Banned for your beliefs

[horsefly 5,149]

35 minutes ago, Vegueros said:

For me, the pleasure of watching football has always been the pure entertainment and enjoyment of watching a game that I love. The added bonus used to be the escape, the refuge from the intrusion of politics. 

It seems to me that political messages, statements or whatever you want to call such signalling, should be excluded from all aspects of the game. Only my opinion, of course, but one that I feel strongly about. 

Footballers are employees. They have a right to be protected by exactly the same equality legislation as any other employee in any other business or career. Employers seeking to ensure that their employees from minority groups are properly protected are absolutely right to do so. I find it weird that some fans (and indeed some fellow footballers) find it so objectionable to see overt demonstrations that football is a sport that regards ALL players of ALL sexualities, races, (etc, etc) to be welcome as equal participants. 

[Fen Canary 1,362]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

As I said earlier, I'm a gay man but I don't come on here starting threads saying we should all wear rainbow laces because I know my sexuality is irrelevant on a football site. So why the need to start a thread that turns a homophobic footballer into a victim ('Banned for your beliefs' - very tabloid) and seems to aim to stir up anti-gay feeling? When someone comes on here and does that, I'm not going to keep quiet. It's because lots of people weren't quiet that homosexuality was no longer illegal in the UK and people were no longer sent to prison for taking part in adult consensual sex. Those people were victims, your virtue-signalling footballer is not.

Fortunately, the only person who has agreed with the OP is Little Yellow Birdie, and believe me, that is not a good look.

So because you happen to be gay your opinion trumps that of other peoples? As far as I’m aware he’s never said or done anything that can be construed as homophobic, he simply for whatever reason (presumably religious ones) didn’t want to be involved in the rainbow cause.

Why do you believe he should be forced to do so? Should you be forced to show support for your employers chosen causes, even if it’s something you disagreed with?

I’ve no time for his views, I think religion is all rather pointless and what two adults get up to is completely up to them, but I’m also deeply uncomfortable with people believing they can punish others simply for holding different opinions.

It’s not just this footballer, we’ve seen numerous feminists lose jobs because others disagreed with their views on the transgender debate. I find this current trend of authoritarianism dressed up as tolerance quite disturbing to be honest

[Monty13 2,684]

[Fen Canary 1,362]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Footballers are employees. They have a right to be protected by exactly the same equality legislation as any other employee in any other business or career. Employers seeking to ensure that their employees from minority groups are properly protected are absolutely right to do so. I find it weird that some fans (and indeed some fellow footballers) find it so objectionable to see overt demonstrations that football is a sport that regards ALL players of ALL sexualities, races, (etc, etc) to be welcome as equal participants. 

When you were a lecturer, if your university had said you had to be seen wearing a poppy when you took lectures around Remembrance Day otherwise you’d be suspended would you have supported their stance?

[horsefly 5,149]

38 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

I didn’t choose it. It’s the default position at birth.

A weird way to describe it, but fair enough. In which case why do you think homosexuality isn't likewise a "default position at birth" too. I have yet to meet a single gay person who said he "chose" to be gay rather than found himself to be gay. Jean Paul Sartre made a rather interesting point about sex when he observed that an erection is not something that is under control of the will (no doubt many men wish that they could just will it into being) . It is a bodily assertion of desire that surpasses and negates choice. What you do with the resulting tumescence is indeed a matter of choice, but the cause of its arrival wasn't. 

[chicken 3,002]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

When you were a lecturer, if your university had said you had to be seen wearing a poppy when you took lectures around Remembrance Day otherwise you’d be suspended would you have supported their stance?

Again, you are missing the point by trying to shoe-horn this into being "political".

Racism and homophobia transcend "politics" because they are not unique to any particular political leaning. Nor are they unique to religion because you don't have to be religious to hold such views, and that's before we talk about false religious groups... or political groups who pretend to be religious, or cults led by someone who isn't religious etc.

No one has to wear the poppy by law. Hate speech is breaking the law. If you attack someone for wearing a rainbow because you believe they are in support of LGBTQ+ rights it is a hate crime (in the UK).

