7 players stand out of gay pride game

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, religious discrimination is literally illegal.

You think religious discrimination has occurred here? Wild.

Putting a rainbow graphic on a professional sports team uniform is not religious discrimination at all, and certainly isn't illegal discrimination.

 

[PureX]

Where do you think that money comes from to pay sports teams? There are numerous sources. Advertising is a very very big source of income. If the players agreed to take a pay cut not to have messages from sponsors on their shirts then you might have a valid claim.

I don't care where the money comes from. That's the owner's problem. If they are hiring shills, then they should say so, and pay them accordingly. If they are hiring players, then that's what they should say, and pay them for. If they want both, they should hire both. But they hired players, and now they want shills. Too bad.

 

[Brian2]

I agree with @Wildswanderer in this case. I'm all for gay rights, but I don't think the employees of a politically neutral organization should be required to promote ideas that go against their conscience. This is analogous to what gay people have had to endure from heteronormative culture since forever. Flipping the civic injustice back on homophobes isn't the way to advance this cause.

Calling those people homophobes is also not a good idea. They might have gay friends but don't want to be seen, for religious and cultural reasons, to be promoting homosexuality in any way.

 

[PureX]

Then that approach should be consistently taken...

Indigenous and Pasifika stars behind ‘awesome’ NRL protest scenes, Latrell Mitchell stars in Rabbitohs win | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

ACT Brumbies hold Pasifika round in Super Rugby | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT

NRL celebrates Harvey Norman Women in League Round | NRL.com

This is a group of devout Christians who run onto the field with gambling logos on their chest, play in stadiums sponsored by alcohol brands, use their position as players to spread messages both about God, and in relation to BLM, and promote inclusiveness and how important it is for minority groups.

But draw the line at LGBTQIA+.

I get that their position is based on religious and cultural principle. That doesn't mean I think it's well thought through, or consistent. And whilst I respect their right to have their own views on things, anyone entering the NRL knows they'll need to put up with certain things outside their own beliefs. I'm not saying they need to accept anything, moreso that you put yourself in a position of compromise going in, and they have been fine to compromise on everything. Except this.

I agree that clarity should go both ways. But greed corrupts everything it touches. So clarity has to also be enforced. On both sides. Do that, and all of this nonsense goes away.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That doesn't matter to the issue. No one should be forced to support a cause they don't believe in.

I think the point of the graphic was to show what is meant by a sincerely held religious belief apparently doesn't relate to scripture, since scripture forbids the various other activities that mentioned in the cartoon, which for some reason aren't also his sincerely held religious beliefs. It demonstrates the arbitrary nature of these claims, and asks the question why one should respect such a belief as religious when it seems that some other standard than the scripture is being applied.

But yes, these athletes have the right to do what they did. I not only fully support these athletes, I encourage them to make these kinds of statements publicly if these are their sincerely held religious beliefs.

And their culture has the right to judge them and the religion that teaches them to think and act like that according to their own standards of what is kind and loving behavior, which probably aren't the same as these people. I'm sure that the athletes think that they are being loving as their scriptures command them to be, but they probably aren't viewed as such by others.

Speaking of the greater culture and its opinion of religiously engendered opinions about gays, there's a pretty funny piece that came out many years ago spoofing this arbitrariness. Dr. Laura was a conservative, religious, homophobic, radio talk show host. This piece was the source of the scene from West Wing linked to below, which added the indignation of Martin Sheen's character, the president to the snark of the original piece:

Spoiler: Dear Dr. Laura

"Dear Dr. Laura

"Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

[1] Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

[2] I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She is 6 years old, healthy, and very smart. She doesn't want to be a slave, so that might be a problem.

[3] I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19 24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

[4] When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

[5] I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

[6] A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

[7] Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contact lenses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

[8] Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: How should they die?

[9] I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? What should we do with the NFL?

[10] My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

You are a great prophet and I will go to my grave remembering that you were among the very few who placed the blame for 9/11 where it truly belonged: on abortionists, gays and lesbians. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

What is happening does not necessarily mean homophobia.

It can only mean homophobia. There is no other reason for such a reaction. It's hateful, bigoted, and destructive.

I'll agree that the vector of the homophobia might not feel hatred in the sense of being angry or wanting to harm gay people. Many are passive vectors of the homophobia of their church. Some call this soft bigotry, as when somebody thinks they're being loving by not wanting their daughters to go to college or not expecting as much out their black student. It's not active hatred in the sense of a red or even a negative feeling. It can be delivered with a sincere smile. But it's somebody's bigotry now being spread by another who may not feel hatred.

