Does refusing to wear Pride symbolism mean that you hate LGBT people?

I don't wear the gay pride symbol. I am not gay. Not wearing the gay pride symbol doesn't mean I hate gays. However, if my department would organize a work event to make LGBQT students feel more included, I would participate. Why? Because I don't have a need to exclude people that are different than me.

Back to this player. This was a TEAM event, to show support for the LGBQT community. He could have just not participated, maybe could have said he wasn't feeling well. But, no, he had to make it known that he did not WANT to participate because of his religious beliefs. What do his religious beliefs tell him? That LGBQT are sinners? Not normal? Subhuman? Need to be shunned? Not supported? That's what he is signaling with his active refusal to participate and show support. Is it flat out hate for LGBQT? I don't know, but at least it shows disdain.

Now, I wonder where it says in the bible that LGBQT are against the teachings of Jesus? In fact, Jesus would have probably specifically supported them, as he did for everyone who was downtrodden, outcast, sidelined, etc.

 

The more you force this **** down my throat the more I am starting to hate it. That's just how people work. The more you try to get me to do something, the less I'm going to be inclined to do it.

Progressives need to figure that out.

 

https://twitter.com/APgelston/status/1615563737020219392

 

No. Acceptance and treating people with respect and dignity is one thing that all of us should strive for. Endorsing a lifestyle and joining the movement to expand its members is another. Shoving this down down people’s throats is not going to improve things from the tolerance angle.

The left seems to think that if they force things on people and make moves to indoctrinate children that it will further their cause. On one level, such as the teaching of history, it might. On other levels, such as pushing abhorrent life styles, like pedaphelia, the reaction will be very strong.

Most of the left will tell you now that they don’t support pedaphiles, but that’s just a phase before the more radical members of their movement push for its acceptance. Unfortunately it’s the more radical members of the left who set the agenda, and the other leftists out of fear or solidarity go along. There are only few, whom I would call old style liberals, who say “NO!” It seems like many leftists need to get instructions from their leadership before they take a position. This is probably more true among the young.

 

There is a huge contradiction half way through your response. Yes, it is a team event. That means that player has an obligation to his team to play if he is healthy. He does not have an obligation to endorse a lifestyle that is viewed as a sin by his religion. That is a First Amendment issue.

The Philadelphia Flyers are in the business of playing hockey. They are not in the business of endorsing LGBQTX lifestyles.

I used to be a Flyers fan. I dropped them years ago when they took down a statue of Kate Smith because of some minor offense against wokeism which occurred in a movie in the 1930s. The management made the cardinal sin of pulling someone out of their time and applying modern standards to their actions. After that, I was done with the Flyers.

For those who don’t know, Kate Smith was a singer from many years ago. The Flyers sometimes played her rendition of “God Bless America” before games instead of The National Anthem. After the Flyers won a number of games after they did that, playing “God Bless America” before a big game became a good luck charm. The fans adored her. Then, years after her death, they pulled down a little statue that was erected in her memory outside the Flyers arena to please a few bigoted woke Bozos. Wokeism sucks.

 

Oh it's right here:

Mark Lazerus - Senior Writer, The Athletic:

"I have no time for people who openly hate and hide behind "religion." If your religion preaches hate, your religion is bullshit." https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615544478768455682

Adam Proteau - Hockey reporter for @TheHockeyNews @FullPressNHL:

"Ivan Provorov has the right to any opinion he chooses. And we have the right to have any opinion on Ivan Provorov that we choose. Like this: he's a shameful human being whose homophobia is only going to get more shameful over the years." https://twitter.com/Proteautype/status/1615753299554074647

Cyd Zeigler - Gay sports writer @Outsports@SBNation:

"No I didn't choose to be gay. Yes, Ivan Proporov chose to embrace prejudice." https://twitter.com/CydZeigler/status/1615711985273868289

Marcus Hayes - Sports Columnist at The Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Provorov refused to warm up Tuesday night against Anaheim because he does not support the right of LGBTQ+ people to even exist. This is homophobia at its most extreme. If you subscribe to this belief, you are a homophobe. A little rainbow tape on Provorov’s hockey stick wasn’t going to send him to hell." https://www.inquirer.com/flyers/ivan-provorov-flyers-pride-night-lgbtq-20230118.html

 

So if he didn't want to support the state religion, he should have just lied and say he was too sick to go to church? Why do you think he should have lied about that?

