerance does not require tolerating intolerance. This isn't an evenly balanced situation where there's two equal sides - one side wants to be and the other side wants them not to be. That's not a "we need to give both sides equal time and equal respect" situation. If the church in question had a belief that races should not mix and therefore it was sinful to have a mixed race sports team (not that long ago that that was common), we wouldn't be saying, "Yeah, but it's their religious beliefs, we've gotta respect them, it's a tough moral quandary."

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I can see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the players don’t see to have objected to wearing shirts promoting gambling or alcohol.

On the other, for many these are strongly held beliefs and they are entitled to have them provided they aren’t harming other people by holding them. It’s a bit difference between not wanting to support something and tweeting the abuse Folau spouted.

I’d like to know how this became news as this should have been handled with a bit more sensitivity and discretion. But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

[Puja]

But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

The problem with that is that the message of the Pride jersey and rainbow is very simply, "Gay people shouldn't suffer discrimination."

If someone believes that message is wrong, that is a garbage belief, no matter how strongly and devoutly held it is, in the same way that it would be if "black" or "Jewish" were substituted in for "gay".

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Equally, if an employer has a stated position on equality / inclusiveness, and an employee refuses to acknowledge that position whilst on company time - then they're welcome to find a new employer.

[Stom]

I can see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the players don’t see to have objected to wearing shirts promoting gambling or alcohol.

On the other, for many these are strongly held beliefs and they are entitled to have them provided they aren’t harming other people by holding them. It’s a bit difference between not wanting to support something and tweeting the abuse Folau spouted.

I’d like to know how this became news as this should have been handled with a bit more sensitivity and discretion. But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

I can't possibly see how you can see both sides.

One side has the expressed aim of stopping homophobia.

The other doesn't want to support a message of treating another human being with humanity.

They're twunts of the worst order, and should be fired. No two ways about it. If you cannot moderate your EXTREMISM, you should be sacked. And this is extremism. It's not like they're banning the presentation of Christian imagery, or saying you cannot display a tattoo of a cross or hold a church wedding... They're simply asking them to not be shits. Their inability to accept that kinda exposes them as shits. We shouldn't try to "see their side", we should give them a choice: moderate your extremism, or lose your job.

[cashead]

It's a pretty clear case of a bunch of lads packing a sad because they think them gays are icky. Funny how they don't have any issue with playing in jerseys that advertise booze companies and gambling agencies and banks (like, for real. The one time Jesus got pissed and threw hands, it was at a bunch of money lenders), or play in jerseys made from mixed fabrics, or play on the Sabbath.

One would almost think they're full of shit.

[cashead]

I can see both sides of this.
On the other, for many these are strongly held beliefs and they are entitled to have them provided they aren’t harming other people by holding them. It’s a bit difference between not wanting to support something and tweeting the abuse Folau spouted.

These strongly held beliefs are that "gays don't have a right to exist."

I'm also a firm believer in the Paradox of Tolerance, and this is absolutely an example of where it ought to apply.

[Sandydragon]

But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

The problem with that is that the message of the Pride jersey and rainbow is very simply, "Gay people shouldn't suffer discrimination."

If someone believes that message is wrong, that is a garbage belief, no matter how strongly and devoutly held it is, in the same way that it would be if "black" or "Jewish" were substituted in for "gay".

Puja

Or they believe that homosexuality is a sin. Whilst not judging others, the bible is clear on that. And let’s not get started on Muslim beliefs.

Not condemning homosexuals but not promoting homosexuality is being consistent with that belief. And ultimately you can legislate for how people treat others and what they say, you can’t legislate for what they think. You can’t make them support you, and wearing a pride top is a sign of support.

If the employer makes it a term of employment then that’s their call but noting that the club backed down pretty quickly I’d suggest there was nothing strong in their contract on the issue.

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

[Sandydragon]

I can see both sides of this.
On the other, for many these are strongly held beliefs and they are entitled to have them provided they aren’t harming other people by holding them. It’s a bit difference between not wanting to support something and tweeting the abuse Folau spouted.

These strongly held beliefs are that "gays don't have a right to exist."

I'm also a firm believer in the Paradox of Tolerance, and this is absolutely an example of where it ought to apply.

Not correct, that would be the Folau position where ‘gays go to hell’, which is not one supported outside of a small Christian number. Condemning the sin but loving the sinner is a more widespread position and acknowledges that all sinners (everyone) has the right to exist and only God should judge.

Its possible not to hold a binary position.

[Which Tyler]

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

NB: There's a difference between "don't get" and "don't agree with"

Its possible not to hold a binary position.

[Puja]

But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

The problem with that is that the message of the Pride jersey and rainbow is very simply, "Gay people shouldn't suffer discrimination."