Ask yourself why you don't consider saying that gay people are an abomination to a good god homophobia. What would one need to add to that to make it homophobia for you? An explicit statement of hatred, like Westboro Baptist Church? "God hates f*gs"? I'd say that that's pretty close to scripture already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't care where the money comes from. That's the owner's problem. If they are hiring shills, then they should say so, and pay them accordingly. If they are hiring players, then that's what they should say, and pay them for. If they want both, they should hire both. But they hired players, and now they want shills. Too bad.

They are "paid accordingly". Why should the owners say so? Simply because you do not like something is not a valid reason. Guess what? When you get hired for a job there are often multiple job requirements.

You need something a lot stronger than an 'I don't like it' to support your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Calling those people homophobes is also not a good idea. They might have gay friends but don't want to be seen, for religious and cultural reasons, to be promoting homosexuality in any way.

There was no "promoting homosexuality". I think you may have more than just a touch of homophobia yourself. And every racist out there seems to claim that they have black friends. When a homophobe tries to justify his claims with 'I have gay friends' I don't give that claim very much credibility.

 

[PureX]

They are "paid accordingly". Why should the owners say so? Simply because you do not like something is not a valid reason. Guess what? When you get hired for a job there are often multiple job requirements.

You need something a lot stronger than an 'I don't like it' to support your claims.

How about if the owners want the players to wear swastikas and chant "kill the jews" as they run onto the field, because some nazi group paid the owners for that advertising?

But your missing my point. Are the players hired to play the sport, or to shill for the owner's causes? Because those are two very different jobs. And you can't hire someone for one job and one salary and then demand that they do another for the same salary. So if professional athletes are going to have to also be shills for corporate sponsored causes it should be clearly stated in their contract. Including the limitations on both sides.

Was it? I very much doubt that it was. So the players have every right to tell the management that they will not shill for their causes. Just as the management has every right to stop the players from doing that on the field, as well. Spell this stuff out in the contract, and enforce it, and all this nonsense goes away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about if the owners want the players to wear swastikas and chant "kill the jews" as they run onto the field, because some nazi group paid the owners for that advertising?

But your missing my point. Are the players hired to play the sport, or to shill for the owner's causes? Because those are two very different jobs. And you can't hire someone for one job and one salary and then demand that they do another for the same salary. So if professional athletes are going to have to also be shills for corporate sponsored causes it should be clearly stated in their contract. Including the limitations on both sides.

Was it? I very much doubt that it was. So the players have every right to tell the management that they will not shill for their causes. Just as the management has every right to stop the players from doing that on the field, as well. Spell this stuff out in the contract, and enforce it, and all this nonsense goes away.

I got your point. The word "shill" is used improperly, but they are hired as both.

And don't assume that other miss your point when you are pushing such a faulty point. Try arguing without using improper terms.

 

[PureX]

I got your point. The word "shill" is used improperly, but they are hired as both.

Says whom? Was it clearly spelled out, and agreed to? These are the real questions that need to be asked, not "is it offensive", or is it, "anti-religious", or is it, "just business", or "is it profitable", or "is it free speech", or whatever.

And don't assume that other miss your point when you are pushing such a faulty point. Try arguing without using improper terms.

SHILL: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer (participant) to entice or encourage others.

I don't think my choice of term was far off the mark. Mostly because I don't believe for a minute that the owners of this team give a rat's butt about gay rights. I think they were simply pretending to care, or rather making their players pretend to care, to entice more people to "buy their wares". That makes the player their "shill".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Calling those people homophobes is also not a good idea. They might have gay friends but don't want to be seen, for religious and cultural reasons, to be promoting homosexuality in any way.

That would still make them homophobes.

... either that or people who are being coerced by homophobes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't care where the money comes from. That's the owner's problem. If they are hiring shills, then they should say so, and pay them accordingly. If they are hiring players, then that's what they should say, and pay them for. If they want both, they should hire both. But they hired players, and now they want shills. Too bad.

Just so we're clear on what you're suggesting:

- you don't think that the players agreed to wear uniforms with logos, do activities to promote sponsors, etc. (IOW, you think the team forgot to include these details in their employment contract or something)

- you think that this omission makes it reasonable for players to refuse to wear a uniform with a subtle rainbow graphic on it

Do I understand you correctly? If so, this a pretty bizarre inference from some pretty sketchy assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says whom? Was it clearly spelled out, and agreed to? These are the real questions that need to be asked, not "is it offensive", or is it, "anti-religious", or is it, "just business", or "is it profitable", or "is it free speech", or whatever.
SHILL: an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer (participant) to entice or encourage others.

I don't think my choice of term was far off the mark. Mostly because I don't believe for a minute that the owners of this team give a rat's butt about gay rights. I think they were simply pretending to care, or rather making their players pretend to care, to entice more people to "buy their wares". That makes the player their "shill".

By your definition just wearing a shirt does not make one a shill.

Try again.

