Jump to content

Manly players refusing to wear Pride Jersey


Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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?

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Dunbar
  • Like 2

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

Looking for something like a leaf blower....but for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1

Looking for something like a leaf blower....but for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.