Although it has been argued that the poppy is not political, it is directly related to a war. A war that was very much political both from it's beginnings - the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, to the way in which the old school generals treated masses of troops as cannon fodder without seemingly a care or understanding of what warfare had come to be. We wear the poppy of remembrance because of WW1, we also remember those we lost and who served in WW2, in the fight to free as much of Europe from Fascist tyranny as possible. It's worth noting that it wasn't a war to stop the Nazis from continuing the holocaust. I say that because anti-Semitism wasn't politically unique either in the many hundreds of years prior.

Anyway I digress.

Your entire argument is based on it being a political stance, as you keep comparing it to political issues. What you are arguing is that the Stop Oil protests shouldn't be stopped or silenced by the police etc? I suspect that even they want the police to stop them, it's the coverage they want so the shock and front page news is what they are aiming for, and they get it.

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

As others have said, but just to confirm. Monaco have 2 gambling sponsors. Vbet are a principal sponsor, so they have their logo on the teams kit - permanently. If someone can show me how Camara has covered up this logo, in order to express his beliefs, then I’ll shut up. However, if he has decided that this logo is fine and dandy, then he has made a choice as to which parts of his religion he is going to protest about. If his choice has been to protest against anti-homophobia gestures but not against gambling then what conclusion can be drawn. I wonder 

[Vegueros 11]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

So in that case no more minutes silence when players die, no more memorials for world war 1 and 2, no more poppies..

 

The list goes on. Or do you only moan about "political statements" if they are ones you don't like?

I am sorry but that is plainly a silly answer. Perhaps, I should have made it even clearer for you by including the word 'all ' in front of 'political messages etc'

"'... no more minutes silence when players die, no more memorials for world war 1 and 2, no more poppies."  Again, you are just being silly and I think you know you are. 

Taking time out to honour a person or an event is not a politcial message. 

 

 

[canarybubbles 2,148]

16 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

As others have said, but just to confirm. Monaco have 2 gambling sponsors. Vbet are a principal sponsor, so they have their logo on the teams kit - permanently. If someone can show me how Camara has covered up this logo, in order to express his beliefs, then I’ll shut up. However, if he has decided that this logo is fine and dandy, then he has made a choice as to which parts of his religion he is going to protest about. If his choice has been to protest against anti-homophobia gestures but not against gambling then what conclusion can be drawn. I wonder 

Very good point. Many people who show off their religious purity choose which bits of purity they decide to follow. Lots of them focus on Leviticus and what it says about man lying with man, but for some totally inexplicable reason they are quite happy to ignore what Christ said about a rich man and a camel and the eye of a needle.

[Fen Canary 1,362]

24 minutes ago, chicken said:

Again, you are missing the point by trying to shoe-horn this into being "political".

Racism and homophobia transcend "politics" because they are not unique to any particular political leaning. Nor are they unique to religion because you don't have to be religious to hold such views, and that's before we talk about false religious groups... or political groups who pretend to be religious, or cults led by someone who isn't religious etc.

No one has to wear the poppy by law. Hate speech is breaking the law. If you attack someone for wearing a rainbow because you believe they are in support of LGBTQ+ rights it is a hate crime (in the UK).

Although it has been argued that the poppy is not political, it is directly related to a war. A war that was very much political both from it's beginnings - the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, to the way in which the old school generals treated masses of troops as cannon fodder without seemingly a care or understanding of what warfare had come to be. We wear the poppy of remembrance because of WW1, we also remember those we lost and who served in WW2, in the fight to free as much of Europe from Fascist tyranny as possible. It's worth noting that it wasn't a war to stop the Nazis from continuing the holocaust. I say that because anti-Semitism wasn't politically unique either in the many hundreds of years prior.

Anyway I digress.

Your entire argument is based on it being a political stance, as you keep comparing it to political issues. What you are arguing is that the Stop Oil protests shouldn't be stopped or silenced by the police etc? I suspect that even they want the police to stop them, it's the coverage they want so the shock and front page news is what they are aiming for, and they get it.

Homosexuality may have nothing to do with politics, but the various rights groups and insignia such as the rainbow flag are inherently political. The transgender debate is a political debate, and the fact that’s now represented by those flags means those symbols are political.

