Banned for your beliefs

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,485]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Should your boss be allowed to dock your wages because you refuse to include pronouns in your emails? I personally don’t think they should. They pay you to do your job, not follow their beliefs and I believe it’s the same with this player 

You're missing the point entirely. 

This boss and this football federation are not forcing people to follow their beliefs. They're prohibiting people from not allowing others to have their own beliefs and freedoms.

[Fen Canary 1,362]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

If that's what it sounded like to you then that's down to your limited inference skills I'm afraid. Not a lot I can do about that but wait for you to better yourself.

Then explain what you really meant. Those are your words, and to me it sounds as if you believe those minorities should be forced to agree with the prevalent opinions of the host nation or risk punishment 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 841]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

“He chose to migrate to, and work in, that country, and therefore should be expected to respect the way of life in that country and the values that country holds dear”

Sounds exactly what you were implying to me.

You’ve also just proved my point. Should your boss be allowed to dock your wages because you refuse to include pronouns in your emails? I personally don’t think they should. They pay you to do your job, not follow their beliefs and I believe it’s the same with this player 

I agree with CanaryDan23. 

We have British values, the French have their values. If you don't like them then do one.

Edited May 31 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[TheGunnShow 7,082]

I'm trying to work out how anyone can come to the conclusion that you can basically pick and choose what sexually attracts you as opposed to just banging away. You either do or do not feel sexual attraction, you only choose whether to act on it.

I think this notion that homosexuality is a choice may be the must buttf-u-c-k moronic thing I've seen in a bit.

[Fen Canary 1,362]

Just now, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

You're missing the point entirely. 

This boss and this football federation are not forcing people to follow their beliefs. They're prohibiting people from not allowing others to have their own beliefs and freedoms.

They’re prohibiting the player from having his own beliefs and opinions by punishing him surely? 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Then explain what you really meant. Those are your words, and to me it sounds as if you believe those minorities should be forced to agree with the prevalent opinions of the host nation or risk punishment 

I'm reminded of when Russia first invaded Ukraine and there was a suggestion that Russian athletes should be forced to denounce the invasion in order to compete. That was dismissed on the grounds that the athletes might then be at risk of political repercussions in Russia.

By the same token, if we force athletes from countries that prohibit homosexuality to endorse homosexuality, aren't we putting them at risk?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,485]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

They’re prohibiting the player from having his own beliefs and opinions by punishing him surely? 

No, they're prohibiting him from not allowing others to have their beliefs.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 841]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'm trying to work out how anyone can come to the conclusion that you can basically pick and choose what sexually attracts you as opposed to just banging away. 

Completely agree.

I have absolutely zero attraction to males, or penises. I've clicked on that tab on Xhamster a few times to find out, and nothing happens down below.

Surely the one way that anybody could ever claim that homosexuality is a choice is if they themselves click on that tab and get a bit excited, because I cannot fathom any other way in which they could ever think that you can choose whether you can get a stonking erection while thinking about a bit of man-on-man action. Either it turns you on or it doesn't. It really is that black and white.

I'm a straight man, I like boobs and vaginas. No idea why, I just came out that way. If I liked willy's then exact same would apply, that would just be who I was. Its not complicated is it. 

I really don't understand why anybody in the 21st century could care less about who somebody else is attracted to. I could not give a fl ying f uck.

Edited May 31 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

17 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

If your views are strong then you play in the Saudi league or some such. Even in the Saudi league they don’t actively promote anti LGBTG sentiment, they just don’t promote support of the persecuted in society. There’s a difference. In a country where they DO promote support of those persecuted for their sexuality (not chosen) then if your individual views are not in line with that, don’t move there and play for these teams. If you DO decide to, but don’t want to be banned, then don’t make a statement by publicly covering the badge. 

We still haven’t had a response about the racism and sexuality not being a choice by the way? If you condone anti LGBTQ you condone Racism. Simple really. 

Why should that be necessary? If these things are so beyond dispute, what's the need to promote them on football kits and force players to either endorse it or be banned?

