Tampa Bay Rays players opt to not wear the "Pride Night " logo on shirts

[JAHS]

Tampa Bay Rays players cite faith to explain concerns about ‘Pride Night’

The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team celebrated “Pride Night” on Saturday, but several players chose not to wear their support for the LGBTQ community on their sleeve.

The Tampa Bay Times reported that pitchers Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson, among others, opted out of the team’s special Pride Night uniforms, which featured rainbow-colored logos on the cap and right sleeve.

Adam told the Times that the players want members of the LGBTQ community to feel welcome at Rays games. They just didn’t want to be forced to wear something that violated their faith, he said.

“It’s a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior, just like (Jesus) encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It’s no different,” Adam said, according to the Times.

________________

They already agreed to have the special Pride Night and all the players will play in it.  Is it reasonable for these few players to refuse to wear the logo? Does it really violate their faith if they do?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Tampa Bay Rays players cite faith to explain concerns about ‘Pride Night’

The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team celebrated “Pride Night” on Saturday, but several players chose not to wear their support for the LGBTQ community on their sleeve.

The Tampa Bay Times reported that pitchers Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson, among others, opted out of the team’s special Pride Night uniforms, which featured rainbow-colored logos on the cap and right sleeve.

Adam told the Times that the players want members of the LGBTQ community to feel welcome at Rays games. They just didn’t want to be forced to wear something that violated their faith, he said.

“It’s a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior, just like (Jesus) encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It’s no different,” Adam said, according to the Times.

________________

They already agreed to have the special Pride Night and all the players will play in it.  Is it reasonable for these few players to refuse to wear the logo? Does it really violate their faith if they do?

 

Yes, it is reasonable to refuse to wear the logo (for any reason, by definition), and if someone says that doing so violates their faith, then in good faith we accept that.

Edited June 6, 2022 by CV75

[Fether]

I find it far more concerning that people are question if it is appropriate for someone to not want to wear a pro LGBTQ shirt.

[MorningStar]

Is it OK to not want to wear it because it's just gotten ridiculously out of control? Rainbow everything. Rainbow crosswalks. Temporary rainbow logos. Then the rainbow flag isn't enough anymore. We now need a rainbow flag with a butt ugly triangle of clashing colors on the side? My husband had to spend all day at work the other day putting up new stickers and they made a big deal about how people would be offended if the triangle weren't on the left. And then people get offended if they don't become permanent. Why would a simple rainbow flag not include everyone? I thought that's what it implied. And stop adding letters to the acronym already! And stop making up new, stupid identities! "I'm demi sexual and that means I don't have a sexual attraction to anyone unless I connect emotionally with them." You mean you're not a skank? 

Just saw some lady post that she's an "aro ace." I'm not looking it up. I'm done. 

[mbh26]

It's more disturbing to me that there's been an explosion in the number of people who identify as LGBTQ as the public school curriculum has seeded childrens minds from a very young age with thoughts of, "You might be gay.," and obviously has steered many of them in that direction.  Anyone who pushes back against that is disparaged as a racist, bigot, homophobe who has no right to tell his own children any different.  

[smac97]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

Tampa Bay Rays players cite faith to explain concerns about ‘Pride Night’

The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team celebrated “Pride Night” on Saturday, but several players chose not to wear their support for the LGBTQ community on their sleeve.

The Tampa Bay Times reported that pitchers Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson, among others, opted out of the team’s special Pride Night uniforms, which featured rainbow-colored logos on the cap and right sleeve.

Adam told the Times that the players want members of the LGBTQ community to feel welcome at Rays games. They just didn’t want to be forced to wear something that violated their faith, he said.

“It’s a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior, just like (Jesus) encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It’s no different,” Adam said, according to the Times.

________________

They already agreed to have the special Pride Night and all the players will play in it.  Is it reasonable for these few players to refuse to wear the logo? Does it really violate their faith if they do?

I'm curious as to how you would propose we measure the "reasonableness" of a person's choice to not speak things he does not want to speak.  Could you elaborate?  How much justification does a person have to give for his choice to speak, or not speak?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Is it OK to not want to wear it because it's just gotten ridiculously out of control?

Just saw this:

Yeah.  

12 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Rainbow everything. Rainbow crosswalks. Temporary rainbow logos. Then the rainbow flag isn't enough anymore. We now need a rainbow flag with a butt ugly triangle of clashing colors on the side?

