Manly players refusing to wear Pride Jersey

[The storm]

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Eh?

 

whos making you do anything?

There seems to be an underlying insistence that i show my support to the LBQT community or other politically motivated groups

So id rather say, yep you have my support, but i prefer not to be involved in your groups because other things are more significant to me

[DavidM]

2 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

i think i would request one of those inflatable rubber chairs to be honest 

And a tiny building 

[DavidM]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'd best get a few digs in before it's too late then.

And I think we’ve reached complete consensus 

[graveyard johnny]

Just now, DavidM said:

And a tiny building 

a bungalow

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, The storm said:

There seems to be an underlying insistence that i show my support to the LBQT community or other politically motivated groups

So id rather say, yep you have my support, but i prefer not to be involved in your groups because other things are more significant to me

what group are you being insisted to be involved in?

 

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, graveyard johnny said:

a bungalow

This will be on Channel 5 before the end of the year , hopefully with celebrities 

[Gerrumonside ref]

Have the Manly players released their own statement then or is it a club PR job?

[The storm]

6 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

what group are you being insisted to be involved in?

 

Ok

We agree

Cheers

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I don't think they are incompatible. As long as everyone is tolerant and doesn't require others to profess a position they don't hold.

The Manly players aren't asking for any action to be taken against homosexual or transgender people.

It is acceptable in a liberal society for gay people to have pride in their sexuality and religious people to consider it a sin.

Likewise it's fine for people to have a religious opinion that others disagree with.

The incompatibility only comes when there is an expectation of everyone to profess the pride in gay/transgenderism by, in this case, wearing a kit that promotes that pride.

Equally it would be a problem if everyone was required to profess the position that homosexuality is sinful.

So that is all fine in principle as it is the level of the individual but it falls down at the level of institution.

Are you suggesting that no business or group can voice support for LGBTQ rights at fear of any individual within that group being unhappy with it.  Or should businesses only employ people with the same values as them so that this contradiction is resolved.

The bottom line is that we have laws in the country (and Australia) that recognize and protect the rights of groups of people that religious people believe will burn in hell for eternity* for expressing their identity.  This is a contradiction whichever way we dress it up.

*some, not all.  Many religious people have sensibly decided to ignore that part as they have with a few others.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Dunbar

[JohnM]

5 hours ago, paulwalker71 said:

 

I don't think anyone on this thread has said otherwise

 To me, it's about the hypocrisy. They are perfectly happy to run out in a jersey with a betting company as main sponsor - and industry which ruins a large number of lives every year.

But a jersey which supports a community of people who cause no harm to anyone is suddenly 'against their religion'

Either take a proper stand on the bible - or don't. But don't cherry pick when it suits.

That's wrong in any language. Just say no to the oppressive attack on freedom of thought word and deed by the woke virtual signallers .

[RigbyLuger]

Just now, JohnM said:

That's wrong in any language. Just say no to the oppressive attack on freedom of thought word and deed by the woke virtual signallers .

Define "woke virtual (sp) signallers" please.

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, RigbyLuger said:

Define "woke virtual (sp) signallers" please.

I’ve yet to see anyone that uses it define what ‘woke’ means or what they think it means

[Guest]

Good to see TRL has its own share of enlightened athiests. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

Ah yes, don’t subject me to people across the planet wanting the same basic human rights as others. 

You really are desperate for people to agree with you aren't you Juggy, @Loiner never said or even remotely suggested that this group of people should be denied conditions that each other of us enjoy, he actually said " I have no problem with people living their lives how they want to" was it that he concluded with "don't subject me to it" that you have taken offence with or do you want him to put himself in situations he is uncomfortable with, he has a basic right to live his life as he pleases just as you wish for others in this subject matter.

Live and let live Juggy.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Have any of the players in question who have stood themselves down spoke publicly?

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

How is wearing a shirt with a rainbow flag in support of peoples rights imposing anything on you?

 

I can't believe you are being serious here. Not showing how right-on virtuous you are and expressing your own views had led to the cancelling of JK Rowling, Sharon Davies and a number of prominent academics. By expressing disagreement with the LGBT + rights army, you are risking your very lively hood. This c.r.a.p has to stop ...and stop now.

[JohnM]

4 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Define "woke virtual (sp) signallers" please.

If you have to ask, you are part of the problem.

[Gerrumonside ref]

Just now, JohnM said:

If you have to ask, you are part of the problem.

It’s a fair question, John.

[Barley Mow]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

So that is all fine in principle as it is the level of the individual but it falls down at the level of institution.

Are you suggesting that no business or group can voice support for LGBTQ rights at fear of the any individual within that group being unhappy with it.  Or should businesses only employ people with the same values as them so that this contradiction is resolved.

The bottom line is that we have laws in the country (and Australia) that recognize and protect the rights of groups of people that religious people believe will burn in hell for eternity* for expressing their identity.  This is a contradiction whichever way we dress it up.

*some, not all.  Many religious people have sensibly decided to ignore that part as they have with a few others.

All institutions are essentially groups of individuals. Those individuals will all have varying opinions to some degree.

If the institution is a rugby league football club, then their role is to play rugby league, entertain their fans and (I would hope) be welcoming to all. They do not need to take a position beyond that.

They should then be able to keep the views of management and employees as personal matters.

As far as any institution wants to take a further position, 'equal treatment for everyone' covers pretty much everything and is essentially the basis of our liberal societies.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I can't believe you are being serious here. Not showing how right-on virtuous you are and expressing your own views had led to the cancelling of JK Rowling, Sharon Davies and a number of prominent academics. By expressing disagreement with the LGBT + rights army, you are risking your very lively hood. This c.r.a.p has to stop ...and stop now.

People like to shown their support for other people and groups. 

Just like you often show your support for poor JK Rowling. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I can't believe you are being serious here. Not showing how right-on virtuous you are and expressing your own views had led to the cancelling of JK Rowling, Sharon Davies and a number of prominent academics. By expressing disagreement with the LGBT + rights army, you are risking your very lively hood. This c.r.a.p has to stop ...and stop now.

Deary me, how’s that answering the question. 

JK Rowling being cancelled nonsense again i see.

You disagree with LGBGT rights?

[Gerrumonside ref]

Personally I’d like to hear from the players in their own words so I can make my own mind up on how they are justifying their actions.

I say that because we are talking about a marginalised group and historically persecuted.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by Gerrumonside ref

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

It’s a fair question, John.

Told you, never seen an answer to that question

[Stuff Smith]

Isn't this all getting a bit political for the main forum?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

All institutions are essentially groups of individuals. Those individuals will all have varying opinions to some degree.

If the institution is a rugby league football club, then their role is to play rugby league, entertain their fans and (I would hope) be welcoming to all. They do not need to take a position beyond that.

They should then be able to keep the views of management and employees as personal matters.

As far as any institution wants to take a further position, 'equal treatment for everyone' covers pretty much everything and is essentially the basis of our liberal societies.

I don't think being an employee for many companies is as simple as that nowadays. Many organisations have mission statements that are far wider than just being good at their specific area of expertise. 

RL has long traded on being a force for good in communities. 

We shouldn't shy away from it.