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

“He chose to migrate to, and work in, that country, and therefore should be expected to respect the way of life in that country and the values that country holds dear”

Sounds exactly what you were implying to me.

You’ve also just proved my point. Should your boss be allowed to dock your wages because you refuse to include pronouns in your emails? I personally don’t think they should. They pay you to do your job, not follow their beliefs and I believe it’s the same with this player 

What do you believe then Fen? 

Do you have children? What would you say to your son if he told you he was gay? What if he was told by people at school he was somehow ‘wrong’ and it upset him? Would you accept if a teammate in the local football team expressed that he didn’t believe in homosexuality, even if it meant he felt I accepted by them? 

The think is, one way causes harm to someone’s non chosen aspect of their life. The other causes no harm to a person very much chosen religious belief. 

All of this makes sense if you’re in the camp of ‘being gay is a choice’, in which case the argument ends there, because there’s no arguing with people holding that view 

[Newtopia 563]

41 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

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....

I sort of agree with this, although I am not so bothered about it being written down throughly.  Camara is free to say what he wants, equally when representing the team he should toe the line, and if he feels that strongly he wont wear the kit, work for a different company.

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Why should that be necessary? If these things are so beyond dispute, what's the need to promote them on football kits?

To be clear, are you saying you think homosexuality is a choice? 

[canarydan23 4,638]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Then explain what you really meant. Those are your words, and to me it sounds as if you believe those minorities should be forced to agree with the prevalent opinions of the host nation or risk punishment 

"Those are your words". No they're not you total nutjob. They're words you've bizarrely attributed to me. You have been drinking, haven't you?

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

To be clear, are you saying you think homosexuality is a choice? 

No. I'm asking why footballers should be coerced into showing support for something that is considered irrefutable beyond the point of debate.

[TheGunnShow 7,082]

If homosexuality bothered Camara so much then he could simply have sat out that game, pulled a sickie etc. and absolutely no-one would have batted an eyelid - and therefore would have avoided a fine. Heck, if it were a matter of belief he could have broached with the manager and requested not to play. I'm sure they've have been more than happy to throw in a late groin strain as a report just to tell folk why he's not playing. He therefore would just be a standard non-participant, any old squad player that didn't make the team that day.

He didn't do that. He has deliberately covered kit and in doing so made a statement. That statement is "I am such a coward that this 'god' I believe makes me of the ill-informed opinion that a perfectly natural phenomenon observed in many animals is inferior". 

Edited May 31 by TheGunnShow

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No. I'm asking why footballers should be coerced into showing support for something that is considered irrefutable beyond the point of debate.

Did he choose to sign his contract? Or was he coerced? 

[Fen Canary 1,362]

9 minutes ago, Newtopia said:

I sort of agree with this, although I am not so bothered about it being written down throughly.  Camara is free to say what he wants, equally when representing the team he should toe the line, and if he feels that strongly he wont wear the kit, work for a different company.

My point is that your employer shouldn’t be able to force you to show support for causes you don’t believe in, irrespective of how righteous they or wider society believe them to be

[Ray 111]

Perhaps it would have been better all round if he had been allowed to wear the 'standard' shirt without the logos rather than cover them up.

[Fen Canary 1,362]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

"Those are your words". No they're not you total nutjob. They're words you've bizarrely attributed to me. You have been drinking, haven't you?

You’re correct they’re not, I’ve got you and another poster mixed up because you have the same colour circle. Apologies

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If homosexuality bothered Camara so much then he could simply have sat out that game, pulled a sickie etc. and absolutely no-one would have batted an eyelid - and therefore would have avoided a fine. Heck, if it were a matter of belief he could have broached with with the manager and requested not to play. I'm sure they've have been more than happy to throw in a late groin strain as a report just to tell folk why he's not playing. He therefore would just be a standard non-participant, any old squad player that didn't make the team that day.

He didn't do that. He has deliberately covered kit and in doing so made a statement. That statement is "I am such a coward that this 'god' I believe makes me of the ill-informed opinion that a perfectly natural phenomenon observed in many animals is inferior". 

