Manly players refusing to wear Pride Jersey

[Jughead]

9 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Have you ever been on a Pride march?

They are 80% straight people virtue signaling and having a day on the ale, 19% Gay people celebrating their community and 1% brain impaired revolutionaries that think being anything other than trans means you're sub-human.

Me and my daughter hated it, we'll never go on another.

At no point did Loiner ever suggest that LGBT people should not have the same human rights as everyone else.

I'm not religious at all, in fact I struggle to believe that anyone is.  However, billions of people around the world are and their views must be respected. 

 

Thank you for questioning the make up of every Pride event in every country, ever. 

The thing is, in 2022 in some countries people who are gay don’t have basic human rights. 32 countries on the planet allow gay marriage. It’s 2022 and that’s what, 22-25% of the planet? In many countries, gay people don’t have the basic human rights so many others are allowed and I struggle to support the Manly players for reasons posted here about the makeup of Manly’s existing sponsors based on religious grounds, where teachings are typically to show respect and understanding to others. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Jughead

[David Shepherd]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Thank you for questioning the make up of every Pride event in every country ever. 

Which I didn't do. I was clearly speaking of my own experiences, you just invented all of that in your head.

[Mr Frisky]

4 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Quite depressing reading about that. 

Manly should play the rest of the season in that jersey as a sign of inclusivity.

You can't force people to do things they don't believe in - if you do it devalues what ever it is your trying to make them do.

Its just like forcing young lads- who just happened to be RL players to take the knee for BLM ( i know the context of taking the knee is more respect than BLM these days but not 18 months ago) over Covid - they saw this organisation organising marches that smashed up town centres, attacked the police and even defaced the cenotaph and Winston Churchill  - then they were told they had to support this group and its cause or be labelled racist.  It was all very depressing and young lads who are just sports men were thrust in the middle of it all for some reason and told to comply.

Sports stars are just that so just let them play the game and don't force your views onto them. If they want to support a cause on their social media then great for them.

[Jughead]

Just now, Mr Frisky said:

You can't force people to do things they don't believe in - if you do it devalues what ever it is your trying to make them do.

Its just like forcing young lads- who just happened to be RL players to take the knee for BLM ( i know the context of taking the knee is more respect than BLM these days but not 18 months ago) over Covid - they saw this organisation organising marches that smashed up town centres, attacked the police and even defaced the cenotaph and Winston Churchill  - then they were told they had to support this group and its cause or be labelled racist.  It was all very depressing and young lads who are just sports men were thrust in the middle of it all for some reason and told to comply.

Sports stars are just that so just let them play the game and don't force your views onto them. If they want to support a cause on their social media then great for them.

Let’s debunk this. No one was told to support the group or that they’d be labelled racist. 

[Dave T]

Part of being a sports player is wearing what the club asks you to. It is the club supporting Pride - they are within their rights to have this referenced on the kit. 

If, as a player you aren't prepared to do that, you can find a job doing something else. 

All that is being asked is to wear a kit that shows support to fellow human beings. 

And threads like this always seem to have plenty of 'ramming it down our throat' references, which of course are purely innocent. 

[RigbyLuger]

"TackleIt" has gone well.

[Chrispmartha]

52 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Good for them, I think people in general are sick to the back teeth of have lgbtq+ constantly rammed down our throats (No pun intended). I've no problem with people living there lives how they want to but don't subject me to it.

As far as Im aware wearing a shirt in support of lgbtq+ rights doesn’t subject you to being lgbtq+.

[Mr Frisky]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

Let’s debunk this. No one was told to support the group or that they’d be labelled racist. 

Well they were though wernt they. Immense pressure was put on Rugby and football players to take the knee - if one of the group didn't then they were called certain words and attacked on social media.

I remember the abuse a Nottingham Forest player received because he refused - think it was Lyle Taylor.

As I said, as soon  as you force people to do something they don't want to do it devalues it.

