Are You a "Bigot" If You Don't Think Homosexuality Should Be Celebrated?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Tero

How soon till we have an America where a gay hockey player can't play hockey because watching him play hockey would turn children gay?

Children watch gay hockey players every single day, as do their parents. The gay effect appears minimal as they are almost completely unaware that they are doing so.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

What makes you think he is?

I never said one way or the other. I was asking why you were “pretty sure” Provorov is not a homophobe.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Darat

There is not even a hint of a suggestion that he should be punished in any way in that report.

Unless you consider benching him for the game a hint of a suggestion that he should be punished in any way.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The OP's hyperbole about the viciousness of the reaction to said hockey player aside, I think the answer to the question is "yes". Religious dogma informing someone that homosexuality is a sin seems no different to me than finding the same justification for opposing interracial marriage or allowing women to vote and own property. I'm sure examples could be found of people being excessively vitriolic in criticizing his position on homosexuality, but histrionics about how mean people are don't change the fact that thinking gay people should be denigrated as "wrong" is essentially bigoted.

Well put. It's no different than the bigotry that the Mormon Church incorporated into its official position until 1978:

Quote:

Until a few decades ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that they “shall be a white and a delightsome people,” a phrase taken from the Book of Mormon. Until the 1970s, the LDS Church also restricted black members’ participation in important rituals and prohibited black men from becoming priests, despite evidence that they had participated more fully in the earliest years of the Church.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ueller/539994/

At the beginning of the year a boy turns 12 years old ( so technically at 11), he can become a 'priest', but a black man never could before "God changed his mind".

Black people were officially the Sons of Cain marked and cursed by God with their black skin:

Quote:

2nd President Brigham Young

“The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it”

Quote:

Joseph Smith

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:217-218).

When a Church teaches that something is wrong, a sin, punishable by death, and/or teaches you are not equal in the sight of the Church and God, if that's not bigotry, I don't know what is.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The real question is if Provorov is under contract to participate in these sort of team outreach events. If he is, his religious nonsense is irrelevant. He should do his job, renegotiate his contract, or break his contract and deal with the consequences. If he isn’t, he can do what he wants and deal with the consequences.

Either way, nothing here protects public figures from public opinion. That is the nature of living in a free society.

I haven't seen a link in this thread yet for all these quotes.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...cites-religion

Quote:

The NHL, in response to ESPN's request for comment, said Wednesday in a statement that players are "free to decide which initiatives to support."

No he is not required to. He has not been punished, he skipped the warm-up because he didn't want to wear the pride shirt and the rainbow colored hockey stick during it.

I don't think he is required to give a reason. I support a lot of things but it doesn't mean I'd wear their insignia because someone wanted me to. I would in this case but there are others I may not.

I'm not sure it's proper for a business to ask its employees to do anything of this sort at all, if that is how this came about.

But this OP is trying to be political with this. The question of can he or can't he doesn't seem to be the concern. It's about liberals complaining about him not wearing the thing.

Supposedly.

Here is an article detailing the liberal hysterics from a bunch of people nobody has ever heard of:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/18/l...flyers-hockey/

Quote:

Well, throughout the fallout, everybody and their mother (including me and my mother, literally) has had an opinion on the matter, and liberal journalists — in particular — are very upset.

Total lie. Read it if you want but it's a waste of time. Article's conclusion = nobody cares. There's nothing else worth quoting.

Try a search for "liberals complaining about whatever the **** his name is" and take a look. I already did. There's no gotcha here.

Funny because the question of whether or not he should be expected or forced to wear something like this is a valid question. The rest is bullcrap.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I haven't seen a link in this thread yet for all these quotes.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...cites-religion


No he is not required to. He has not been punished, he skipped the warm-up because he didn't want to wear the pride shirt and the rainbow colored hockey stick during it.

I don't think he is required to give a reason. I support a lot of things but it doesn't mean I'd wear their insignia because someone wanted me to. I would in this case but there are others I may not.

I'm not sure it's proper for a business to ask its employees to do anything of this sort at all, if that is how this came about.

But this OP is trying to be political with this. The question of can he or can't he doesn't seem to be the concern. It's about liberals complaining about him not wearing the thing.

Supposedly.

Here is an article detailing the liberal hysterics from a bunch of people nobody has ever heard of:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/18/l...flyers-hockey/




Total lie. Read it if you want but it's a waste of time. Article's conclusion = nobody cares. There's nothing else worth quoting.

Try a search for "liberals complaining about whatever the **** his name is" and take a look. I already did. There's no gotcha here.

Funny because the question of whether or not he should be expected or forced to wear something like this is a valid question. The rest is bullcrap.