Is this the same guy that objects so profusely to national service on libertarian grounds?

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

My point is that your employer shouldn’t be able to force you to show support for causes you don’t believe in, irrespective of how righteous they or wider society believe them to be

It’s his uniform though. Your employer has dress code regs. You wear what they say or you get fined/punished. As many have said, if you can’t do it then you opt out, you don’t opt in and then publicly make a show if your opposition. Opting out leads to no consequences, publicity opposing leads to consequences. He chose the latter, he got his sanction. 

[canarydan23 4,638]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

You’re correct

Should've stopped there.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,485]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

My point is that your employer shouldn’t be able to force you to show support for causes you don’t believe in, irrespective of how righteous they or wider society believe them to be

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but again, you're missing the point.

The employer is NOT forcing anyone to show support for 'causes they don't believe in'.

The employer is forcing them to not obstruct those that do believe in them.

 

[TheGunnShow 7,082]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Is this the same guy that objects so profusely to national service on libertarian grounds?

Exactly, he has the liberty to not take part in the game if this aspect bothers him that much for that single game. He's therefore free to act on his beliefs, the club can make alternative arrangements. And if he'd done that, he wouldn't have been fined either.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 841]

26 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

“He chose to migrate to, and work in, that country, and therefore should be expected to respect the way of life in that country and the values that country holds dear”

Sounds exactly what you were implying to me.

Those where my words you twit.

And I stick by them.

Perhaps this can be avoided in future by insisting that players commitments to things like this are agreed at contract stage. The point that he decides to take the agreed salary he is also committing to the agreed club initiatives.

Ligue 1 can in turn decide what clubs are contractually obliged to participate in, and that will determine whether clubs can give players an exemption at contract stage. 

Nobody is forcing them to sign the contract. You cannot equate a footballers contract with a normal employment contract, like you have done, because they are simply not the same thing. 

[Fen Canary 1,362]

14 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

What do you believe then Fen? 

Do you have children? What would you say to your son if he told you he was gay? What if he was told by people at school he was somehow ‘wrong’ and it upset him? Would you accept if a teammate in the local football team expressed that he didn’t believe in homosexuality, even if it meant he felt I accepted by them? 

The think is, one way causes harm to someone’s non chosen aspect of their life. The other causes no harm to a person very much chosen religious belief. 

All of this makes sense if you’re in the camp of ‘being gay is a choice’, in which case the argument ends there, because there’s no arguing with people holding that view 

Wouldn’t bother me which way they swing to be honest. If he played football with somebody who thought it was sinful then it depends how they went about it.

If the churchy type treated my son the same as anybody else but had his own beliefs then fine, whereas if he actively abused the other player for being gay then that’s an entirely different situation.

I’ve never said being gay is a choice as I don’t believe it is. I just find it very troubling when people can be punished for not doing something others believe to be virtuous, rather than when they simply do wrong 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

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

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but again, you're missing the point.

The employer is NOT forcing anyone to show support for 'causes they don't believe in'.

The employer is forcing them to not obstruct those that do believe in them.

 

No. If you're forcing people to wear clothes promoting a cause they don't believe in then you are forcing them to actively promote it.

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Wouldn’t bother me which way they swing to be honest. If he played football with somebody who thought it was sinful then it depends how they went about it.

If the churchy type treated my son the same as anybody else but had his own beliefs then fine, whereas if he actively abused the other player for being gay then that’s an entirely different situation.

I’ve never said being gay is a choice as I don’t believe it is. I just find it very troubling when people can be punished for not doing something others believe to be virtuous, rather than when they simply do wrong 

So your son being upset and feeling persecuted wouldn’t bother you at all? I find that hard to believe 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,046]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly, he has the liberty to not take part in the game if this aspect bothers him that much for that single game. He's therefore free to act on his beliefs, the club can make alternative arrangements. And if he'd done that, he wouldn't have been fined either.

Well that's not true; he's under contract to his club to play football for them.

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

No. If you're forcing people to wear clothes promoting a cause they don't believe in then you are forcing them .

Who forced him? Do you know that he tried to say no?