[Mr Frisky]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Part of being a sports player is wearing what the club asks you to. It is the club supporting Pride - they are within their rights to have this referenced on the kit. 

If, as a player you aren't prepared to do that, you can find a job doing something else. 

All that is being asked is to wear a kit that shows support to fellow human beings. 

And threads like this always seem to have plenty of 'ramming it down our throat' references, which of course are purely innocent. 

Yep agree - but as I've said if you make someone do something they don't want to do then the sentiment is useless.

We have the poppy each year in the UK and anyone who is on TV and doesn't wear one is always vilified - but if they just wear one on TV to fit in is that a good thing or are they just putting up with something they don't agree with? I wear my poppy with pride but would never force someone who hates the concept to do the same - just no point in forcing people.

[David Shepherd]

20 minutes ago, Jughead said:

The thing is, in 2022 in some countries people who are gay don’t have basic human rights. 32 countries on the planet allow gay marriage. It’s 2022 and that’s what, 22-25% of the planet? In many countries, gay people don’t have the basic human rights so many others are allowed and I struggle to support the Manly players for reasons posted here about the makeup of Manly’s existing sponsors based on religious grounds, where teachings are typically to show respect and understanding to others. 

All of that is true and should be campaigned against.  You're going after the wrong target in 7 Manly players who for their own perfect valid reasons (even if I disagree with them, and I do) do no want to participate.

Not convinced by the arguments around alcohol sponsorship. Didn't Jesus magic some booze from somewhere? Are those Belgian monks that make ale sinners? And I honestly don't know enough about the issue of gambling and religion to comment.   

Edited July 25, 2022 by David Shepherd

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Mr Frisky said:

Yep agree - but as I've said if you make someone do something they don't want to do then the sentiment is useless.

We have the poppy each year in the UK and anyone who is on TV and doesn't wear one is always vilified - but if they just wear one on TV to fit in is that a good thing or are they just putting up with something they don't agree with? I wear my poppy with pride but would never force someone who hates the concept to do the same - just no point in forcing people.

The Manly players aren’t being forced to wear the jersey though are they.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Let’s debunk this. No one was told to support the group or that they’d be labelled racist. 

 

1 minute ago, Mr Frisky said:

Well they were though wernt they. Immense pressure was put on Rugby and football players to take the knee - if one of the group didn't then they were called certain words and attacked on social media.

I remember the abuse a Nottingham Forest player received because he refused - think it was Lyle Taylor.

As I said, as soon  as you force people to do something they don't want to do it devalues it.

I agree with Mr Frisky on this one.  I believe that there was plenty of rhetoric labelling players who did not kneel as racist.  Just as over in the US where they stand for the National Anthem at every single sporting event, players were labelled as unpatriotic if they knelt.

These types of things are only really powerful when they are based on the individual conscience of the player in question.  That is why one man kneeling (Colin Kaepernick) was more powerful than every other sports person on the planet kneeling.

[Dave T]

Just now, Mr Frisky said:

Yep agree - but as I've said if you make someone do something they don't want to do then the sentiment is useless.

We have the poppy each year in the UK and anyone who is on TV and doesn't wear one is always vilified - but if they just wear one on TV to fit in is that a good thing or are they just putting up with something they don't agree with? I wear my poppy with pride but would never force someone who hates the concept to do the same - just no point in forcing people.

We are asked to do things at work all the time. 

A Manly player wearing a Manly kit is not a controversial ask. 

This religious BS is just that - I'm sure people here aren't as forgiving with some other religious beliefs knocking around. 

[Jughead]

7 minutes ago, Mr Frisky said:

Well they were though wernt they. Immense pressure was put on Rugby and football players to take the knee - if one of the group didn't then they were called certain words and attacked on social media.

I remember the abuse a Nottingham Forest player received because he refused - think it was Lyle Taylor.

As I said, as soon  as you force people to do something they don't want to do it devalues it.

They weren’t at all. 

