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

[mbh26]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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. 

 

I suppose it depends on the state and the school district.  I live in FL.  When I went back to a high school and taught I found the number of homosexual teenagers holding hands and kissing to be appalling.  I put much of blame for that on my own generation and the values we've taught them.  Our society is becoming ripe for destruction IMO.  

[Nofear]

Of secondary relevance to the topic of compelled speech.

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/draping-yourself-in-a-rainbow-flag-doesnt-help-me-feel-loved/

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Strange. I’ve taught for 16 years and that’s not been my experience at all. Of course we shouldn’t tell them what to believe, but we’re allowed to discuss our lives with them. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mbh26 said:

I suppose it depends on the state and the school district.  I live in FL.  When I went back to a high school and taught I found the number of homosexual teenagers holding hands and kissing to be appalling.  I put much of blame for that on my own generation and the values we've taught them.  Our society is becoming ripe for destruction IMO.  

But sexual activity amongst teens is going down.

35 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Of secondary relevance to the topic of compelled speech.

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/draping-yourself-in-a-rainbow-flag-doesnt-help-me-feel-loved/

Plus the bisexual flag just looks better than the Rainbow flag. I’m just saying.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Of secondary relevance to the topic of compelled speech.

https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/draping-yourself-in-a-rainbow-flag-doesnt-help-me-feel-loved/

The biggest problem the church has is it doesn’t have a solid answer to the greatest concerns lgbtq members have. I don’t blame church leadership for this but the bad information we operated on in the 80s and 90s that were cribbed wholesale from homophobic sources taints the process. This is one area that screams that we need more revelation but it hasn’t come. At least not yet. In a vacuum we start trying to put together answers and shysters will sell us whatever they think they can. Hopefully this is the confusing part before the big revelation comes. The time before the Revelation on the Priesthood is comparable with some wanting change, some finding old teachings unreasonable, some sticking to the party line, and some just downright confused and depressed by the whole thing. I suspect the problem lies on our side of the veil. I am just not sure what it is.

[mbh26]

Quote

"Discrimination and hate has a voice in baseball, and you saw it in Tampa," Ruby told Insider.

Ruby is an openly gay MLB player.  

Quote

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

Quote

"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 faced any discipline for stripping their uniforms of rainbow logos. 

It sure looks like compelled speech to me.  Next step in the fight for equality, compelled solemnizing of homosexual marriage in lds temples.  

Edited June 8, 2022 by mbh26

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours 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.  

The sky is falling.

1- I think its creepy that you seem to care so much about what consenting adults do behind closed doors

2- "queerify"ing children movies- have you considered the possibility that having queer characters is actually more reflective of society and real life?

3- Do you want teachers talking about God and religion? Do you want school prayer led by an administrator? I will be shocked if you really do. What you really want is someone teaching God and religion the way you see it. In an overwhelmingly Christian nation it may be easier for a Christian to want Christian prayer. But do you want you Islamic teacher teaching your 1st grader how to pray? I doubt it. Do you want a Jewish, Hindu, Scientologist, Sikh teaching about God and prayer to your grade school kids. I sincerely doubt it. My guess is you do want the Jewish, Hindu, Scientologist, Muslim students learning about God and how to pray from a Christian teacher.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours 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.

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.

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.

That is not my take.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am genuinely curious. Were you similarly concerned about the rights of NFL players to kneel during the national anthem? Enough to post about it somewhere?

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The biggest problem the church has is it doesn’t have a solid answer to the greatest concerns lgbtq members have. ...

Which, in your understanding, is?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am genuinely curious. Were you similarly concerned about the rights of NFL players to kneel during the national anthem? Enough to post about it somewhere?

Smac can answer on his own part, but as for me, I see this as an apples-to-oranges comparison. 
 

By kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem, the players to whom you refer were not just refusing to engage in compelled speech; they were engaging in speech of their own that was potentially offensive and divisive. A functional equivalent would be for the Tampa Bay players to not just refuse to wear the gay-pride emblem but to wear an emblem of their own declaring their opposition to the gay-pride movement. 
 