To me every debate is a political debate. The reason we no longer allow employers to mistreat their employees due to the sexual orientation is due to political means and law changes. The fact employers can seemingly punish this player due to his beliefs is also a political debate to be had about the rights and wrongs of doing so

[shefcanary 2,854]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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

Promote or support? There is a difference.

[chicken 3,002]

28 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

As others have said, but just to confirm. Monaco have 2 gambling sponsors. Vbet are a principal sponsor, so they have their logo on the teams kit - permanently. If someone can show me how Camara has covered up this logo, in order to express his beliefs, then I’ll shut up. However, if he has decided that this logo is fine and dandy, then he has made a choice as to which parts of his religion he is going to protest about. If his choice has been to protest against anti-homophobia gestures but not against gambling then what conclusion can be drawn. I wonder 

And what do the "company" fear in terms of what his chosen statement will look like to the customers? And to other sponsors?

The talk has all been about "forced" but in reality, he wasn't. Clearly no one stopped him covering up the logos, although I suspect he was asked not to. He then faces the consequences of his actions. All freedoms come with responsibility.

The way Fen should be looking at this is what does the gesture look like? If someone at Burger King wore an item that could look like a racist slogan or symbol then do you think Burger King would defend their freedom of expression or suspend the individual pending investigation etc?

Sadly though, I think this is just a thread designed to stir up this discussion just so some can rile against others. Trying to paint it as "politics" is pretty clear to me that someone doesn't want it to be "hate" so it can be argued more. 

[chicken 3,002]

3 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Promote or support? There is a difference.

Spot on. And in a spot where homophobia is still very prevalent amongst some sections of the support and where, in the UK at least, many male footballers fall within the LGBTQ+ community but as of yet, remain too fearful to come out over it in fear of losing sponsors, damaging their career etc.

I think this thread really highlights just how behind some people really are.

"The gays". "It's a choice." "It's political"

[Naturalcynic 817]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

And what do the "company" fear in terms of what his chosen statement will look like to the customers? And to other sponsors?

The talk has all been about "forced" but in reality, he wasn't. Clearly no one stopped him covering up the logos, although I suspect he was asked not to. He then faces the consequences of his actions. All freedoms come with responsibility.

The way Fen should be looking at this is what does the gesture look like? If someone at Burger King wore an item that could look like a racist slogan or symbol then do you think Burger King would defend their freedom of expression or suspend the individual pending investigation etc?

Sadly though, I think this is just a thread designed to stir up this discussion just so some can rile against others. Trying to paint it as "politics" is pretty clear to me that someone doesn't want it to be "hate" so it can be argued more. 

Just to make the point that has also been made in other similar threads by many other people, I have serious reservations about promoting or supporting certain aspects of the ‘T’ in LGBT which I think are highly disturbing and are a serious cause for concern, particularly since the publication of the Cass Review.

[chicken 3,002]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Homosexuality may have nothing to do with politics, but the various rights groups and insignia such as the rainbow flag are inherently political. The transgender debate is a political debate, and the fact that’s now represented by those flags means those symbols are political.

To me every debate is a political debate. The reason we no longer allow employers to mistreat their employees due to the sexual orientation is due to political means and law changes. The fact employers can seemingly punish this player due to his beliefs is also a political debate to be had about the rights and wrongs of doing so

Homophobia is not political. It's a hatred. Same as racism. That's what I said.

The Pride flag isn't owned by any particular group. It has become an internationally recognised symbol for the LGBTQ+ community. It's not a society, or a rights group. Could it be used politically, yes, possibly, but it isn't a political symbol in the same way a nations flag is.

The transgender "debate" isn't about whether transgender people have rights. It's because it is the latest in those sorts of human rights discussions the modern world is having at large. You should note that most of those debates are around male to female trans folks and very, very rarely about female to male. This is important, because when you look further it is about 'fear', and fears that are for the most part unjustified. Otherwise it's a discussion about what age and how things like treatments can occur for people to begin their transition. They are not about whether it is right or wrong.