 

[PureX]

Just so we're clear on what you're suggesting:

- you don't think that the players agreed to wear uniforms with logos, do activities to promote sponsors, etc. (IOW, you think the team forgot to include these details in their employment contract or something)

Wearing team labels and logos is not even remotely the same thing is wearing logos, badges, and symbols for social causes, corporate sponsors, and advertisers. And even more-so if it involves having to act as or infer being a positive spokesmen for these.

- you think that this omission makes it reasonable for players to refuse to wear a uniform with a subtle rainbow graphic on it.

Yes. And any other emblem, logo, or symbol designed to imply that they are a positive spokesmen for any cause or company besides the team they are playing for.

Do I understand you correctly? If so, this a pretty bizarre inference from some pretty sketchy assumptions.

What's "sketchy" is forcing hired sports team players to pretend they are something that they aren't for political or economic advantage to the team owners.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wearing team labels and logos is not even remotely the same thing is wearing logos, badges, and symbols for social causes, corporate sponsors, and advertisers. And even more-so if it involves having to act as or infer being a positive spokesmen for these.

FYI: this is Australian Rules football. Corporate logos on team uniforms are a standard thing. In all professional sports leagues worldwide, mandatory player activities promoting the sponsor's brand are also a standard thing.

Yes. And any other emblem, logo, or symbol designed to imply that they are a positive spokesmen for any cause or company besides the team they are playing for.

So your assumptions about the situation are just completely detached from reality. Got it.

What's "sketchy" is forcing hired sports team players to pretend they are something that they aren't for political or economic advantage to the team owners.

I don't really care about your objections to standard practices in professional sport.

In any case, you've clarified your position well enough for me to recognize that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PureX]

FYI: this is Australian Rules football. Corporate logos on team uniforms are a standard thing. In all professional sports leagues worldwide, mandatory player activities promoting the sponsor's brand are also a standard thing.

Sounds like you already let the "boss man" go too far, then. You should have nipped that crap in the bud back when it began. Because it was inevitable that it would morph into the boss man's advertising/propaganda machine. Especially when it began to generate some real money.

Maybe it's time to rename the teams: the Corporate Whores vs. the Boss Man's Toadies, etc., names like that. I mean if that's what they're really about. And their uniforms could look like the race car driver's; covered with all their "sponsor's" logos.

Here in the U.S. we should be making our state and federal legislators dress like that. After all, that's what they are, now. And I'm sure our sports teams aren't far behind. All their playing facilities have already become corporate logos.

So your assumptions about the situation are just completely detached from reality. Got it.

Just the opposite. I think it's time for some truth in the presentation. Quit pretending it's about the game. And just admit it's all about the money, now.

I don't really care about your objections to standard practices in professional sport.

It's easy not to care. The easiest thing in the world.

 

[Secret Chief]

Sponsorship is part and parcel of professional sports. Anyone with ambitions in that direction has to accept this. Not long ago Formula 1 was heavily sponsored by tobacco business. Currently in the UK there has been an issue with professional football and gambling businesses. It's a common sight for teams to have their shirts emblazoned with such. If you aspire to be a top class sportsperson you will have to comply with these things. Dress codes apply in many areas of work. In sport, sponsorship is contributing to the salaries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sounds like you already let the "boss man" go too far, then.

Yep. That was all me: allowing corporate sponsorship of professional sport.

Anyhow, as fun as it is to watch you get all unhinged, this would be a good time to come back to the topic of the thread, which is about how a group of players who wore all of these jerseys without complaint this season:





...found something disagreeable with this jersey in particular:

 

[John53]

Question for any Australians here: how long have teams in this league had sponsor logos and other advertising on their uniforms? Has it been basically forever?

I think it was sometime in the 80's. Before that sponsors were thanked in the program (small booklet with the player line up for the day and things like that) and mentioned by the ground announcer. Players were paid a lot less and most had a real job.

 

[John53]

They're a funny group, actually. I would say that I think in their mind they are taking a principled position, so I feel like maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt over whether more money was involved.
I think it's (hopefully) as simple as adjusting the wording a little to ensure that no-one wearing the jersey is making a personal statement of support for homosexuality, but instead the team is acknowledging the fact that the LGBTQIA+ community exists, and that they are welcome in Rugby.

I do wonder if anyone has asked these gents how they'd feel if some of the resources being placed around Pasifika integration, respect and acknowledgement were redirected based on their stand. But again...hopefully it was simpler than that. And I would readily acknowledge that the club didn't initiate this whole (in my opinion worthy) idea in a very good manner to start with.

Pasifika Players Advisory Group acknowledge traditional landowners | NRL.com

We'll probably never know but I'm kind of suspicious about how it was so easily sorted out after one meeting with the team owners.