If someone believes that message is wrong, that is a garbage belief, no matter how strongly and devoutly held it is, in the same way that it would be if "black" or "Jewish" were substituted in for "gay".

Puja

Or they believe that homosexuality is a sin. Whilst not judging others, the bible is clear on that. And let’s not get started on Muslim beliefs.

Not condemning homosexuals but not promoting homosexuality is being consistent with that belief. And ultimately you can legislate for how people treat others and what they say, you can’t legislate for what they think. You can’t make them support you, and wearing a pride top is a sign of support.

If the employer makes it a term of employment then that’s their call but noting that the club backed down pretty quickly I’d suggest there was nothing strong in their contract on the issue.

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

The Bible is also pretty clear on miscegenation, actually much clearer on that than it is on homosexuality (which is only dubiously mentioned and could very easily be a mistranslation). However, if modern-day church groups came out against mixed-race marriages (even the milquetoast version of "we're not *condemning* them, we just think it's utterly wrong and want to make clear that we don't support it), then they would be ostracised for holding shameful beliefs.

It wouldn't be, "Ooh, well they've got a right to their beliefs and you can't make other people believe as you do." It would be, "Those are some pretty shitty beliefs and you're all some pretty shitty people."

You're right in that you cannot make everyone agree with you. You can, however, make it very clear that some beliefs are, and should be, socially unacceptable.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

NB: There's a difference between "don't get" and "don't agree with"

Its possible not to hold a binary position.

Fair enough.

[Sandydragon]

The problem with that is that the message of the Pride jersey and rainbow is very simply, "Gay people shouldn't suffer discrimination."

If someone believes that message is wrong, that is a garbage belief, no matter how strongly and devoutly held it is, in the same way that it would be if "black" or "Jewish" were substituted in for "gay".

Puja

Or they believe that homosexuality is a sin. Whilst not judging others, the bible is clear on that. And let’s not get started on Muslim beliefs.

Not condemning homosexuals but not promoting homosexuality is being consistent with that belief. And ultimately you can legislate for how people treat others and what they say, you can’t legislate for what they think. You can’t make them support you, and wearing a pride top is a sign of support.

If the employer makes it a term of employment then that’s their call but noting that the club backed down pretty quickly I’d suggest there was nothing strong in their contract on the issue.

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

The Bible is also pretty clear on miscegenation, actually much clearer on that than it is on homosexuality (which is only dubiously mentioned and could very easily be a mistranslation). However, if modern-day church groups came out against mixed-race marriages (even the milquetoast version of "we're not *condemning* them, we just think it's utterly wrong and want to make clear that we don't support it), then they would be ostracised for holding shameful beliefs.

It wouldn't be, "Ooh, well they've got a right to their beliefs and you can't make other people believe as you do." It would be, "Those are some pretty shitty beliefs and you're all some pretty shitty people."

You're right in that you cannot make everyone agree with you. You can, however, make it very clear that some beliefs are, and should be, socially unacceptable.

Puja

Making something that isn’t harming others socially unacceptable is a slippery slope. And a Christian who disagrees with gay marriage deciding not to fly a pride flag is harming no one. It’s also a position that has been tried and tested in court.

Live and let live.

[Puja]

Or they believe that homosexuality is a sin. Whilst not judging others, the bible is clear on that. And let’s not get started on Muslim beliefs.

Not condemning homosexuals but not promoting homosexuality is being consistent with that belief. And ultimately you can legislate for how people treat others and what they say, you can’t legislate for what they think. You can’t make them support you, and wearing a pride top is a sign of support.

If the employer makes it a term of employment then that’s their call but noting that the club backed down pretty quickly I’d suggest there was nothing strong in their contract on the issue.

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

The Bible is also pretty clear on miscegenation, actually much clearer on that than it is on homosexuality (which is only dubiously mentioned and could very easily be a mistranslation). However, if modern-day church groups came out against mixed-race marriages (even the milquetoast version of "we're not *condemning* them, we just think it's utterly wrong and want to make clear that we don't support it), then they would be ostracised for holding shameful beliefs.

It wouldn't be, "Ooh, well they've got a right to their beliefs and you can't make other people believe as you do." It would be, "Those are some pretty shitty beliefs and you're all some pretty shitty people."

You're right in that you cannot make everyone agree with you. You can, however, make it very clear that some beliefs are, and should be, socially unacceptable.

Puja

Making something that isn’t harming others socially unacceptable is a slippery slope. And a Christian who disagrees with gay marriage deciding not to fly a pride flag is harming no one. It’s also a position that has been tried and tested in court.