So again, transgender isn't the actual political debate.

Re the mistreatment of employees - again, just because something is ended politically, through politics, doesn't mean that the actual issue at hand is political. Otherwise what you are arguing is that employers should have the right to express their political beliefs to their employees no matter if it is sexist, racist, homophobic etc because they are just being political and it is their right to express. If you want to know what sounds extreme right wing, that very much would.

Just because Martin Luther King jnr took to peaceful protests to push for change, doesn't mean that racism is "political". It's wrong, it has no place in the world, under any religion or political leaning.

The only time that these things are ever political is when someone wants to be able to cast down hatred and not be punished for it. Sorry, but that's not the real world. As my Gran would say, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it... and if you do, don't be surprised to meet a slipper! 

[king canary 8,396]

Dunno what some of you are on about.

I remember vividly when I was 12, me and my schoolmates were marched into an assembly. We were locked in and forced to watch a two hour performance by a non binary person calling themselves 'Dildo Swaggins, the hip hop homosexual hobbit' who rapped about how great it was to let other men be lord of your ring.

It was then demanded that, there and then, we must choose our sexuaity. It took all of my courage to bravely choose to be straight under such horrendous pressure from the LGBT lobby and my leftie do gooder teachers and frankly I've faced nothing but discrimination since.

Sometimes I do think 'if only I'd chosen to be gay how much easier my life would be.' We all have our crosses to bear I guess.

[Fen Canary 1,362]

29 minutes ago, chicken said:

And what do the "company" fear in terms of what his chosen statement will look like to the customers? And to other sponsors?

The talk has all been about "forced" but in reality, he wasn't. Clearly no one stopped him covering up the logos, although I suspect he was asked not to. He then faces the consequences of his actions. All freedoms come with responsibility.

The way Fen should be looking at this is what does the gesture look like? If someone at Burger King wore an item that could look like a racist slogan or symbol then do you think Burger King would defend their freedom of expression or suspend the individual pending investigation etc?

Sadly though, I think this is just a thread designed to stir up this discussion just so some can rile against others. Trying to paint it as "politics" is pretty clear to me that someone doesn't want it to be "hate" so it can be argued more. 

Isn’t a message board designed for discussion? Why is somebody holding a different opinion to you simply stirring in your eyes? Would you rather it simply be an echo chamber?

As for your Burger King example, that doesn’t really work in this scenario. He hasn’t said anything homophobic, he simply doesn’t want to be associated with a cause of somebody else’s choosing. I think it’s a sad reflection that many feel somebody should be punished for not joining a cause. 

[chicken 3,002]

11 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Just to make the point that has also been made in other similar threads by many other people, I have serious reservations about promoting or supporting certain aspects of the ‘T’ in LGBT which I think are highly disturbing and are a serious cause for concern, particularly since the publication of the Cass Review.

So the Cass Review is something I touched upon in my last report. It isn't anti-trans. Not sure how it can lead you to having reservations about including the T in the LGBTQ+.

For those unaware, the Cass Review was an Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People. Since it's publication puberty blockers were no longer made available to under 18's through the NHS in the UK. It isn't anti-trans in any way and actually recommends that better evidence led treatment is the way forward.

I'm not a brilliant expert on it Naturalcynic so you'll have to refer to the part of the report where you think it is so critical as to the need to remove the 'T' from 'LGBTQ+'.

Worth noting that I have worked with, and no doubt will work again with young people that would be included as part of the client group for that report. I have also worked with colleagues that have transitioned and have friends that are trans. None of them are any different to any other young people or adults that I know or work with other than that aspect.

I struggle to identify as a straight chap at times, mainly because in my experience, the majority of damaging people to society in the UK are straight, white, males. The vast majority of young people I have worked with are white. Usually the victims of violence, neglect and sex abuse from men who would identify as straight, white and male.

I know this is taking things beyond what you are saying Natural so this isn't really aimed at you. But I have worked in the work I do for over 17yrs. You see and hear all kinds of stuff from the world at large. I have worked with kids in county lines - all white, those in charge of them, white. The media world would tell you it's all Black-African, Black-Caribbean - and perhaps it is in other areas, but it certainly isn't my experience. Same as you hear a lot about "Asian grooming gangs" but you don't hear so much about how county lines gangs often groom young girls so they can end up "passing them around" gang members, or offer them to new recruits as a way of grooming them.

