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

[ttribe]

I wonder if this same bunch also object to being 'forced' to wear Jackie Robinson's number 42 once a year, as well.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Does wearing the LGBTQ logo only mean that I support that right or does it mean I also condone the lifestyle?

I think you asked a very relevant and important question. Thanks.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Just saw this:

Yeah.  

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

And this:

More here (same story as above) :

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

To sum up:

Yep.

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

Here:

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

Here:

The NY Times: 

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

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

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

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

Here:

Here:

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

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

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

Here:

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

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

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."

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

I think this sums things up well:

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is basically Nazi Germany. Yep, definitely. Let’s throw around words like totalitarianism.

What you are talking about isn’t compelled speech. It is pressured speech. The former is against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not concerned with the need to protect people’s feelings or reputation or employment if they choose to say unpopular things. This twisting of the First Amendment as a right to be comfortable in a society while holding views others find repellant is a weird take on the First Amendment.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

colon clogs

I'm sorry I don't know this - what is a colon clog? Sounds like a term I might enjoy using some day!

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

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".

To me it first and foremost means that you respect them and wish to treat them with dignity. Is that worth risking misinterpretation?

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I'm sorry I don't know this - what is a colon clog? Sounds like a term I might enjoy using some day!

 

I believe that was a nicer way of communicating the same idea as calling someone a four-letter word which begins with an s and ends with a t.

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To me it first and foremost means that you respect them and wish to treat them with dignity. Is that worth risking misinterpretation?

If that wasn't just a rhetorical question and you want an answer, I would say a hearty "Yes"
 

[mbh26]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Then why was there such a backlash against the FL parental rights in education law.  All we're asking is not to talk about homosexuality with our 1st through third graders.  I'd rather they not be talking about sex at all with my kids that age.  They know kids are impressionable and there's an obvious effort to get kids thinking from a young age that homosexuality is normal and proper.  I think it should be up to the parents to teach their own children whether homosexuality is normal and proper, not the government, not even a democratically elected government.  

[Calm]

If one wears a team’s colors or someone’s campaign shirt, that generally means you do more than just respect them, rather you want them to win, to lead, to establish rules, etc.  I am using this following example because it makes the point clearly imo, but if you saw someone wearing a MAGA hat, would you ever suppose they didn’t or won’t vote for the last president, but just wanted to express respect for him?

Because of this, I think it is understandable that some might be reluctant to wear a logo implying you were one of the ‘team’, all in with your support if you are not, whatever the cause or group/individual.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

Well I express solidarity with Protestants by eating cheese as often as it is available.  BUT I am going to have to report you to one of us on this board who thinks that even though he "identifies" an Evanglical, he is not a "Protestant"  It's the EnotP community!  We just need some more community letters that refer to religion, not sex.   In India it is very common to have your surname reflect your faith.  That puts me in the MC community.  (Mormon Catholic for the uninitiated.)   Or maybe I am CM.    Dang this gets complicated

When you figure it all out, let me know.    🤕😜

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by mfbukowski

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

Then why was there such a backlash against the FL parental rights in education law.  All we're asking is not to talk about homosexuality with our 1st through third graders.  I'd rather they not be talking about sex at all with my kids that age.  They know kids are impressionable and there's an obvious effort to get kids thinking from a young age that homosexuality is normal and proper.  I think it should be up to the parents to teach their own children whether homosexuality is normal and proper, not the government, not even a democratically elected government.  

Should a K-3 teacher be allowed to talk about their husband or wife?

Does the answer to that question depend on whether the husband or wife is same gender?

Relationships are a part of life, whether same gender or hetero.

Perhaps you should just homeschool your kids so you can control everything they see and hear. While you're at it you could probably conceal/carry to avoid any mass shootings. After all, trusting the teachers with guns is far more reasonable than trusting them with books.

[Meadowchik]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If that wasn't just a rhetorical question and you want an answer, I would say a hearty "Yes"
 

Yay!

It wasn't just a rhetorical question. In my experience there can be, and still is, a genuine sense of inner conflict over how to best support gay people.

When I finally resolved that conflict within myself, the answer resided chiefly in how much faith I had in Christ's counsel to love one another. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is basically Nazi Germany. Yep, definitely. Let’s throw around words like totalitarianism.

What you are talking about isn’t compelled speech. It is pressured speech. The former is against the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not concerned with the need to protect people’s feelings or reputation or employment if they choose to say unpopular things. This twisting of the First Amendment as a right to be comfortable in a society while holding views others find repellant is a weird take on the First Amendment.

There seems to be an irony in attacking pressured speech with pressured speech, as is often seen around these parts. 

[MorningStar]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

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! 🙃

If you don’t wear a CTR shirt on Mormon Pride Day, you’re clearly anti-Mormon. 🤪

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is basically Nazi Germany. Yep, definitely. Let’s throw around words like totalitarianism.

What you are talking about isn’t compelled speech. It is pressured speech.

Several of the articles I quoted take a "The team owners ought to either force the players to wear 'pride' regalia or fire them"-style approach.

When your livelihood, your ability to provide for your family, is imperiled by you not wanting to speak things others want you to speak, "compelled speech" becomes a pretty accurate descriptor.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The former is against the First Amendment.

As to government actors, yes.  As to private actors, no.  But "compelled speech" can exist in either case. 

"Say these words or we are taking you to jail or fine you into financial ruin" is how the government can compel speech.

"Say these words or we fire you and take away the income by which you provide for yourself and your family" is how employers can compel speech.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The First Amendment is not concerned with the need to protect people’s feelings or reputation or employment if they choose to say unpopular things.

Agreed.  But the issue here is more about what they did not say.  It sounds like compelled speech is being advocated as an "on the table" kind of thing.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This twisting of the First Amendment as a right to be comfortable in a society while holding views others find repellant is a weird take on the First Amendment.

That is not my take.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Several of the articles I quoted take a "The team owners ought to either force the players to wear 'pride' regalia or fire them"-style approach.

When your livelihood, your ability to provide for your family, is imperiled by you not wanting to speak things others want you to speak, "compelled speech" becomes a pretty accurate descriptor.

The next wedding cake lawsuit based on this is going to be wild. This time the employer is fine with the gay wedding cake but the employee is not. Can the employee be fired?

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As to government actors, yes.  As to private actors, no.  But "compelled speech" can exist in either case. 

"Say these words or we are taking you to jail or fine you into financial ruin" is how the government can compel speech.

"Say these words or we fire you and take away the income by which you provide for yourself and your family" is how employers can compel speech.

It is funny watching the same demographics that fought for “right to work” laws and the like that weakened protections for employees getting fired suddenly want employee protections when demographic and ideological shifts push them into a minor. They dug a pit for their neighbor and are suddenly wanting it filled in now that there is a danger they may fall in.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, mbh26 said:

Then why was there such a backlash against the FL parental rights in education law.  All we're asking is not to talk about homosexuality with our 1st through third graders.  I'd rather they not be talking about sex at all with my kids that age.  They know kids are impressionable and there's an obvious effort to get kids thinking from a young age that homosexuality is normal and proper.  I think it should be up to the parents to teach their own children whether homosexuality is normal and proper, not the government, not even a democratically elected government.  

They aren’t talking about sex to first graders. They are acknowledging that same-sex marriages exist. They aren’t describing the mechanics of it. This is a strawman used by right-wing media to scare parents. That it works is a sad commentary on our society.

[mbh26]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Does the answer to that question depend on whether the husband or wife is same gender?

It does to me.  They asked 20 years ago why we cared what consenting adults do behind closed doors.  This is why.  And it's only going to continue to get worse.  Disney writers have already come out and stated their intent to queerify childrens movies.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a quota of at least one gay character per movie. You have no problem demanding teachers don't talk about God or religion.  I don't think you should be able to talk about your homosexual lifestyle to my first grader.  That should be the parents right as taxpayers.  

Edited June 8, 2022 by mbh26

[JAHS]

ESPN's Sarah Spain's take on this. If anyone can make sense of what she is trying to say I would like to hear it.

 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I express solidarity with Protestants by eating cheese as often as it is available.  BUT I am going to have to report you to one of us on this board who thinks that even though he "identifies" an Evanglical, he is not a "Protestant"  It's the EnotP community!  We just need some more community letters that refer to religion, not sex.   In India it is very common to have your surname reflect your faith.  That puts me in the MC community.  (Mormon Catholic for the uninitiated.)   Or maybe I am CM.    Dang this gets complicated

When you figure it all out, let me know.    🤕😜

 

Are you serious? Do you think only Protestants can be Evangelical, or that all Evangelicals are Protestants? If so, I have a lot of Pentecostal and Anabaptist friends I would like you to meet!

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

It does to me.  They asked 20 years ago why we cared what consenting adults do behind closed doors.  This is why.  And it's only going to continue to get worse.  Disney writers have already come out and stated their intent to queerify childrens movies.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a quota of at least one gay character per movie. You have no problem demanding teachers don't talk about God or religion.  I don't think you should be able to talk about your homosexual lifestyle to my first grader.  That should be the parents right as taxpayers.  

No queerification due to taxpayification!

Edited June 8, 2022 by The Nehor

[MiserereNobis]

35 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

You have no problem demanding teachers don't talk about God or religion. 

Do you really want teachers teaching religion? Serious question.

In our AP English program, we require our students to read the Bible during the summer. They are tested on the readings at the beginning of each school year. After 4 years, they will have read the gospels (some parts twice) and the major stories of the OT. We require them to use the KJV. 

I also teach atheistic existentialism, Native American mysticism, New England transcendentalism, Romantic spirituality, the tenets of Puritanism, the Holy Sonnets, metaphysical poetry, on and on and on, even including the Oxford comma (since it is divine dogma, right @Scott Lloyd? 😉)

Now a specific question to you:  How exactly am I, as a public school teacher, not allowed to talk about God? If I wasn’t allowed to, that would cut out 75% of my curriculum, since humans are always writing about God, spirituality, and the divine. But I am and I do without a problem. Perhaps you should actually physically look into a public school classroom before you denigrate teachers as “seeding” students and claim we can’t talk about God. 

 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The next wedding cake lawsuit based on this is going to be wild. This time the employer is fine with the gay wedding cake but the employee is not. Can the employee be fired?

It is funny watching the same demographics that fought for “right to work” laws and the like that weakened protections for employees getting fired suddenly want employee protections when demographic and ideological shifts push them into a minor. They dug a pit for their neighbor and are suddenly wanting it filled in now that there is a danger they may fall in.

Not really.  I'm not disputing the right of an employer to fire an employee who resists "compelled speech."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Now a specific question to you:  How exactly am I, as a public school teacher, not allowed to talk about God?

I taught in a public high school in America for two years. I was specifically instructed that I was not allowed to make any reference whatsoever to personal religious belief or practice. For example, if a student asked me if I was religious, if I believed in God, if a went to church, what church I went to, if I prayed, etc., I was required to reply that I was not allowed to discuss those things at school.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I'm not disputing the right of an employer to fire an employee who resists "compelled speech."

Thanks,

-Smac

Then what are you advocating for?