The game announced they’d have time allocated for an anti discrimination message. Nobody was instructed that they must take the knee or that they would be labelled as a racist if they didn’t (many didn’t and haven’t been labelled as such but let’s not let the truth spoil the rage). 

[David Shepherd]

1 minute ago, Jughead said:

They weren’t at all. 

The game announced they’d have time allocated for an anti discrimination message. Nobody was instructed that they must take the knee or that they would be labelled as a racist if they didn’t (many didn’t and haven’t been labelled as such but let’s not let the truth spoil the rage). 

Bit of selective amnesia there.

There was huge pressure on players of all sports to take the knee. Many who bravely refused were vilified on social media and in the mainstream press.

[Jughead]

Just now, David Shepherd said:

Bit of selective amnesia there.

There was huge pressure on players of all sports to take the knee. Many who bravely refused were vilified on social media and in the mainstream press.

So nobody was “forced” then. At no point did The RFL tell people they must or threatened to label anybody racist. 

[Mr Frisky]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

They weren’t at all. 

The game announced they’d have time allocated for an anti discrimination message. Nobody was instructed that they must take the knee or that they would be labelled as a racist if they didn’t (many didn’t and haven’t been labelled as such but let’s not let the truth spoil the rage). 

So there was no pressure put on young players to take the knee??

Strange how the Forest player i mentioned Lyle Taylor and im sure a Chelsea player were both front page news because they refused- that's pressure if I ever saw.

[Jughead]

Just now, Mr Frisky said:

So there was no pressure put on young players to take the knee??

Strange how the Forest player i mentioned Lyle Taylor and im sure a Chelsea player were both front page news because they refused- that's pressure if I ever saw.

By The RFL? No, none whatsoever but that was two years ago and an entirely different conversation to the wearing or not, of a piece of clothing by an employer during a pretty significant period for the employer (and employees). 

How thoroughly depressing that some have led this discussion down that path, no matter how inevitable it was. 

[Mr Frisky]

2 minutes ago, Jughead said:

By The RFL? No, none whatsoever but that was two years ago and an entirely different conversation to the wearing or not, of a piece of clothing by an employer during a pretty significant period for the employer (and employees). 

How thoroughly depressing that some have led this discussion down that path, no matter how inevitable it was. 

Don't put yourself down lad - you did your best but couldn't resist.

[Jughead]

Just now, Mr Frisky said:

Don't put yourself down lad - you did your best but couldn't resist.

All getting a bit uncomfortable, this. I’ll leave this to you lot till one of you manages to get the thread locked for more inappropriate rubbish. 

[Chrispmartha]

Where’s this idea that all beliefs should be tolerated come from anyway?

If a player said he didn’t want to play because one of his Team mates is gay , black, jewish etc. should that be ‘tolerated’?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Where’s this idea that all beliefs should be tolerated come from anyway?

If a player said he didn’t want to play because one of his Team mates is gay , black, jewish etc. should that be ‘tolerated’?

Indeed. If something like the Women in League had this kind of reaction from players I expect there would be few defending them. 

And that does rather lead us down the route of asking why. 

[gingerjon]

33 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

"TackleIt" has gone well.

It's served the purpose the RFL gave it.

[RigbyLuger]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

It's served the purpose the RFL gave it.

That script read by the commentator while showing the logo on the screen?

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Where’s this idea that all beliefs should be tolerated come from anyway?

 

It comes from the inherent conflict that exists within a liberal society that religious people are allowed to say that being gay (or, to be specific, the act of homosexuality) is wrong.  We are told that this is a view that must be respected because most Western Civilizations have Judeo-Christian roots and a large proportion, if not a majority, still identify as Christian.  All this while the actual society around them becomes more tolerant and inclusive.

So, we all pretend that the teachings of Christianity are not intolerant and their views must be respected and we have a kind of uneasy truce until things like this occasionally crop up.

Of course, in the countries where they can get away with it, the religious excel in being intolerance and prejudice.