There does not seem to be any "limiting principle" here.  Anything goes.  Such as this:

Quote

A video recently posted to YouTube that shows a young boy dancing in a sexual manner during a “gay” pride event while onlookers cheered him on is raising concerns from viewers nationwide.

The video was posted on Thursday by an online publication called “Ovenworthy,” and was entitled “This Is the Future You Chose.” It shows a young child believed to be no older than 12 years old grinding and twerking to the song “Sissy That Walk” by drag queen RuPaul at the Sao Paolo Pride Festival in Brazil. The boy, shirtless and wearing very short jean shorts, is surrounded by event attendees who cheer on his moves.

The video was restricted to viewing for those 18 and up because of its sexualized content.

Gay Star News, in reporting about the concerns that followed the posting of the video, said that the boy was simply “having a great time” and called those who opposed the scenario “homophobes.”

Some readers agreed.

“I bet homophobes rather see a young boy carrying a gun. Homophobes should mind their own sex-life! Do we question their bed-activities?” one wrote.

“In the 90’s there was a popular booty-shaking dance Lambada, not much different from twerking—all the kids were dancing! This kid is just having fun, and yes, in Brazil sexuality is a lot more part of the culture then any westerner can understand,” another stated.

But others, including some of Gay Star News’ readers, took issue with the footage.

“I’m not a homophobe, but I find videos of prepubescent children dancing provocatively completely disgusting. I also find Gay Star news method of defense equally disgusting,” one wrote.

“As a transgender woman I find this disgusting. Why would you get a prepubescent child to do acts like this? People already think we’re pedophiles,” a second stated.

“That kid didn’t just learn that from anywhere. He has obviously been exposed to inappropriate behavior and it is up to his guardians to look after him properly. The kid might not see it as sexual, but that is not the point, and if you think this type of behavior and little boys in tight short shorts is ok then you have a serious problem…” a third opined.

And this:

Quote

Shocking footage has emerged online of a drag queen show for children that took place at a gay bar in Dallas, Texas, on Saturday.

The newly-opened “Mr. Misster” hosted a “Drag the Kids to Pride” event where scantily clad drag queens gyrated in front of young children, and invited them to join them on stage.

Independent journalists Taylor Hansen (in tutu) and Aldo Buttozoni infiltrated the event, and recorded the depraved antics inside the venue.

“If you think you can do it like we do, I want you to come up real quick,” a drag queen told the children. The transvestite asked if the boys “want to be a diva” and told them to pick a drag queen to partner with. The children who attended the show appeared to be under ten years old, and included babies and toddlers.
...
Shocking videos showed parents giving their children money to give the gyrating transvestites.
...
Hansen said the “Drag Your Kids to Pride” event was “by far” the hardest and grossest thing he’d ever had to report on.

“Over all, it was just terrible. It was disgusting,” he reported from his car as he was riding home from the show.

Hansen said that the most disturbing thing he saw was a little boy at the bar who was ignoring the Drag show and playing on his Nintendo.

He said he overheard the boy tell the bartender that he wasn’t gay. “His mom butted in, interrupted this child and said, ‘no, he is gay, don’t let him lie to you, he is.'”

More here (same story as above) :

Quote

The bar held an event called “DRAG THE KIDS TO PRIDE – A Family Friendly Drag Show” on Saturday. While most of us understand that a drag show fundamentally cannot be a family-friendly event, Mr. Misster thinks it’s just fine:

Quote

Mr. Misster’s Drag The Kids To Pride Drag Show provides the ultimate family friendly pride experience. This signature event is a family friendly spin off of our famed Champagne Drag Brunch, with our resident DJ Charlie Phresh playing some of your favorite hits while host Nicole O’Hara Munro brings together some of the best drag entertainers around! Our under 21 guests can enjoy a special Mr. Misster Mocktails while the moms and dads can sip on one of our classic Mr. Misster Mimosa Towers. Do you want to hit the stage with the queens? We have FIVE limited spots for young performers to take the stage solo, or with a queen of their choosing! Come hangout with the Queens and enjoy this unique pride experience, fit for guests of all ages!

The show was just as horrible and inappropriate for children as you would imagine. Men cross-dressed in sexually charged costumes and danced inappropriately for children, whose parents encouraged them to hand the performers money — just like at an adult strip bar!

Then the children were made part of the act. First, they were brought on stage to play a game of musical chairs while a dragged-out emcee called the shots and the audience whooped and cheered:
...
Once the children were comfortable being the center of attention, it was time for the next step in the groomy progression. Kids were invited on stage to catwalk with the performers. “Who wants to be a diva for the day?” asked a drag queen, as several kids joined him.

And here: Groomers Say Kids Will Be Exposed to 'Nudity and Kink' at Pride Parades, But Don't Worry, It's 'Educational'

Quote

The groomers are everywhere these days, but nowhere are they more visible than at LGBTQ “Pride” parades, where every kind of debauchery imaginable is on full display in neighborhoods and on city streets around the world. A website called Fatherly warns in its Parenting section that pride parades are “filled with sights that may be new to kids, like public nudity and kink. Not to mention that Pride parades aren’t the most sober of places.”

Nevertheless, the article concludes that young children should indeed be exposed to kink and nudity because the “educational aspects of Pride are paired with joy and celebration.”
...
The article continued with someone with a Ph.D. after her name joking about exposing children to nudity and grooming them to be desensitized to sex-themed paraphernalia:

Quote

Jenifer McGuire, Ph.D., an associate professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota, has been to Pride celebrations across the world with her family, from Tucson to Amsterdam. McGuire, a lesbian parent, always preps her kids for possible adult content beforehand. After a few events, the kids knew to expect nudity and other surprises. “They just had to learn to laugh and enjoy things. Like there were these Beanie Babies with giant penises on them,” McGuire says. “For a fourth- and fifth-grade kid, that’s super funny.”

Super funny if you’re a groomer who thinks children need to be exposed to sex-fueled parties at a young age, I guess.

To sum up:

Yep.

Meanwhile, some responses to the Tampa Bay players who chose not to "speak" the message being imposed on them:

Here:

Quote

It was supposed to be a show of unity in support of the LGBTQ+ community. For Pride Night at Tropicana Field, the Tampa Bay Rays wore special jerseys and caps sporting the rainbow-colored logo.

"Nearly every Tampa Bay player who took the field against the White Sox in the first inning did so with a rainbow-colored sunburst logo patch on his right arm and a rainbow-colored "TB" logo on his cap," Adam Berry reported for MLB.com.

But five Rays pitchers opted out. Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson "peeled off" the logo and wore the team's standard cap, according to Tampa Bay Times writer Marc Topkin.
...
Florida resident and self-described "avid Rays fan" Matt LaBarge says Adams' remarks were disappointing

"By using the word 'behavior,' it's implying that it's a choice. That's the talk of marginalization and I couldn't agree with that," LaBarge tells NPR.

LaBarge was one of a number of commenters in a feisty thread on the Rays' Facebook page. The team posted photos of people wearing t-shirts decorated with LGBTQ pride flags, rainbow colors and the words "Baseball is for Everyone." Commenters railed against the team for being too political or "woke." Some said they would no longer attend games. Others applauded the Rays for promoting inclusivity.

Here: Rays Pitcher Who Didn’t Wear Pride Patch Hides Behind Jesus

Quote

The Tampa Bay Rays’ Pride Night this past Saturday inadvertently turned into a throwback night when one of the five players who declined to wear a rainbow logo explained the decision with a very dated reason.
...
Using Jesus as a shield doesn’t work anymore. He didn’t say that! Besides, that strategy was officially retired when Thom Brennaman called himself a “man of faith” in the middle of nuking his own career.

Even rhetorically, I don’t know how to follow this. So Adam and the other four players didn’t want to wear the rainbow logo because of their faith, but the LGBTQ community is welcomed and loved at the Rays’ stadium, but wearing the logo is endorsing a lifestyle that shouldn’t be encouraged or publicly endorsed, but it’s not a judgmental decision and they care about the LGBTQ community—just not to the point where they’d support it in public. Now that’s being an ally. One wonders what would’ve happened if a player tried this sort of explanation to get out of wearing tactical camo baseball socks.

The Dodgers and Giants reportedly had full player participation on their Pride Nights, but the Rays couldn’t get there. Manager Kevin Cash said he did not expect the opt-outs to create any division in the clubhouse, instead saying that it led to “a lot of conversation and valuing the different perspectives inside the clubhouse but really appreciating the community that we’re trying to support here.”

What were the different perspectives there? What’s the opposing viewpoint to “The LGBTQ community should feel unconditional support” that should be given equal consideration?

Here:

Quote

St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jake Flaherty took issue with several Tampa Bay Rays players who decided against wearing Pride patches in support of the LGBTQ+ community for Saturday's game as part of the team’s 16th annual Pride Night.
...
"Absolute joke," Flaherty wrote on Twitter in response to the Rays players' decision.

The NY Times: 

Quote

An Attempt at Inclusion Proves There Is More Work to Do
A day after the Dodgers finally embraced the memory of Glenn Burke — Major League Baseball’s first gay player — a group of Rays players undercut their team’s Pride Night.

Something was missing in the top of the eighth inning on Saturday at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Fla. The Tampa Bay Rays used two relief pitchers that inning — the left-handers Brooks Raley and Jalen Beeks — who wore jerseys without a patch on their right sleeve.

This was not a manufacturer’s error or an equipment manager’s mistake. The patch was the Rays’ starburst emblem rendered in rainbow colors, like the “TB” logo on the team’s cap, as part of the team’s Pride Night promotion. Raley, Beeks and a few other teammates chose to wear caps and jerseys without the rainbow accents.
...
As a low-payroll team that challenges convention, the Rays prioritize clubhouse harmony; without buy-in from players, their unorthodox on-field strategies might not work. The organization wanted to share its values with the uniforms, Silverman said, but would not force players to comply if they were uncomfortable.

Yet by allowing the players to opt out of the promotion — and to use the platform to endorse an opposite viewpoint — the Rays undercut the message of inclusion they were trying to send. Words like “lifestyle” and “behavior” are widely known tropes often interpreted as a polite cover for condemning gay culture.

The Rays held their promotion the day after the Dodgers had honored the memory of Glenn Burke, a former outfielder for the team who was the first major leaguer to have come out as gay, at the team’s LGBTQ+ Pride Night in Los Angeles. The resistance of some players in St. Petersburg — despite the Rays’ best intentions — showed how far the movement still has to go.

“When people use their interpretation of religion to justify discrimination against people for the way they were born, it’s really an indictment of them and their faith,” said the author Andrew Maraniss, who wrote a biography of Burke, who died in 1995, titled “Singled Out” that published last year. “Acknowledging that people are people and all fans are welcome, that’s not something you should be able to opt out of.”
...
All of this can be exhausting for fans who would rather take their sports without politics, yet an event like Pride Night should stand apart. It is meant to be a collective show of unity, without judgment, yet some players were allowed to send a different message.

Gotta love that the NY Times is endorsing compelled speech.

Here: Openly gay pro baseball player says 'discrimination and hate has a voice in baseball' after Tampa Bay Rays players refuse to wear Pride Night uniforms

Quote

After a handful of Tampa Bay Rays players refused to wear their rainbow-clad uniforms for Pride Night on Saturday, the only openly-gay active player in professional baseball said "discrimination and hate has a voice in baseball and you saw it in Tampa." 

Got that?  Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "hate."

Quote

"We have seen a lot of teams selling rainbow merchandise and doing pride nights which is great, but they need to actually support their players," Bryan Ruby said of the situation in Tampa, which he called "sad and frustrating."

"We get one night at the ballpark to be ourselves all year and it just was an indication that a lot of people still believe that we just don't belong there and that we are not welcome and even on Pride Night, we're still second-class citizens," he said.

The Rays held their 16th annual Pride Night at Tropicana Field on Saturday.

All players were required to wear rainbow-colored logos on their Pride Night uniforms, including a rainbow "TB" on their caps and a rainbow sunburst on their right jersey sleeves, the Tampa Bay Times reported. 

But a handful of players, including pitchers Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs, and Ryan Thompson, chose not to comply with the Pride Night attire, wearing their regular hats and peeling off the sunburst logo, the Tampa Bay Times reported. 

Adam claimed their decision came down to "religious beliefs" and not wanting to encourage the "behavior" of the LGBTQ community, the Times reported. 

Ruby wondered why the stadium's compliance officer, whose job it is to ensure players are wearing their uniforms correctly, didn't take action. 

"If a player flat out refused to wear number 42 on Jackie Robinson day, I have no doubt they would be fined," he said, noting that none of the Rays players have been fined for stripping their uniforms of rainbow logos. 

He's hoping these players get punished - via fines - for declining to wear "pride" regalia.

Here: Tampa Bay Rays pitchers may be seen as anti-gay as they refused to wear gay pride decoratives

Quote

Tampa Bay Rays pitchers may be seen as anti-gay as they refused to wear gay pride decoratives
The five of them refused to wear them claiming they have different religious beliefs

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "anti-gay."

Quote

Some of the Tampa Bay Rays players were adamant and objected to wearing the Gay Pride logo on their uniform this past weekend arguing that they had religious beliefs that prevented them to show support for the LGBTQ+ community. But they say that they welcome everyone.

The players were all pitchers

The five pitchers are Jason Adam,Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs , and Ryan Thompson. They were supposed to wear special jerseys and hats that had the classic rainbow coloring letters, however, they wore their regular uniforms.

Jason Adams expressed that their decision was a faith-based situation "So it's a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here."

Apparently, Jesus encourages them not to support gays

...

The team wanted to celebrate diversity but they seem to have strong opposition, there is yet to be a conclusion to what the aftermath will be.

Here:

Quote

Predictably, the five players have taken heat on social media and in the press for their action. BlazeMedia captured some of the reaction:

“Will someone please show me the Bible passage that says ‘Thou shalt not wear a rainbow on thou’s clothing’…” sportswriter Cyd Zeigler tweeted. In a column for Outsports, he called the players’ actions, and the Rays management’s support of it, “a disaster.”

Here:

Quote

Love thy neighbor.

I guess that’s one part of the Bible that five Tampa Bay Rays players decided to ignore when they cited “faith-based” reasons for not wearing custom hats and jerseys with rainbow lettering and patches during the team’s Pride Night celebration over the weekend.

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = not loving your neighbor.

Quote

...
While more than half of the team wore the colorful uniforms, at least five players “opted out” of wearing them. Relief pitcher Jason Adam was one of them, and he spoke for the group about their decision to choose not to be part of creating a place where everyone is welcome. Per the Tampa Bay Times:

Quote

“A lot of it comes down to faith, to like a faith-based decision,” Adam said. “So it’s a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior, just like (Jesus) encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It’s no different.”

“It’s not judgmental. It’s not looking down. It’s just what we believe the lifestyle he’s encouraged us to live, for our good, not to withhold. But again, we love these men and women, we care about them, and we want them to feel safe and welcome here.”

No, Jason. You don’t. You don’t want anyone who is different from you to feel safe and welcome here. Or else you would’ve worn a simple patch and a hat with rainbow lettering.

The Rays Players are Hiding Homophobia Behind Religion

People in the queer community have heard this type of story countless times. We’re sick of it.

Religion may be a choice, but sexuality isn’t. There’s no disagreeing with this “lifestyle.” That’s the basis of hate, and that can’t be tolerated.

One problem I have is that Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson have clearly chosen to interpret the Bible in a way that fits their homophobic views.

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "homophobia."

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "hate."

Quote

...
The pride flag is an image of support. It shows that all are welcome here, regardless of sexuality or gender. If Adams and the other pitchers wanted to show they welcome and celebrate everyone, they would’ve worn the rainbow uniforms. I must have missed the part of the Bible that condemned colorful jerseys.

I’m not the only one pissed off by this. Those five Rays players have caught plenty of flak since then. One such opponent was St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jack Flaherty, who wrote “absolute joke” in response to their homophobic stunt. And that’s coming from a guy with a Bible verse in his Twitter bio. See how you can be religious and accepting?
...
But what message does it send when players of said team can’t even wear a rainbow logo for a night against the Chicago White Sox? If I were Rays’ manager Kevin Cash, I’d bring in someone from the community to explain exactly why this is a big deal. I don’t think they get it.

Here:

Quote

The Obvious Problems with Tampa Bay Rays Players Refusing to Wear the Pride Rainbow

A few players on the Tampa Bay Rays refused to wear the Pride Rainbow on their jerseys, showing just how prevalent bigotry still is.

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "bigotry."

Quote

The Tampa Bay Rays held their team’s annual Pride Night on Saturday. Many of the players wore a rainbow on their uniforms to signify that LGBTQ+ people are welcome at the ballpark and in baseball. Unfortunately, a few players refused to wear the rainbow patch. This also meant they refused to show support for a community that often feels unwelcome. These players cited their reasons for doing this as religious objections to homosexuality. We're going there, folks. Religion may be a sensitive subject, but it's 2022 and we're going to have to address the elephant in the room—bigotry.

Religion and Using It As A Way To Hate

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "hate."

Quote

Misrepresenting The Religion They Claim To Be Devoted To

Save me your bible quotes and dogmatic inaccuracies, I am married to someone who has an MDiv and knows more than most on the subject. I also refuse to stand on the side of the oppressor, which is what these players have ultimately chosen to do. The universally understood message of Jesus of Nazareth and the foundations he left behind represents valuing everyone, not being judgmental, and loving our neighbors. By denying the rainbow flag, you are actively saying you do not value that community and that they are not welcome.

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "misrepresenting" belief in Jesus.

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "oppression."

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "you are actively saying you do not value {gays} and that they are not welcome."

Quote

The precedent set by the Tampa Bay Rays by allowing players to opt out of this choice is an ugly one, and I fear it will lead to worse results down the road. We should be welcoming of everyone. Homophobia has no place here.

Declining to wear "pride" regalia = "homophobia."

I think this sums things up well:

Quote

Years ago, when the “gay rights” movement demanded more and more concessions, you’d often hear their activists say, “Why are you opposed to gay rights? This won’t impact your life in any way.” Of course, they don’t even try to say that anymore, as every one knows it’s a lie. There are no longer calls for tolerance, but compliance. You MUST agree with their lifestyles, no matter how aberrant and sinful. If you don’t publicly show your support for what every generation before ours knew to be physically, mentally, psychologically, and spiritually unhealthy, then you could lose your job, your friends, and anything else you might value.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2022 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

Tampa Bay Rays players cite faith to explain concerns about ‘Pride Night’

The Tampa Bay Rays baseball team celebrated “Pride Night” on Saturday, but several players chose not to wear their support for the LGBTQ community on their sleeve.

The Tampa Bay Times reported that pitchers Jason Adam, Jalen Beeks, Brooks Raley, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson, among others, opted out of the team’s special Pride Night uniforms, which featured rainbow-colored logos on the cap and right sleeve.

Adam told the Times that the players want members of the LGBTQ community to feel welcome at Rays games. They just didn’t want to be forced to wear something that violated their faith, he said.

“It’s a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior, just like (Jesus) encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It’s no different,” Adam said, according to the Times.

________________

They already agreed to have the special Pride Night and all the players will play in it.  Is it reasonable for these few players to refuse to wear the logo? Does it really violate their faith if they do?

 

I love reflecting back on those Jesus sermons about straight lifestyle. Good stuff   

These guys sound like jerks, but that's their prerogative .

[Chum]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

Adam told the Times that the players want members of the LGBTQ community to feel welcome at Rays games. They just didn’t want to be forced to wear something that violated their faith, he said.

This seems a lot like how things are supposed to work. Players who disagree are opting out - and they aren't being colon clogs about it.  Their response feels Christ-like to me, a welcome break from FL's pervasive Adversarial climate.

[MorningStar]

Ready for this madness, @smac97?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeNL4PsLAij/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

The owner of this sex shop is the Bellingham School District board director and invited LGBTQ kids 0-18 to perform poetry, music, etc. AT HER SEX SHOP. 

I don’t care which children are invited and for what reason. Kids don’t belong in a sex shop. Furthermore, kids’ sexual orientations are no one’s business and anyone trying to lure them into their supposed safe space isn’t someone I would want my kids around and certainly not making decisions about my kids’ education.

They had to change location due to protestors. I considered registering my openly gay, imaginary toddlers. 
 

Oh, but if you don’t want gay kids performing in a sex shop, you’re a bigot. 🤡🌎

[Chum]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[wall of text]

I think the spirit in this messaging doesn't well reflect the tone or tenor of Christ's ministry. I mean, pummeling wasn't his thing.

He was really amazing at single sentence lessons though. I still have a lot to learn from Him.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to how you would propose we measure the "reasonableness" of a person's choice to not speak things he does not want to speak.  Could you elaborate?  How much justification does a person have to give for his choice to speak, or not speak?

Thanks,

-Smac

Not sure what you are asking, but I guess a person really does not need to justify it, but if asked for a reason,  to simply say they don't agree with it for personal reasons. And that should be enough regardless of which side you are on.

[MiserereNobis]

Oooo, goodie, a gay thread! It's been way too long!

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, mbh26 said:

It's more disturbing to me that there's been an explosion in the number of people who identify as LGBTQ as the public school curriculum has seeded childrens minds from a very young age with thoughts of, "You might be gay.," and obviously has steered many of them in that direction.  Anyone who pushes back against that is disparaged as a racist, bigot, homophobe who has no right to tell his own children any different.  

People like to take a few examples from this classroom or that district and then generalize to all of the public schools, which is ridiculous. I teach in the public schools and there is no brainwashing going on here. Children are protected from bullying, allowed to express themselves, but there is no curricular "seeding" or "grooming." Yes, we have a Gay Straight Alliance club. We also have Jesus Lunch club (pizza and Bible study). Damn protestants with their cheesy Christianity

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

I think the spirit in this messaging doesn't well reflect the tone or tenor of Christ's ministry.

I don't know what this means.

1 minute ago, Chum said:

I mean, pummeling wasn't his thing.

Pummel: "strike repeatedly with the fists."  Posting links and brief commentary on a message board cannot reasonably fit into this definition.

But perhaps you meant the "informal, North American" figurative use of "{to} criticize adversely."

I encourage you to read John 6, as I can't help but think it gets short shrift in some quarters.  I previously commented on this here:

Quote

Both the Church and individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are, in increasing measures, unpopular.  The easy thing would be for the Church to capitulate.  To bend the knee.  To knuckle under.  Instead, the Church is working hard to be kind and accommodating, while also following divine mandates.  Meanwhile, individual members are, to an extent, are feeling that they face and either/or dilemma.  Either A) you ratify, celebrate and endorse homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, or B) you are a bigot, a homophobe, a horrible person.  That is what we are being told over and over again.  It's a false dilemma, a Sophie's Choice, but one that is being foisted on us every day.

The individual members are being "refined" because we are being commanded to believe some things that are not only broadly unpopular, but can be unpalatable to us as individuals, and yet we are asked - even commanded - to accept these things anyway.  Our day is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6.  What was the result of it?

Quote

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

But getting back to the "pummeling" thing.  Let's look at Luke 17:1-2 - "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!  It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

And Matthew 18:5-7 - "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.  But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.  Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

And Mark 9:42 - "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

Lots of "woes" in there.  Millstones around necks and jumping into the sea as being preferable to . . . what?  "Offend{ing} one of these little ones."

The Savior had a particular concern for the welfare of children, so much so that he adversely criticized ("pummeled") those who would abuse ("offend") them. 

That's not to say that such offenders cannot repent, but I think it's odd that you would take exception to adversely criticizing the sexualization and abuse of children.  

1 minute ago, Chum said:

He was really amazing at single sentence lessons though. I still have a lot to learn from Him.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

27 minutes ago, Chum said:

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[wall of text]

I think the spirit in this messaging doesn't well reflect the tone or tenor of Christ's ministry. I mean, pummeling wasn't his thing.

I prefer the Grateful Dead's Wall of Sound to a wall of text. If I'm going to get pummeled, hit me with some Phil bombs!

Edited June 7, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not sure what you are asking, but I guess a person really does not need to justify it, but if asked for a reason,  to simply say they don't agree with it for personal reasons.

That is certainly an option.  But look at the invective being leveled at these baseball players, particularly against the quote from Jason Adam, in which he lays out a fairly straightforward, and kind, and respectful, explanation for his position.  I can't help but wonder if the invective would have been substantially worse if he had said something along the lines of "For personal reasons, I choose not to wear 'pride' regalia."  Oi.  Belligerents (of the sort quoted above) would go to town on him, imputing onto him the worst possible "personal reasons" (heck, some of them did that anyway).

Jason Adam has staked out a position that is both thoroughly Christian in form and content, and also manifestly unpopular with the ironically-self-labeling "tolerant" crowd.  That took some real guts.

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And that should be enough regardless of which side you are on.

It could be.  But what if Jason Adam wants to explain those "personal reasons"?  Is that an innately bad thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Oooo, goodie, a gay thread! It's been way too long!

Actually, I think it's just as much, if not more, of a "Compelled Speech" thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

This thread makes me wonder - Is being all-too-easily-accused of being anti-gay much different than being all-too-easily-accused of being anti-Mormon? Hmmm! 🙃

[JAHS]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is certainly an option.  But look at the invective being leveled at these baseball players, particularly against the quote from Jason Adam, in which he lays out a fairly straightforward, and kind, and respectful, explanation for his position.  I can't help but wonder if the invective would have been substantially worse if he had said something along the lines of "For personal reasons, I choose not to wear 'pride' regalia."  Oi.  Belligerents (of the sort quoted above) would go to town on him, imputing onto him the worst possible "personal reasons" (heck, some of them did that anyway).

Jason Adam has staked out a position that is both thoroughly Christian in form and content, and also manifestly unpopular with the ironically-self-labeling "tolerant" crowd.  That took some real guts.

It could be.  But what if Jason Adam wants to explain those "personal reasons"?  Is that an innately bad thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

What he said was good and nothing wrong with feeling a need to say it. It's hard to know exactly how he was asked about it except for what was reported.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think it's just as much, if not more, of a "Compelled Speech" thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's what my intention was. I want to say it is a person's right if he wants to identify himself as LGBTQ, but at the same time I don't want to give the message that I condone the lifestyle.
Does wearing the LGBTQ logo only mean that I support that right or does it mean I also condone the lifestyle? I guess that's why they said "it's a hard decision".

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Is it OK to not want to wear it because it's just gotten ridiculously out of control? Rainbow everything. Rainbow crosswalks. Temporary rainbow logos. Then the rainbow flag isn't enough anymore. We now need a rainbow flag with a butt ugly triangle of clashing colors on the side? My husband had to spend all day at work the other day putting up new stickers and they made a big deal about how people would be offended if the triangle weren't on the left. And then people get offended if they don't become permanent. Why would a simple rainbow flag not include everyone? I thought that's what it implied. And stop adding letters to the acronym already! And stop making up new, stupid identities! "I'm demi sexual and that means I don't have a sexual attraction to anyone unless I connect emotionally with them." You mean you're not a skank? 

Just saw some lady post that she's an "aro ace." I'm not looking it up. I'm done. 

Just FTR, there's a difference between corporate performative support and actual support of LGBTQIA persons. If you spend much time in gay-friendly spheres, you'll see plenty of criticism for "rainbow capitalism." 

So while being considered publically okay and welcomed via official corporate statements is a huge step of progress, it's not always with pure intentions nor is it always followed by other kinds of support which have important impact.

Also, there's always going to be extremes in things. There are those who are religious extremists, for example, and those who might take the presentation of personal identity to an extreme. But neither represent everyone else in their respective and more general categories.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Just FTR, there's a difference between corporate performative support and actual support of LGBTQIA persons.  If you spend much time in gay-friendly spheres, you'll see plenty of criticism for "rainbow capitalism."

I agree.  The former is imposed and demanded, whereas the latter is heart-felt, organic and sincere.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Corporatization of Pride

Since its origins in the 1969 Stonewall Riots, the celebration of Pride Month has become increasingly commodified. Each June, it is common to see corporations—including Apple, Disney, Fossil, Gap, and Target in 2021—launching rainbow-branded products or social media avatars as a form of virtue signaling. They produced everything from rainbow-themed watch bands to stuffed animals.  However, some argue that this branding, sometimes referred to as rainbow washing or pinkwashing, has diverged from the original meaning of the movement and is often not substantially backed with company action; it may even outright contradict a corporation’s political donations.  

Corporations like H&M and J. Crew, which donate portions of the product price in their Pride collections to LGBTQ+ charities, may represent a more ethical form of rainbow branding. However, critics argue this normalizes the presence of a corporate middleman in the process of social donation, embracing low-effort slacktivism in place of actual change. Furthermore, many corporations who show public support during Pride Month actively harm and work against the LGBTQ+ community year-round through political donations. A 2021 report from Popular Information highlighted twenty-five major corporations that have spent more than $10 million since 2019 donating to members of Congress and state legislators who push anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, many of which show outward public support for the community through social media and product branding.

Another aspect of the corporatization of Pride is the increasing cost of celebration. Once a free event, day ticket prices for an LA Pride Festival reached $35 in 2016. This paywall limits who can attend Pride events along the lines of purchasing power, pricing out queer women, people of color, and elderly people, who are at a proportionally greater risk of poverty. This has led to the belief among critics that events are moving in the direction of being exclusionary rather than inclusive.  Additionally, the growing focus on merchandise sales at Pride events reflect its ongoing commercialization and overall transition from political statement to festival.  At New York City Pride events, T-shirts regularly cost up to $55, while a cabana package costs participants $3000. As the cost to celebrate Pride increases, the most intersectionally disadvantaged members of the community are pushed out.

"Pride" has become very commoditized.  All the more reason, then, to appreciate those who oppose "corporatized" stuff (such as, I dunno, a baseball team donning "pride" regalia during a game) on principled grounds.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rivers]

We need a month for each of the other six cardinal sins.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Rivers said:

We need a month for each of the other six cardinal sins.

Being gay is a cardinal sin? 

I learn so many new things on this forum  

Or are you just talking about "pride" in general?

Edited June 7, 2022 by HappyJackWagon