Banned for your beliefs

[Fen Canary 1,280]

4 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

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. 

I never had you down as a right winger Johnny Boy. I seem to remember the BNP making similar arguments 20 years ago, basically if you don’t want to integrate and live like the majority you should just go to a different country that shares your beliefs 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

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

Which he presumably read and signed willingly 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

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

It's pretty obvious by the way he covered up the logos.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,454]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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.

It's not promoting homosexuality.

It's fighting homophobia. 

Huge difference.

[Fen Canary 1,280]

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

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

Wear this top or we won’t let you do your job is forcing somebody in my eyes.

If your boss is a churchgoer should he be allowed to make you wear a cross at work? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

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

It's not promoting homosexuality.

It's fighting homophobia. 

Huge difference.

Same thing if you're from a country that prohibits homosexuality.

[Fen Canary 1,280]

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

It's not promoting homosexuality.

It's fighting homophobia. 

Huge difference.

He hasn’t said anything homophobic, he simply didn’t wish to be a part of a group that he presumably sees as promoting it.

Huge difference 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Wear this top or we won’t let you do your job is forcing somebody in my eyes.

If your boss is a churchgoer should he be allowed to make you wear a cross at work? 

Was he told that then? 

Ever worked in a place with a uniform? Why not just let Sargent wear an Ipswich shirt to play in then? 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's pretty obvious by the way he covered up the logos.

Not really obvious though is it. I’ll retract if he comes out to say he was coerced 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 799]

3 minutes 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 

The player in question refused to back the notion that homophobia is unacceptable. That was all he was really asked to do. 

So you are fine for your son to be happy for other people to be homophobic, as long as he didn't display homophobia to other people.

Well the Nazi's essentially governed by consent. You could be a supporter of the Nazi Party and their ideas, and not object to the persecution of homosexuals, without joining the SS and marching any of them onto the trains. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

3 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Was he told that then? 

Ever worked in a place with a uniform? Why not just let Sargent wear an Ipswich shirt to play in then? 

All footballers wear uniforms of their clubs. Conventionally, they never included logos of political causes and still shouldn't do in my view for precesely this reason. Demanding that people respect the law is absolutely right, but forcing people to partake in political campaigns that they don't support as individuals is unethical and illiberal.

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 1,280]

1 minute ago, SwearyCanary said:

Was he told that then? 

Ever worked in a place with a uniform? Why not just let Sargent wear an Ipswich shirt to play in then? 

Perhaps somebody more versed in employment law could tell us what’s allowed to be on company uniforms.

Health and Safety requirements would obviously be fine (although I’ve seen Sikhs on site who exempt themselves from wearing a hard hat), company colours and logos are obviously allowed. I’d imagine however that religious or political messaging wouldn’t be allowed to be forced onto employees 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 799]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Same thing if you're from a country that prohibits homosexuality.

He's not. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

3 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Not really obvious though is it. I’ll retract if he comes out to say he was coerced 

Grow up .

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Perhaps somebody more versed in employment law could tell us what’s allowed to be on company uniforms.

Health and Safety requirements would obviously be fine (although I’ve seen Sikhs on site who exempt themselves from wearing a hard hat), company colours and logos are obviously allowed. I’d imagine however that religious or political messaging wouldn’t be allowed to be forced onto employees 

rainbow is neither religious nor political 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

rainbow is neither religious nor political 

The rainbow flag is LGBTQ+, is recognised as such, and is included on the kits to promote exactly that.

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Grow up .

Great retort. As I say, I’ll retract my view that he was not coerced if he comes out to say that he was. I’ll even take his word for it. I’m not sure what else I can say when my view is that he decided to make the gesture of his own free will and put the shirt on willingly in order to do so 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

The rainbow flag is LGBTQ+, is recognised as such, and is included on the kits to promote exactly that.

But LGBTQ is neither religious or political 

[TheGunnShow 6,941]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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

Then he wouldn't get any contractually agreed appearance money and related bonuses for that one game. Just like any other non-participant from the squad under contract, regardless of reason for not being in the squad for a single fixture.

So, it's completely true. He could have followed his beliefs without censure or punishment simply by sitting out that game, so the argument that he's being punished for his beliefs is clearly wrong. If he'd told his manager such a ridiculous belief in confidence meant he didn't want to wear that kit, I'm sure they'd have quietly let him have the time away as they wouldn't want the media kerfuffle, even if they disagreed with him.

Instead, he showed he was cowardly, ill-informed and hiding behind a "god" whilst pretending to be "moral". 