Also, as far as I can tell, the "participation" was wearing the Pride jersey, which he had declined to do. This story is about religious beliefs, but not his, it's about society's state religion which deifies LGBQWRTY as some sort of exalted and sacred state of being. He refused to wear the ribbon, and is now a heretic. It's that simple.

 

Why? I'm sure that it's because you would likely be promptly fired if you didn't.

How would you be excluding people if you didn't participate?

Oh, so he should have lied?

Uh, yeah, because that was the truth. Pretty simple really.

Says who?

That's your interpretation.

"LGBT" as in?

Not probably. He DEFINITELY would have.

 

Terrible OP then. None of those personal opinions were in the OP.

And then, none of them say this, per your OP
So, the answer to the OP question, is NO.

...
"
Does refusing to wear Pride symbolism mean that you hate LGBT people?"

 

I am not really sure how you pulled that from my post but no — people should be able to wear anything they want. Christian symbolism is odd because it goes against several passages in the Bible imo but they can do as they see fit

 

What's funny about this thread is every single red in here stating they support his right not to wear a pride logo would bash the hell out of him and call him un-American if he decided not to stand for the anthem and call for the team to fire him. LOL

 

The pride movement is international, affirmative of equality and legal rights.

Are you actually looking for an individual who pointed that out?

 

I don't know if "hate" is the correct word; maybe "don't support or agree with"?

 

Yes, for primitive people refusing to wear pride symbolism mean that you hate LGBT people,
for primitive people refusing to wear American flag mean that you hate America,
for primitive people asking to increase of the minimal salary rate mean that you are communist,
for primitive people voting for GOP mean that you are a racist
Primitive people don't understand that you can support an idea without wearing ideas symbols and constantly screaming about ideas you support.

 

Having upper management require the players to take part in an event to promote positions unrelated to the sport has problematic aspects to it. I don't believe owning the team gives the owner the right to use the players to support the owner's political causes like that.

It has the same sort of problems that having public school coaches use the power of their position to push religious views on their players - presenting the choice of praying with the coach or being an outcast.

NFL teams enforce wearing ribbons at specific games to support various causes. It looks to me like they get around the possibility of disagreement by avoiding serious social issues.

So, we get maximally testosterone infused males standing strong in support of women's breast care.

 

How do you feel about required DEI statements in academia? Do you recommend lying on them? Would you recommend against hiring a chemistry Nobel prize winng biologist who staunchly defended the gender binary?

 

I don't buy that.

The pride movement is oriented to equality and acceptance in our society.

Opposing that is a seriously extreme position to take. Being excluded from our society is a denial of citizenship. It's a life threatening position to be in.

 

Loyalty oaths coming back??

As for your Nobel biologist, I think you're misinterpreting the issue.

There ARE just two sexes - one with small mobile gametes and the other with large immobile gametes.

The catch is that all the rest of what's going on in brains, glands, external morphology, etc., does not necessarily match that division.

So, picking external morphology as the single factor IS a mistake that a serious biologist in the field of sexuality (human or otherwise) would not make.

 

Is anyone else reminded of Havel's green grocer? It captures the essence of totalitarianism, living a lie.

Havel writes about a greengrocer who lives under a totalitarian regime in communist Czechoslovakia. He “places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: ‘Workers of the world, unite!’” He does it not because he agrees with the slogan but “simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble…he does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life” (pp. 27-2. The message isn’t directed to his customers, or to Czechoslovakians more generally. It is directed above, to his party bosses. The message is: “I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace” (p. 2. This is not the greengrocer speaking with his own voice, he is not saying things he means or really wants to say. He is “living within a lie” (p. 31).

https://pathtothepossible.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/havels-greengrocer/

 

Wrong. Disagreeing with the Pride movement doesn't comprise HATE - which was the question.

 

So you would not hire the biologist because he is a frivolous biologist, despite his acomplishments.

 

I didn't use the word "hate" anywhere in my post to you.

Please reread my post and try again.

 

LOL!!

I just pointed out why your hypothetical didn't even make sense.

 

Idon't see that. You claimed all serious biologists would reject the gender binary, so rejecting the gender binary is a job requirement. Perhaps all those serious biologists took @Quantum Nerd 's advice and are living a lie as Havel suggested.

 

Not standing for the anthem is unAmerican. Not wearing a pride symbol is not unAmerican.