Banned for your beliefs

[Fen Canary 1,274]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cm553l77m5zo

Does anybody else find this type of behaviour by the French league to be very authoritarian. You don’t have to agree with the players opinion (and I don’t) but to ban a player for not wanting to participate in a movement that they don’t want to be a part of I find very troubling. Believe what we believe or we’ll punish you doesn’t seem very befitting of a free, tolerant society in my eyes

[cambridgeshire canary 7,462]

Imagine being offended by a rainbow, how very sad and childish 😂

On the one hand you're right that banning someone for it is a bit much, but on the other hand I think the implication that you don't accept or care for people just beacause they are LGBT is rather pathetic.

Edited May 31 by cambridgeshire canary

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,453]

I completely agree with the decision to ban him.

Imagine if a player covered up an anti-racism patch on the basis that they're an open racist who hates black people. They'd be sacked on the spot. 

So why should it be any different when a player covers up an anti-homophobia patch because they're openly against homosexually?

Hiding behind religion is a load of bull. If your religion is teaching you to hate, and in some cases kill, someone because of their sexual preferences which are none of your concern, you don't have to blindly follow.

Hatred and persecution of others isn't free speech either, and those that do it are the intolerant ones, not the people who punish intolerance.

[cambridgeshire canary 7,462]

14 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I completely agree with the decision to ban him.

Imagine if a player covered up an anti-racism patch on the basis that they're an open racist who hates black people. They'd be sacked on the spot. 

So why should it be any different when a player covers up an anti-homophobia patch because they're openly against homosexually?

Hiding behind religion is a load of bull. If your religion is teaching you to hate, and in some cases kill, someone because of their sexual preferences which are none of your concern, you don't have to blindly follow.

Hatred and persecution of others isn't free speech either, and those that do it are the intolerant ones, not the people who punish intolerance.

The real irony of course is we have seen this same thing happen before with muslim players refusing to wear kits with rainbow armbands and not taking part in LGBT related charity photoshoots..

And yet in those cases said muslim players clearly have no issues wearing their teams kit which has a gambling sponsor on the front of it despite gambling being banned in Islam.

Edited May 31 by cambridgeshire canary

[TheGunnShow 6,928]

Takes a special brand of snowflake to be offended by a rainbow, regardless of religious "persuasion". I find it remarkable that these sorts are so cowardly that they say it's what their "god" says, when they really mean they just don't like them because their specific goatherder's guide to the galaxy "taught" them so.

And as Wacky basically said, this is Karl Pöpper territory. Tolerance means on occasion that you have to draw a line in the sand and throw out what isn't tolerant.

Edited May 31 by TheGunnShow

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,453]

2 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

The real irony of course is we have seen this same thing happen before with muslim players refusing to wear kits with rainbow armbands and not taking part in LGBT related charity photoshoots..

And it's total hypocrisy. I'm guessing they don't like being prejudiced against because of their religion, so why do they then show prejudice against homosexuals?

[Iwans Big Toe 353]

37 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cm553l77m5zo

Does anybody else find this type of behaviour by the French league to be very authoritarian. You don’t have to agree with the players opinion (and I don’t) but to ban a player for not wanting to participate in a movement that they don’t want to be a part of I find very troubling. Believe what we believe or we’ll punish you doesn’t seem very befitting of a free, tolerant society in my eyes

This is the world we live in now. You are entitled to you own beliefs, as long as those in power don't think you might upset the minority, then you must be cancelled.

Ahh I do so love irony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mrD66M 147]

23 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I completely agree with the decision to ban him.

Imagine if a player covered up an anti-racism patch on the basis that they're an open racist who hates black people. They'd be sacked on the spot. 

So why should it be any different when a player covers up an anti-homophobia patch because they're openly against homosexually?

Hiding behind religion is a load of bull. If your religion is teaching you to hate, and in some cases kill, someone because of their sexual preferences which are none of your concern, you don't have to blindly follow.

Hatred and persecution of others isn't free speech either, and those that do it are the intolerant ones, not the people who punish intolerance.

Banning is a bit too much in my opinion - but I get that famous people are to some extent role models for the new generations.

Before banning, I'd give the transgressors the option to a) pay a substantial fine or b) 6months community work with the people they "don't like just because xyz". Give them a chance to change their minds and see people for what they are rather than what they're led to believe by some very shady people / agendas.