At its heart, this is about allowing - or not allowing - bigoted nonsense about a stigmatised group from being given equal weighting as more informed, sensible opinions. Azimov's quote "“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge” springs readily to mind.

Edited May 31 by TheGunnShow
Added full quote instead of excerpt

[Fen Canary 1,280]

1 minute ago, SwearyCanary said:

rainbow is neither religious nor political 

Of course it is, especially now the transgender debate has been added to the gay rights movement it’s an inherently political discussion.

Should employees be forced to represent certain charities at the behest of their employer? Should McClean be forced to raise money for the poppy appeal if his club demands it? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then he wouldn't get any contractually agreed appearance money and related bonuses for that one game. Just like any other non-participant from the squad under contract, regardless of reason for not being in the squad for a single fixture.

So, it's completely true. He could have followed his beliefs without censure or punishment simply by sitting out that game, so the argument that he's being punished for his beliefs is clearly wrong. If he'd told his manager such a ridiculous belief in confidence meant he didn't want to wear that kit, I'm sure they'd have quietly let him have the time away as they wouldn't want the media kerfuffle, even if they disagreed with him.

Instead, he showed he was cowardly, ill-informed and hiding behind a "god" whilst pretending to be "moral". 

At its heart, this is about allowing - or not allowing - bigoted nonsense about a stigmatised group from being given equal weighting as more informed, sensible opinions. Azimov's line about "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" springs to mind.

Utterly ridiculous. This is political views impinging upon peoples right to earn a living. Totally illiberal .

Liberal democracy is built on people agreeing to disagree and tolerance, not forcing people to agree or be sanctioned.

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 1,280]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then he wouldn't get any contractually agreed appearance money and related bonuses for that one game. Just like any other non-participant from the squad under contract, regardless of reason for not being in the squad for a single fixture.

So, it's completely true. He could have followed his beliefs without censure or punishment simply by sitting out that game, so the argument that he's being punished for his beliefs is clearly wrong. If he'd told his manager such a ridiculous belief in confidence meant he didn't want to wear that kit, I'm sure they'd have quietly let him have the time away as they wouldn't want the media kerfuffle, even if they disagreed with him.

Instead, he showed he was cowardly, ill-informed and hiding behind a "god" whilst pretending to be "moral". 

At its heart, this is about allowing - or not allowing - bigoted nonsense about a stigmatised group from being given equal weighting as more informed, sensible opinions. Azimov's line about "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" springs to mind.

He would have lost wages and appearance bonuses for doing so, so essentially it’s the same as docking somebody’s salary. I’d say that would be classed as a punishment for most 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Of course it is, especially now the transgender debate has been added to the gay rights movement it’s an inherently political discussion.

Should employees be forced to represent certain charities at the behest of their employer? Should McClean be forced to raise money for the poppy appeal if his club demands it? 

Being picked up by politicians does t make an issue political. Otherwise everything is political. Football is political. Let’s stop playing football at the football, because they chatted about it in Westminster 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,976]

6 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

But LGBTQ is neither religious or political 

Yes it is political, demonstrated very clearly by the constant changes in what's included in the movement over time.

Edited May 31 by littleyellowbirdie

[Iwans Big Toe 353]

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

Umm. Homosexuality is not a choice 

Neither is adultery.

 

 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

Clearly Fen and LYB disagree and the ladies are not for changing to quote Thatcher (which makes me vomit).

I know how this makes me view their motives and I’m sure others will also draw their own conclusions. I am however going to stop trying to impose my view in support of tolerance. 

[SwearyCanary 1,309]

1 minute ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Neither is adultery.

 

 

Errr, yes it is?! 

[Iwans Big Toe 353]

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

Errr, yes it is?! 

Not by your logic.

 

 

[Fen Canary 1,280]

11 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

The player in question refused to back the notion that homophobia is unacceptable. That was all he was really asked to do. 

So you are fine for your son to be happy for other people to be homophobic, as long as he didn't display homophobia to other people.

Well the Nazi's essentially governed by consent. You could be a supporter of the Nazi Party and their ideas, and not object to the persecution of homosexuals, without joining the SS and marching any of them onto the trains. 

Yes, I don’t believe somebody should be forced to alter their beliefs on account of anybody else. As long as he didn’t try and force those beliefs onto others or abuse anybody who did things he disapproved of then he should be left alone.

Also the Nazis never won a majority of votes. They were put into power largely as a result of backroom deals to keep out the Communists who were deemed to be the bigger threat at the time. Once they were in power they cemented their position through authoritarian means and punished anybody who disagreed or spoke out against their favoured policies and points of view 

[Iwans Big Toe 353]

You can sleep with who ever you want too.