You also hear of Islamic extremism being the most damaging thing on our society... and yet there is this thing called Prevent, which is out there for everyone to see, for people who work with children and young people. Every year they publicise a set of figures. Extremism in the UK is far, far, far more likely to come at the hands of extreme far right groups, neo Nazis, fascists, white supremacists. They groom our children and young people to adopt the hatred they preach... and again, uphold things like corporal punishment, beating partners and children etc.

Yet we're sat here waffling on about a player facing consequences for expressing his dislike of the LGBTQ+ community in Monaco. We can debate that as much as we like, but it wasn't in our society, it wasn't in our culture and as such we have no influence over it. That an Englishman want's to take offense over it, for me, speaks volumes about their motives.

[horsefly 5,149]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

When you were a lecturer, if your university had said you had to be seen wearing a poppy when you took lectures around Remembrance Day otherwise you’d be suspended would you have supported their stance?

Perhaps you would like to explain to me the connection between wearing a poppy and the protection of workers' rights with regard to equality legislation.

My university certainly demanded I wear a name badge as a condition of my employment. Had I an objection to wearing one and refused to do so I would have been disciplined. Are you saying they should not have had a right to do so?

[Fen Canary 1,362]

18 minutes ago, chicken said:

Homophobia is not political. It's a hatred. Same as racism. That's what I said.

The Pride flag isn't owned by any particular group. It has become an internationally recognised symbol for the LGBTQ+ community. It's not a society, or a rights group. Could it be used politically, yes, possibly, but it isn't a political symbol in the same way a nations flag is.

The transgender "debate" isn't about whether transgender people have rights. It's because it is the latest in those sorts of human rights discussions the modern world is having at large. You should note that most of those debates are around male to female trans folks and very, very rarely about female to male. This is important, because when you look further it is about 'fear', and fears that are for the most part unjustified. Otherwise it's a discussion about what age and how things like treatments can occur for people to begin their transition. They are not about whether it is right or wrong.

So again, transgender isn't the actual political debate.

Re the mistreatment of employees - again, just because something is ended politically, through politics, doesn't mean that the actual issue at hand is political. Otherwise what you are arguing is that employers should have the right to express their political beliefs to their employees no matter if it is sexist, racist, homophobic etc because they are just being political and it is their right to express. If you want to know what sounds extreme right wing, that very much would.

Just because Martin Luther King jnr took to peaceful protests to push for change, doesn't mean that racism is "political". It's wrong, it has no place in the world, under any religion or political leaning.

The only time that these things are ever political is when someone wants to be able to cast down hatred and not be punished for it. Sorry, but that's not the real world. As my Gran would say, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it... and if you do, don't be surprised to meet a slipper! 

So you’re suggesting there’s nothing political around the transgender discussion? The entry to single sec spaces isn’t a political discussion? Therefore if that flag represents one side of that debate surely that makes it a political emblem?

If you feel it’s right that employers can force employees to support their chosen causes under fear of punishment then that’s fine, I don’t agree it’s right at all. I’ll wager you wouldn’t hold this view if the player was refusing to endorse a group you didn’t like but we’ll leave it be.

 

[chicken 3,002]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Isn’t a message board designed for discussion? Why is somebody holding a different opinion to you simply stirring in your eyes? Would you rather it simply be an echo chamber?

As for your Burger King example, that doesn’t really work in this scenario. He hasn’t said anything homophobic, he simply doesn’t want to be associated with a cause of somebody else’s choosing. I think it’s a sad reflection that many feel somebody should be punished for not joining a cause. 

Because you are not interested in discussion or debate. Those things are for when someone is willing to change their viewpoint.

You have an opinion and you feel marginalised for it, therefore you didn't post to start a discussion or debate. You posted in hope of either more support or to attack anyone who didn't share your point of view. By responses alone you have your answer, yet you are still trying to insist you are correct.