On the other hand, the players to whom you refer, instead of kneeling during the playing of the anthem, might have opted instead to remain off the field until after the conclusion of the anthem. That would have been the functional equivalent of the Tampa Bay players declining to wear the gay-pride emblem. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac can answer on his own part, but as for me, I see this as an apples-to-oranges comparison. 
 

By kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem, the players to whom you refer were not just refusing to engage in compelled speech; they were engaging in speech of their own that was potentially offensive and divisive. A functional equivalent would be for the Tampa Bay players to not just refuse to wear the gay pride emblem but to wear an emblem of their own declaring their opposition to the gay-pride movement. 
 

On the other hand, the players to whom you refer, instead of kneeling during the playing of the anthem, might have opted instead to remain off the field until after the conclusion of the anthem. That would have been the functional equivalent of the Tampa Bay players declining to wear the gay-pride emblem. 

So if they just opted not to stand then? Like if they remained seated, that would be equivalent to you? Wasn’t that how it started?

And remaining off field? Wouldn’t the equivalent have the Tampa bay players who wouldn’t wear the uniform to just not show up?

Edited June 8, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Strange. I’ve taught for 16 years and that’s not been my experience at all. Of course we shouldn’t tell them what to believe, but we’re allowed to discuss our lives with them. 

As long as we’re sharing anecdotes, here’s mine. 
 

When I was working I covered an event that featured a talk from a representative of U.S. Mormon Battalion Inc., a heritage group that honors the Mormon Battalion of 1846, a contingent of pioneers who enlisted in the army during the U.S. war with Mexico as a means to help the pioneers under Brigham Young in their overland trek culminating in the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley. 
 

This representative said that he on one occasion had been invited to speak to a class of 7th graders learning about Utah history. The teacher had given him the stipulation that he must not mention God or religion in his presentation. That, of course, is absurd: How do you adequately and credibly teach about the Mormon Battalion without referring to the very motivation that caused them to enlist?

In my view, it is going way overboard in terms of what the law requires for a teacher or school district to make such a demand. But I dare say such things happen more often than we realize. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So if they just opted not to stand then? Like if they remained seated, that would be equivalent to you? Wasn’t that how it started?

And remaining off field? Wouldn’t the equivalent have the Tampa bay players who wouldn’t wear the uniform to just not show up?

No, the Tampa Bay players have a job to do. It is not a reasonable expectation that they engage in compelled speech contrary to their values while performing the job for which they are paid. 
 

By refusing to stand, the players to whom you refer would have made a spectacle of themselves, almost as much as they did by “taking a knee.” Not so much if they had merely remained off the field until the conclusion of the anthem. 
 

The functional equivalent of the Tampa Bay players not showing up would be the players to whom you refer not showing up. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, the Tampa Bay players have a job to do. It is not a reasonable expectation that they engage in compelled speech contrary to their values while performing the job for which they are paid. 
 

By refusing to stand, the players to whom you refer would have made a spectacle of themselves, almost as much as they did by “taking a knee.” Not so much if they had merely remained off the field until the conclusion of the anthem. 

So only compelled speech when it’s speech you disagree with. Got it!

[smac97]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am genuinely curious. Were you similarly concerned about the rights of NFL players to kneel during the national anthem? Enough to post about it somewhere?

A few thoughts:

1. I think there is a material distinction between A) compelled speech (what the baseball players were resisting) and B) voluntary "free" speech (what the football players were doing).

2. Broadly speaking, I am against compelled speech.  Also broadly speaking, I am very much in favor of Free Speech (reasonable time, place and manner constraints are usually appropriate).

3. The baseball players were, to the credit of the team's owners/managers, given the option to not "speak" things that they felt were incompatible with their religious beliefs.  They were not "compelled."

4. "Take-a-knee-during-the-National-Anthem" football players were not being "compelled," either.  So your comparison is somewhat apples-to-oranges, as there is apparently no particular "compelled speech" component in the kneeling-as-protest story.

5. The football players were engaging in free speech.  Demonstrative speech.  In contrast, it's hard to argue that the baseball players were engaging in free speech when they chose to not wear pride regalia.