Looks to me like it's the right-wing trying to make this into yet another manufactured outrage. I looked up the Daily Caller. As I was already pretty sure:

Quote:

Overall, we rate the Daily Caller as strongly right-biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact-checked on a per-article basis.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Unless you consider benching him for the game a hint of a suggestion that he should be punished in any way.

Oh, that part that the coach didn’t do, or threaten to do, or mention doing in any way?
Yes, the hypothetical suggested by a reporter is massive punishment

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Well put. It's no different than the bigotry that the Mormon Church incorporated into its official position until 1978:


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ueller/539994/

At the beginning of the year a boy turns 12 years old ( so technically at 11), he can become a 'priest', but a black man never could before "God changed his mind".

Black people were officially the Sons of Cain marked and cursed by God with their black skin:


When a Church teaches that something is wrong, a sin, punishable by death, and/or teaches you are not equal in the sight of the Church and God, if that's not bigotry, I don't know what is.

And I live about 20 minutes drive from Bob Jones University, one of the last bastions of institutional racism in the South. They didn't lift their ban on interracial dating for students until the late '90s, and then only because their tax-exempt status was threatened. So just as with the Mormons, God's Own Objective And Eternal Moral Law® proved remarkably flexible when capital matters came into play.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Two-thirds to three-fourths of people in the Western world believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy, according to opinion surveys done over the last 20 years. A select committee of Congress, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

A large chunk of Earth's population do not believe that all life and our planet began by chance.

Argumentum ad populum? Really?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

In a disturbing display of intolerance and bullying, many liberals...

And... that tells me all I need to know about this post.

[gabeygoat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Unless you consider benching him for the game a hint of a suggestion that he should be punished in any way.

I don't think he was benched? certainly not punished. did you read the article?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

I don't think he was benched? certainly not punished. did you read the article?

But the suggestion was made (contra Darat) that it was in the range of punishments that might have been indicated.

Darat claimed there was no hint of a suggestion of punishment.

[dann]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Oh my goodness. You must know this is a phony strawman argument. We both know that you can't name a soul on this planet who has said that gays should not be able to play on professional sports teams because children would turn gay from watching them play.

That you can't name anybody who said so doesn't mean that nobody did say so. Considering that Homophobia large portion of online abuse aimed at footballers and basketballers - study (BBC, June 26, 2022), I seriously doubt that not one single bigot has come up with the argument that watching gay football players would make children gay.

As to the celebration of homosexuality:

I actually hope that gay pride parades will someday become obsolete.
I never felt the need to celebrate heterosexuality. What would be the point? I also never felt proud to be straight. Why would I? It's not something I've worked hard to accomplish. It isn't even something I've decided to be. It's just what I happen to be.

I've never heard anybody bring out a toast to heterosexuality. (And I think it would be pretty gay to do so! )

But I do understand the current need of homosexuals to celebrate their sexual orientation in the form of gay pride parades. Being openly gay (still!) isn't something that can be taken for granted. It's a hard-earned right.
Being openly heterosexual isn't. We don't have to 'come out'.
'I dare to stand up to a hostile world and declare openly that I like to have sex with people of the opposite sex.'
Yeah, right!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Unless you consider benching him for the game a hint of a suggestion that he should be punished in any way.

That wasn't in the article. When was he benched for his decision?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The real question is if Provorov is under contract to participate in these sort of team outreach events. If he is, his religious nonsense is irrelevant. He should do his job, renegotiate his contract, or break his contract and deal with the consequences. If he isn’t, he can do what he wants and deal with the consequences.

Either way, nothing here protects public figures from public opinion. That is the nature of living in a free society.

This. Problem solved in post #16.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Darat

That wasn't in the article. When was he benched for his decision?

Don't you see? The evil libs want that to happen...whether anyone considered it or not is therefore moot.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

But the suggestion was made (contra Darat) that it was in the range of punishments that might have been indicated.

Darat claimed there was no hint of a suggestion of punishment.

I claimed that the article you linked to did not have one suggestion that he should be or would be punished for his decision. Indeed the only quotes in that article supported his right to not participate.

[TragicMonkey]

The thing being celebrated isn't homosexuality itself. What's being celebrated is the freedom to be homosexual if so inclined. This is a freedom a lot of people don't have. It's worth having even if you're not homosexual yourself, just like freedom of speech is worth having even when you don't actually have anything to say.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Oh my goodness. You must know this is a phony strawman argument. We both know that you can't name a soul on this planet who has said that gays should not be able to play on professional sports teams because children would turn gay from watching them play.