Again - it's not a "cause". It's about inclusivity. The club, the footballing body want to ensure that everyone feels included. By covering it up, he is sending the message that he does not want these people to feel included, we assume on the basis of his religion.

The reason I used the example I did is because it's about symbolism. The worker at Burger King didn't declare support for anything but it was assumed. We say that assumption makes an **** out of you and me, but sometimes we can presume with evidence, which should trigger investigation.

I could get sacked from my job if I displayed any homophobic, racist, transphobic or misogynist expressions or support. If I still "believed" in those things and held it together at work and kept it away from work, I could still get sacked if I engaged with it away from work. In my opinion, quite rightly. 

[Fen Canary 1,362]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you would like to explain to me the connection between wearing a poppy and the protection of workers' rights with regard to equality legislation.

My university certainly demanded I wear a name badge as a condition of my employment. Had I an objection to wearing one and refused to do so I would have been disciplined. Are you saying they should not have had a right to do so?

Because this man has been banned for refusing to display a symbol of his employers choosing, an action which you seemingly support.

I’m interested to know if you’d support your previous university doing the same to its employees in my hypothetical situation? 

[horsefly 5,149]

What a shame that players weren't wearing rainbow symbols back in this man's day. Things might have turned out very different for him

 

[chicken 3,002]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

So you’re suggesting there’s nothing political around the transgender discussion? The entry to single sec spaces isn’t a political discussion? Therefore if that flag represents one side of that debate surely that makes it a political emblem?

If you feel it’s right that employers can force employees to support their chosen causes under fear of punishment then that’s fine, I don’t agree it’s right at all. I’ll wager you wouldn’t hold this view if the player was refusing to endorse a group you didn’t like but we’ll leave it be.

As I pointed out the political discussion isn't about whether transgender is right or wrong - there isn't an ongoing political discussion about "transgender".

There is ongoing discussion about how to protect women in female single sex spaces from people who may falsely claim to be transgender to gain access to them, or the very few who may be genuinely transgender but who have also been identified as possible sex offenders or be perverts.

That isn't an actual discussion about "transgender" is it?

A lot of spaces are changing over to gender neutral toilets, that has also caused debate. The LCR has them and personally, I think it is probably the safest way forward if handled correctly. How many parents have taken children of opposite sexes into toilets with them? How about in the past where baby changing facilities were mainly only in the women's?

The flag doesn't represent one side of that debate because the flag doesn't represent a political group, it's not owned by anyone. In the same way that Pride marches aren't just for "the gays" and many straight folks take part too, in solidarity. Just as there were white supporters and protestors with Martin Luther King.

You seem hell bent on trying to suggest that the LGBTQ+ community and the pride flag are "political" and therefore it is fair game to express whatever you like about them. It's wrong, please listen, please be educated. 

[TheGunnShow 7,081]

 

1 hour ago, SwearyCanary said:

As others have said, but just to confirm. Monaco have 2 gambling sponsors. Vbet are a principal sponsor, so they have their logo on the teams kit - permanently. If someone can show me how Camara has covered up this logo, in order to express his beliefs, then I’ll shut up. However, if he has decided that this logo is fine and dandy, then he has made a choice as to which parts of his religion he is going to protest about. If his choice has been to protest against anti-homophobia gestures but not against gambling then what conclusion can be drawn. I wonder 

Notice this got missed. And he's been there since 2022. And I can't find anything showing that he'd covered that - and Sonny Bill Williams certainly did that with his Auckland kit with a bank, and Papiss Cisse refused to wear the sponsored kit at Newcastle for a bit as it was Wonga, contravening beliefs on money lending. (Then he got photographed in a casino).

[horsefly 5,149]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Because this man has been banned for refusing to display a symbol of his employers choosing, an action which you seemingly support.

I’m interested to know if you’d support your previous university doing the same to its employees in my hypothetical situation? 

Oh dear! The rainbow symbol is DIRECTLY a symbol of equality, which is DIRECTLY an objective and legal requirement of the employer.

Try again, and this time answer the question you were asked. What is the connection between the poppy (which I wear btw) and employment equality legislation?

[Fen Canary 1,362]

4 minutes ago, chicken said:

Because you are not interested in discussion or debate. Those things are for when someone is willing to change their viewpoint.

You have an opinion and you feel marginalised for it, therefore you didn't post to start a discussion or debate. You posted in hope of either more support or to attack anyone who didn't share your point of view. By responses alone you have your answer, yet you are still trying to insist you are correct.

Again - it's not a "cause". It's about inclusivity. The club, the footballing body want to ensure that everyone feels included. By covering it up, he is sending the message that he does not want these people to feel included, we assume on the basis of his religion.

The reason I used the example I did is because it's about symbolism. The worker at Burger King didn't declare support for anything but it was assumed. We say that assumption makes an **** out of you and me, but sometimes we can presume with evidence, which should trigger investigation.

I could get sacked from my job if I displayed any homophobic, racist, transphobic or misogynist expressions or support. If I still "believed" in those things and held it together at work and kept it away from work, I could still get sacked if I engaged with it away from work. In my opinion, quite rightly. 

I’m willing to change my opinion, my positions and leanings have changed numerous times throughout my life. Just because nobody has put forward a strong enough argument on this particular subject in my opinion that has caused me to alter my original view doesn’t mean I’m an ideologue.

You think it’s fine for an employer to be able to police the opinions of their employees, whereas I think it’s abhorrent for them to be allowed to do so. We’ll agree to disagree 

[Fen Canary 1,362]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! The rainbow symbol is DIRECTLY a symbol of equality, which is DIRECTLY an objective and legal requirement of the employer.

Try again, and this time answer the question you were asked. What is the connection between the poppy (which I wear btw) and employment equality legislation?

Because I don’t believe an employer can force you to wear a rainbow anything. They can ask that you do, but if you don’t want to for whatever reason then I don’t believe they should be allowed to punish you. If they can then why is it allowed for that cause but not others? 

[mrD66M 149]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

What a shame that players weren't wearing rainbow symbols back in this man's day. Things might have turned out very different for him

 

Well said. It's not like Stephen Fry is not one of the most famous NCFC supporters, with a particular awareness towards mental health / LGBTQ+ issues.

[chicken 3,002]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m willing to change my opinion, my positions and leanings have changed numerous times throughout my life. Just because nobody has put forward a strong enough argument on this particular subject in my opinion that has caused me to alter my original view doesn’t mean I’m an ideologue.

You think it’s fine for an employer to be able to police the opinions of their employees, whereas I think it’s abhorrent for them to be allowed to do so. We’ll agree to disagree 

Nope.

You repeatedly make the wrong arguments and then refuse to listen to the responses and correct them. You are exactly an ideologue on this subject.

Lets say a logo is designed, it has people of all races and religions in a circle holding hands along with some known symbols around it - such as the pride flag, and the kick it out logo. Everyone is very well aware and educated as to what that logo means and it is agreed by every football club in he UK and by the FA's involved that it will be on the shirt of every club. This is also supported by the players association.

A player (made up) called Ramano Quagillarhino signs for S****brough Hotburn. He's European white. Before the game he uses a permanent marker to cover up the "kick it out" symbol from the logo.

What does that message look like?

What does it look like if a supporter goes on a forum and says "No one should be forced to wear anything they don't want to by an employer, I don't mind the blacks myself but..."

Because that is what we are talking about.

There are dress codes for businesses across the country. Some uniforms also include logos in support of "diversity" or work places have posters that employers have put up and around in their buildings. It isn't the big oppressive thing you think it is unless you hold counter beliefs.

I worked for an outdoor shop as a young man during my gap year. I had to wear a uniform with the companies name on it. I would rather not as it was a nice fleece and I could have worn it out and about when not at work, because it was black. I also sold things and sometimes had promotional t-shirts etc to wear for brands I didn't particularly like, and were a bit garish. But it's part of my job.

Footballers are role models in the same way actors are and other sports people are. I suspect even his agent is trying to ensure damage limitation at this point. Even the best of players will struggle to land contracts and sponsorships if their "beliefs" as you call them, don't align with those of the majority of people in the markets they are playing in.