[chicken 2,973]

1 minute ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

The real irony of course is we have seen this same thing happen before with muslim players refusing to wear kits with rainbow armbands and not taking part in LGBT related charity photoshoots..

And yet in those cases said muslim players clearly have no issues wearing their teams kit which has a gambling sponser on the front of it despite that being banned in Islam.

It's not jus Muslim players. And it's important not to single them out for that attention.

To the OP's post. It's not about "beliefs" or freedom of speech/expression. The LGBTQ+ community are still one that suffers at the hands of a lot of hate crime. The rainbow badge/flag etc is of itself an expression. It has been and still is by some, an upheld belief in Christianity.

The thing is with religious teachings is that there are so many contradictions and even some hypocrisy. The story of the Good Samaritan, for example, is to show how people of completely different beliefs, races and cultures can still be friends and help one another.

At the end of the day, I feel a ban is right. If you don't believe in Allah, then Allah's laws don't apply to you. If you don't believe in the Christian God, why should a Christian hold you to their beliefs?

Who has the real freedom of expression here, a football player wearing their clubs shirt or the badges that are raising awareness of something he doesn't believe in? For what? A single game?

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Perhaps the player can choose to resign on grounds of their strength of belief so they’re not ‘forced’ to earn high wages but have the freedom to go and play in a country where homophobia is acceptable and they aren’t made to support ideals of the country they reside in. But let’s be honest, they’re happy to take the cash, so their principles clearly have a price. Much like Jordan Henderson. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,970]

Should employers be entitled to dictate the political expression of their employees? That is the situation that we have in this instance.

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 1,274]

32 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I completely agree with the decision to ban him.

Imagine if a player covered up an anti-racism patch on the basis that they're an open racist who hates black people. They'd be sacked on the spot. 

So why should it be any different when a player covers up an anti-homophobia patch because they're openly against homosexually?

Hiding behind religion is a load of bull. If your religion is teaching you to hate, and in some cases kill, someone because of their sexual preferences which are none of your concern, you don't have to blindly follow.

Hatred and persecution of others isn't free speech either, and those that do it are the intolerant ones, not the people who punish intolerance.

If he was going around beating up gay people then you may have a point but he’s not, he simply doesn’t want to join in with a group that promotes something he doesn’t believe in. Should people be forced into joining causes they want no part of simply because others deem it worthy?

To me there’s a world of difference between actively doing something that’s homophobic such as abuse or campaigning to make it illegal and simply not wanting to part of something that you may see as promoting it, and being banned for simply staying on the sidelines is an incredibly authoritarian move by those in charge 

[chicken 2,973]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Perhaps the player can choose to resign on grounds of their strength of belief so they’re not ‘forced’ to earn high wages but have the freedom to go and play in a country where homophobia is acceptable and they aren’t made to support ideals of the country they reside in. But let’s be honest, they’re happy to take the cash, so their principles clearly have a price. Much like Jordan Henderson. 

Bang on. If it's against their beliefs, then why sign for a club, in a country where there is general support for something you supposedly hate so much that you have to cover up little flags on your shirt. The club, the football authority and wider community overall clearly support the cause. Go find a club that matches your beliefs and then there's no problem.

Oh, no, you are ok ignoring all of that for the ker-ching, but not when they put a patch on your shirt... 

[Fen Canary 1,274]

49 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Imagine being offended by a rainbow, how very sad and childish 😂

On the one hand you're right that banning someone for it is a bit much, but on the other hand I think the implication that you don't accept or care for people just beacause they are LGBT is rather pathetic.

I don’t have to agree with the Churchy lot that a bit of bum fun will send people to hell, but they’re free to hold those opinions. As long as they’re not actively going round targeting the gays and are instead just keeping themselves to themselves then I don’t see why they should be punished for not joining in with what they presumably see as pro homosexual causes 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

1 minute ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Homosexuality is a choice. Race is not. If you don’t agree with other peoples choices or beliefs, that’s fair enough in my book.

Umm. Homosexuality is not a choice 

[mrD66M 147]

Society is changing at a pace that I think free speech / freedom of expression needs to be  better defined *and* when it comes to adults, tied to some civic responsibilities. This latter part used to be much more important than it currently is but we live in a more individualistic culture, where <I can say whatever I like and DGAF you got offended> is par for the course.

[TheGunnShow 6,928]

1 minute ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Homosexuality is a choice. Race is not. If you don’t agree with other peoples choices or beliefs, that’s fair enough in my book.

It isn't.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,453]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Should employers be entitled to dictate the political expression of their employees? That is the situation that we have in this instance.

Human rights is not politics.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,453]

3 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Homosexuality is a choice. Race is not. If you don’t agree with other peoples choices or beliefs, that’s fair enough in my book.

Sexuality is a choice? 

Like you can suddenly wake up one day and decide to suddenly be gay, straight, or whatever?

Really?

[chicken 2,973]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Should employers be entitled to dictate the political expression of their employees?

It's not political.

That's like saying racism is political.

It's not, it's hatred. They share commonality in that they have been known to be present across the entire political spectrum/sphere, left to right.

Arguably the Poppy could be seen to be more political, being that it was created to remember the fallen allied soldiers in a war. Yet I think German players have happily worn the remembrance special shirts for games.

If you want to go further, uniform colour can even be political. 

[Fen Canary 1,274]

1 minute ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Human rights is not politics.

I’d have thought being punished for not joining a cause would be against most peoples understanding of basic human rights personally 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

If you think any gay person has ‘chosen’ a path of being victimised, abused, persecuted and in many cases (dwindling thank f***) extracted from their actual families, then you clearly have an ulterior motive to your post 

[Fen Canary 1,274]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

It's not political.

That's like saying racism is political.

It's not, it's hatred. They share commonality in that they have been known to be present across the entire political spectrum/sphere, left to right.

Arguably the Poppy could be seen to be more political, being that it was created to remember the fallen allied soldiers in a war. Yet I think German players have happily worn the remembrance special shirts for games.

If you want to go further, uniform colour can even be political. 

Should McClean have been banned for refusing to wear a poppy? 

[mrD66M 147]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

they’re free to hold those opinions

...inside their own minds, and keep them there? Absolutely. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,970]

6 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Human rights is not politics.

Human rights are a man-made concept created through discussion and debate; of course human rights are politics. Countries around the world don't even agree on what should be considered human rights.

If the concepts are that irrefutable, what's the need for promoting the idea at football games?

 

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,422]

Oops, I may have opened a can of worms here 😬 

‘CCC left the chat’

[Fen Canary 1,274]

9 minutes ago, chicken said:

Bang on. If it's against their beliefs, then why sign for a club, in a country where there is general support for something you supposedly hate so much that you have to cover up little flags on your shirt. The club, the football authority and wider community overall clearly support the cause. Go find a club that matches your beliefs and then there's no problem.

Oh, no, you are ok ignoring all of that for the ker-ching, but not when they put a patch on your shirt... 

So you don’t think people should be allowed to have their own opinions in a free society?

As I say, he hasn’t done anything that is against the gays, he’s simply not joined in a group that’s pro homosexuality. To me that’s a vast difference 

[shefcanary 2,795]

Most organisations nowadays have a published set of values that they expect everyone working for the organisation to accept, champion and deliver to on a consistent basis. If they have an employee who objects to those values, then something has at a very basic level gone wrong in their recruitment process, and / or an employee has effectively deliberately mislead the organisation and their colleagues. 

In my conclusion if the values are succinctly written down somewhere, are straightforward enough to understand and the issue basically shows the individual disagrees with the values, unless that individual can effectively change those values to more closely match their own, then disciplinary measures against them are perfectly valid. 

A caveat is I cannot say if all that I have said matches what is happening in this case, as I don't have all the information to validate my conclusion above. But if it did....

Edited May 31 by shefcanary

[canarydan23 4,561]

7 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Homosexuality is a choice. Race is not. If you don’t agree with other peoples choices or beliefs, that’s fair enough in my book.

Watch your back @littleyellowbirdie, CCC is closing in looking to pass you in the day's most deranged PinkUn poster race.

[Fen Canary 1,274]

2 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

...inside their own minds, and keep them there? Absolutely. 

Which he has done. He’s made no statement or committed no actions that are anti gay, he’s simply not wanted to join in with something that’s pro gay and has been punished for it.