Rather than address liberal intolerance and intimidation on this issue, you guys resort to extreme polemics to mischaracterize those who disagree with your views on homosexuality.

I realize you rarely post beyond the first page of your own threads, so I'm not really expecting a response.

Personally, off the top of my head, I don't know of a single person who says that. But then I haven't bothered to look. What I do know is that there are a handful* of countries in which same-sex relationships are illegal, and few that have the death penalty for the same. When looked at from that perspective, the pathetic "we're the real victims of bigotry" vibe of the cited article face-plants with an audible smack.

* Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Brunei, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cook Islands, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territory (Gaza Strip), Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Samoa,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

And I live about 20 minutes drive from Bob Jones University, one of the last bastions of institutional racism in the South. They didn't lift their ban on interracial dating for students until the late '90s, and then only because their tax-exempt status was threatened. So just as with the Mormons, God's Own Objective And Eternal Moral Law® proved remarkably flexible when capital matters came into play.

Yet another reason organized religion is a blight that man must jettison and put well behind him in order to evolve morally more fully.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

The thing being celebrated isn't homosexuality itself. What's being celebrated is the freedom to be homosexual if so inclined. This is a freedom a lot of people don't have. It's worth having even if you're not homosexual yourself, just like freedom of speech is worth having even when you don't actually have anything to say.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Brainster

But the suggestion was made (contra Darat) that it was in the range of punishments that might have been indicated.

Darat claimed there was no hint of a suggestion of punishment.

There may have been a small reaction among a few people, but I see this as an example where conservatives are making a much bigger deal of it in a "Look! Look! We're being repressed!!" sort of way than is proportional to what actually happened. He wasn't actually punished, and at most a couple of sports reporters asked a few questions about it, as is their right. The team didn't even consider benching him. It's a nothingburger really. But it's being held up as evidence of how intolerant liberals are.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

jMany liberals have called Provorov every name in the book, including "bigot," "racist," "homophobe," and "hater," and have mocked his religious faith.

Have they? How many liberals have done this? Fox News could find two tweets that referred to him as a homophobe. I found a couple of articles saying this too.

I have also seen liberals defending him, like the Newsweek article "I'm gay, leave Ivan Provorov alone.' (this is my view too)

That does not show much evidence that liberals in general are saying this about his stance on pride might. I imagine most liberals didn't even pay much attention to it

I haven't found any so far that call him a bigot or a racist. Or any that mock his religious faith. I'm not saying there aren't any. Just that it doesn't seem to be so ubiquitous as to warrant attributing this to liberals in general, as you seem to do.

I have found sites that pointed out that the Russian state (as opposed to the Russian people) is homophobic.

And I have found sites where he has been called homophobic for saying things like "homosexuality is a choice".

I didn't know if he really said that but if seems reasonable to me to suggest that statements saying that homosexuality is a choice speak of prejudice.

Incidentally the pride might was not a celebration of homosexuality, it was intended to send the message that LGBTQIA folks are not unwelcome in the game.

Finally, is it really such a horrific ordeal to be called homophobic? I've been called Islamophobic, Transphobic, even Christophobic. It didn't bother me especially as I m sure I'm not any of those things.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Unless you consider benching him for the game a hint of a suggestion that he should be punished in any way.

Reading the articles I see that he wasn't benched. The coach explicitly said he wouldn't be benched

So not a hint of a punishment, quite rightly.

A few people suggested he was homophobic is all. Surely not much of an ordeal for a big strong well paid hockey player.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Darat

I claimed that the article you linked to did not have one suggestion that he should be or would be punished for his decision. Indeed the only quotes in that article supported his right to not participate.

Bob lives!

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Bob lives!

I also read the article you linked to, and nowhere in it was benching Poporov suggested. Could you please quote the passage where you claim that it was?

[Hercules56]

As an old-fashioned Liberal, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of any employer forcing their employees to take a public stand on specific political or social issues.

If we can require sports players to wear rainbow armbands, does that mean we can also fire them for kneeling during the National Anthem?

How about requiring all USA baseball players to wear an Israeli flag armband on Israel's independence day?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Really? It should? Two-thirds to three-fourths of people in the Western world believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy, according to opinion surveys done over the last 20 years. A select committee of Congress, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

A large chunk of Earth's population do not believe that all life and our planet began by chance.

Bless your heart.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

As an old-fashioned Liberal, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of any employer forcing their employees to take a public stand on specific political or social issues.

If we can require sports players to wear rainbow armbands, does that mean we can also fire them for kneeling during the National Anthem?

How about requiring all USA baseball players to wear an Israeli flag armband on Israel's independence day?

At least as to the OP, it’s a good thing absolutely none of those things was ever even momentarily in a slight way considered as having the slightest chance of happening.