6. Do employers have the legal ability to squelch "speech" of their employees?  Broadly, yes.  The First Amendment does not typically apply to private actors.  Hence we see stories such as the recent ones about Facebook/Meta telling its employees, while at work, to stop talking about "politics" and abortion (though it still allows discussion of other controversial topics like immigration, trans rights, climate change, Black Lives Matter, gun rights / gun control, and vaccination - see here).  So "time, place and manner" restrictions on speech during work hours are generally fine.  

7. I think it is reasonable for employers to be able to prohibit worktime behaviors, including speech and particular topics of conversation, that are not productive and/or not related to the work responsibilities of employees.  Hence an employer ought to be able to prohibit employees from talking about, say, sports teams or movies all afternoon rather than working.  This is not a matter of suppressing speech.  An employer ought to be able (and sometimes may even have the affirmative duty) to prohibit discussions at work that detract from worker productivity and the bottom line, that run the risk of creating a "hostile work environment," and so on.

8. Now, can employers *compel* speech?  Can they force employees to say certain things?  Within normative parameters (i.e., no physical threats), I suppose so.  But broadly speaking, I think that is a bad idea.  I dislike the idea of corporations trying to impose political and social ideologies on its employees.  It comes across as creepy and doctrinaire.  And such impositions also carry some real risk for employers.  I have substantially different expectations for organizations and institutions that are expressly ideological in their existence and purpose.  For example, West Point can and should expect substantial commitment to the "ideology" of the United States Constitution, the Army, and so on.  The NRA can reasonably expect its employees to not be vociferously and publicly opposed to the Second Amendment.  BYU is intentionally geared toward providing an education with a significant religious component.  Where an ideology is central to the institution's raison d'etre, individuals can go into them with a "You knew what I was when you picked me up" attitude.  

9. Regarding your specific question ("Were you similarly concerned about the rights of NFL players to kneel during the national anthem?"), the answer is no.  Those football players (engaging in Free Speech) were not similarly situated to the baseball players (resisting compelled speech).  And as noted above, I think employers generally do have the right, and sometimes even the responsibility, to regulate employees' on-the-job behaviors, which may well include squelching "speech" to some extent.  There was also no "religious" dimension to the football players' "take a knee" story, so I was not particularly interested in it.  I'm not sure what you mean by "post about it somewhere."  I'm not much into social media, and this forum is pretty much the only place where I commentate publicly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Those football players (engaging in Free Speech) were not similarly situated

If a player is on the field when the anthem is played and does not want to be compelled to stand at parade rest facing the flag (compelled speech) what would be analogous to materially altering the uniform in that case?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mbh26 said:

Next step in the fight for equality,

Yeah…that is a huge leap, imo, not the next step 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Those football players (engaging in Free Speech) were not similarly situated

If a player is on the field when the anthem is played and does not want to be compelled to stand at parade rest facing the flag (compelled speech) what would be analogous to materially altering the uniform in that case?

First, the baseball players did not "materially alter" their uniforms.  They declined to wear uniforms that had been "materially altered" to include messaging they found to be incompatible with their religious beliefs.

Second, standing during the National Anthem seems to be a very diluted form of demonstrative speech, if at all.  People in a courtroom typically rise when the judge enters, but I don't think anyone characterizes that as "compelled speech."  When a police officer pulls over a speeding driver and asks him to identify himself, the driver is obligated to respond.  But that doesn't really fit into the "compelled speech" rubric, either.

Third, standing for the National Anthem has, I think, long been "part of the gig" of being a player in the NFL.  You have to show up for practices and games.  You have to follow instructions from coaches/management.  You have to wear the uniform (also a diluted form of "compelled speech").

Fourth, in a de minimis sense, you may have a point, but not a very strong one.  It seems that there has been some détente reached with football players kneeling. 

Fifth, I'm generally fine with peaceful protests, though I think reasonable time, place and manner restrictions are appropriate.  I'm fairly ambivalent about the whole kneeling-during-the-anthem thing.  I think they are disrespectful and inappropriate, but I just don't care that much about them one way or another.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, standing during the National Anthem seems to be a very diluted form of demonstrative speech, if at all. 
 

<snip>

Third, standing for the National Anthem has, I think, long been "part of the gig" of being a player in the NFL.