Live and let live.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason. Western society has managed to survive making being against mixed race marriages socially unacceptable, along with a bunch of other reprehensible beliefs; I don't see why this one should be different.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Then we agree to disagree. I’m not sure where you think the bible is clear on interracial marriage, unless you are referring to Deuteronomy? But there is a danger in cherry picking individual verses to justify a particular viewpoint; you could literally justify anything in a book that large from a single verse.

You will find some religious authorities in the wider Christian church who argue that the bible does allow same sex relationships, but more that don’t. What is very clear is the need not to judge others. Hence why if the Christian objector is following their faith properly, they won’t be speaking out against gay people but preferring not to promote it either.

Societal morals change over time and it’s impossible to know what will be accepted widely in a century or two. What I do know is that if we aren’t tolerant of others views when they don’t harm others then it leads to prejudice.

[Stom]

Then we agree to disagree. I’m not sure where you think the bible is clear on interracial marriage, unless you are referring to Deuteronomy? But there is a danger in cherry picking individual verses to justify a particular viewpoint; you could literally justify anything in a book that large from a single verse.

You will find some religious authorities in the wider Christian church who argue that the bible does allow same sex relationships, but more that don’t. What is very clear is the need not to judge others. Hence why if the Christian objector is following their faith properly, they won’t be speaking out against gay people but preferring not to promote it either.

Societal morals change over time and it’s impossible to know what will be accepted widely in a century or two. What I do know is that if we aren’t tolerant of others views when they don’t harm others then it leads to prejudice.

That’s the thing: pride doesn’t promote homosexuality, it promotes not being a dick to them. That aligns with the church.

There is no reason to go against this unless you want to protect your right to be homophobic.

[Stom]

I can see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the players don’t see to have objected to wearing shirts promoting gambling or alcohol.

On the other, for many these are strongly held beliefs and they are entitled to have them provided they aren’t harming other people by holding them. It’s a bit difference between not wanting to support something and tweeting the abuse Folau spouted.

I’d like to know how this became news as this should have been handled with a bit more sensitivity and discretion. But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

Just read an article with Tom Daley and he originally believed countries who made homosexuality illegal should be banned from hosting major sporting events.

But after speaking with the wider community, he came to the conclusion that they should be told:

We're going to have Pride tents, events for diversity, and so on, and that is the terms.

Rugby could and SHOULD do the same. These are our terms: we are inclusive and promote diversity. If you don't want to play in a shirt that promotes treating humans with humanity, you can choose not to play, that's fine. You just won't be able to get another contract.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Then we agree to disagree. I’m not sure where you think the bible is clear on interracial marriage, unless you are referring to Deuteronomy? But there is a danger in cherry picking individual verses to justify a particular viewpoint; you could literally justify anything in a book that large from a single verse.

You will find some religious authorities in the wider Christian church who argue that the bible does allow same sex relationships, but more that don’t. What is very clear is the need not to judge others. Hence why if the Christian objector is following their faith properly, they won’t be speaking out against gay people but preferring not to promote it either.

Societal morals change over time and it’s impossible to know what will be accepted widely in a century or two. What I do know is that if we aren’t tolerant of others views when they don’t harm others then it leads to prejudice.

Pretty much the whole problem with the "bible is against homosexuality" argument. No one who professes to believe in Jesus really has a leg to stand on.

But ultimately we all have the right to have our own beliefs and not to have to agree, or be seen to agree with those we don’t believe in.

The problem with that is that the message of the Pride jersey and rainbow is very simply, "Gay people shouldn't suffer discrimination."

If someone believes that message is wrong, that is a garbage belief, no matter how strongly and devoutly held it is, in the same way that it would be if "black" or "Jewish" were substituted in for "gay".

Puja

Or they believe that homosexuality is a sin. Whilst not judging others, the bible is clear on that. And let’s not get started on Muslim beliefs.

Not condemning homosexuals but not promoting homosexuality is being consistent with that belief. And ultimately you can legislate for how people treat others and what they say, you can’t legislate for what they think. You can’t make them support you, and wearing a pride top is a sign of support.

If the employer makes it a term of employment then that’s their call but noting that the club backed down pretty quickly I’d suggest there was nothing strong in their contract on the issue.

I completely get that none of you get this argument and that’s your choice to not want to believe in the religious argument. And not all Christian’s would agree with this either. To be clear, I have no issue supporting gay rights before anyone makes this personal. But the bottom line here is you can’t make people agree with you.

This is not promoting homosexuality. No oneis saying that people should be homosexual. I've never seen anything promoting homosexuality. It does however say that people should not be dicks to people who are.

Equally, if an employer has a stated position on equality / inclusiveness, and an employee refuses to acknowledge that position whilst on company time - then they're welcome to find a new employer.

This.