That said, yes, it means he’s a bigot. In the US he is actually allowed to be a bigot.
In Russia being a bigot against the wrong orthodoxy can get you disappeared.
His bigotry is rooted in his religion and is protected.

Now if he causes the franchise to lose money he is not protected from free-market capitalism, which, as a modern socialist I fully support.

Again, socialists keep having to remind “conservatives” how capitalism works and how it is good.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Bob lives!

I'll remind you of what you claimed:

Originally Posted by Brainster

There are quite a few articles that take the tack that he should have been punished in some way. Here's CBS Sports:

...snip...

Where in that article is there any mention that he should have been punished?

[plague311]

I don't care what this guy does or what the NHL decides to do with him, if I'm being honest. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy that this only seems to come about when it's related to Gay marriage. The NHL is knee-deep in gambling, it's a relatively violent game, and so on. None of those seem to be against his religion? Granted, I am not Russian or Religious but that would be the first religion I've heard of that condones gambling and violence.

That's my biggest complaint about religious douchebags like this guy. His religion is only important when he deems it so and it's convenient for him.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't care what this guy does or what the NHL decides to do with him, if I'm being honest. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy that this only seems to come about when it's related to Gay marriage. The NHL is knee-deep in gambling, it's a relatively violent game, and so on. None of those seem to be against his religion? Granted, I am not Russian or Religious but that would be the first religion I've heard of that condones gambling and violence.

That's my biggest complaint about religious douchebags like this guy. His religion is only important when he deems it so and it's convenient for him.

Not to mention that (as Brainster helpfully pointed out) this Russian citizen had no issue whatsoever wearing a jersey to support the US military.

Yes, I know, that one's based on loyalty to his country rather than loyalty to his religion, but if his Russian compatriots are gonna hate him for wearing one jersey then they're also gonna hate him for the other one.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This post is like if the "Paradox of Tolerance" gained sentience and was ranting on Youtube from the cab of a pickup truck while wearing wrapround mirrored sunglasses.

This. With a nasty stench of homophobic bigotry coming off it.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Not to mention that (as Brainster helpfully pointed out) this Russian citizen had no issue whatsoever wearing a jersey to support the US military.

Yes, I know, that one's based on loyalty to his country rather than loyalty to his religion, but if his Russian compatriots are gonna hate him for wearing one jersey then they're also gonna hate him for the other one.

Let's say a Muslim player (from Canada) is supportive of USA but wont wear the pride jersey.
??? Bigoted villian? or diversity hero?

Nazem Kadri
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...yers-1.6563099

[Hercules56]

Maybe we should stop with the mandated virtue signaling.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Maybe we should stop with the mandated virtue signaling.

Just like you, I also despise when sports organizations show that they will accept people that are in the LGBT+ community. Good call.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Maybe we should stop with the mandated virtue signaling.

^^^this.

I think the vast majority of patrons at these games don't give a fig about the pre-game sexual-social-justice message. It is not popular and has now been done to death at the expense of fun at the game.
Stick to youth sports engagement, or some issue relatable to the audience which might have actual impact.

Even better: do a super fun pre-game show, and then just play the damn game.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Let's say a Muslim player (from Canada) is supportive of USA but wont wear the pride jersey.
??? Bigoted villian? or diversity hero?

Nazem Kadri
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...yers-1.6563099

Is Canada now an opponent of the United States the way Russia is?

Also, there's nothing in your link about Nazem Kadri refusing to wear any jersey. The only statement I could find by Kadri wrt homophobia was definitely against homophobia: “That’s the key for us and the NHL, and just the game of hockey in general, is to continue to move forward and evolve with its players,” Colorado’s Nazem Kadri said. “You always want to be mindful of people’s feelings, and the locker room’s obviously a sacred place for guys to talk privately and personally. That being said, everybody’s pretty mindful and wants to be as respectful as possible.”

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

^^^this.

I think the vast majority of patrons at these games don't give a fig about the pre-game sexual-social-justice message. It is not popular and has now been done to death at the expense of fun at the game.
Stick to youth sports engagement, or some issue relatable to the audience which might have actual impact.

Even better: do a super fun pre-game show, and then just play the damn game.

Have you ever been to an NHL game? How much did the jerseys the players wore for warm-up affect the mood at that game? I can't say I've ever noticed it affecting anything at the NHL or the ECHL level games, so I'm curious where you find crowds that feel it hurts the games.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Maybe we should stop with the mandated virtue signaling.

Yeah, they make the Australian cricket team wear pink to raise money for improving care and research into breast cancer.

They should stop all that virtue signalling.