Awesome. Two in favor of “it’s only compelled speech when they do it. That’s what I thought but just wanted to confirm. 
 “When my team does it, it’s long standing tradition and part of the gig.”

Edited June 8, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

16 hours 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.  

Because gay people really don't exist and are not part of our society so a private company should not portray them in their films that you are not forced to watch??  Oh the outrage.  Got it.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, mbh26 said:

I suppose it depends on the state and the school district.  I live in FL.  When I went back to a high school and taught I found the number of homosexual teenagers holding hands and kissing to be appalling.  I put much of blame for that on my own generation and the values we've taught them.  Our society is becoming ripe for destruction IMO.  

As a gay man, I found hetrosexual couples holding hands and kissing appalling too.  I put much of the blame on Hollywood for constantly shoving heterosexual romance down our throats constantly.  It seems like almost every single movie I watch, every book I read and every song I hear, those heterosexuals are flaunting their sexuality and forcing us to see it right out in the open with absolutely no shame.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Awesome.

Less "awesome" is your distortion of my position.  No need to speculate or make things up about what I think.  I'm happy to tell you.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Two in favor of “it’s only compelled speech when they do it. That’s what I thought but just wanted to confirm. 

That is not my position.

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 “When my team does it, it’s long standing tradition and part of the gig.”

Also not my position.  From one of my prior posts:

Quote

Now, can employers *compel* speech?  Can they force employees to say certain things?  Within normative parameters (i.e., no physical threats), I suppose so.  But broadly speaking, I think that is a bad idea.  I dislike the idea of corporations trying to impose political and social ideologies on its employees.  It comes across as creepy and doctrinaire.  And such impositions also carry some real risk for employers.  I have substantially different expectations for organizations and institutions that are expressly ideological in their existence and purpose.  For example, West Point can and should expect substantial commitment to the "ideology" of the United States Constitution, the Army, and so on.  The NRA can reasonably expect its employees to not be vociferously and publicly opposed to the Second Amendment.  BYU is intentionally geared toward providing an education with a significant religious component.  Where an ideology is central to the institution's raison d'etre, individuals can go into them with a "You knew what I was when you picked me up" attitude.  

Standing for the anthem as "compelled speech" is pretty weak tea.  From the part of my comments which you snipped: 

Quote

People in a courtroom typically rise when the judge enters, but I don't think anyone characterizes that as "compelled speech."  When a police officer pulls over a speeding driver and asks him to identify himself, the driver is obligated to respond.  But that doesn't really fit into the "compelled speech" rubric, either.

Filing a tax return is "compelled speech."  So are warnings on tobacco/alcohol labels.  But I assume you are not opposed to these, right?

Your facile caricature is neither accurate nor fair.  I have presented principled analysis and distinctions to support my position.  You are posting cheapshots and taunts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mbh26]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because gay people really don't exist and are not part of our society so a private company should not portray them in their films that you are not forced to watch??  Oh the outrage.  Got it.

I'll give you that.  I'm not forced to take my kids to Disney or allow them to watch the Disney channel, which we won't as long as there are gay characters kids movies.  Disney World is overpriced anyway.  But I am forced to buy into socialist public education.  And from the looks of it, what's stopping the government from forcing private schools to celebrate homosexuality?  The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are a private company. 

At what point would you predict a revelation from the brethren giving LGBTQ people the priesthood, solemnizing gay marriage in the temples, teaching homosexuality in primary etc. out of fear of losing the churchs tax exempt status, or outright governmental mandate in a similar way in which the priesthood was made available to all worthy males?  

Edited June 8, 2022 by mbh26

[Calm]

1 minute ago, mbh26 said:

. out of fear of losing the churchs tax exempt status, or outright governmental mandate in a similar way in which the priesthood was made available to all worthy males?  

You think the ban was lifted because of government pressure?  Do you believe the ban would still be in place and should be if church leadership didn’t wimp out?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are posting cheapshots and taunts.

All I see is someone that goes out of his way to justify his outrage over speech he doesn’t like (wearing a rainbow patch) and goes out of his way to justify why compelling someone else’s speech (standing for the anthem) is not really a big deal. 
 

Both seem equally trivial and outrageous to me. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding