Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
A truly liberal position is to state that people can live how they choose as long as they are not pursuing activity that is harmful to someone else.
Choosing not to endorse someone or an idea is not the same as performing an activity that harms them.
|
This is not true when we're talking about marginalized & historically repressed groups. Reimer's decision
did cause harm in this case. He was asked to simply wear a warm up jersey just like all of his teammates, but he decided to instead stick out like a sore thumb, and push back against something for which there is no reasonable justification for doing so. If he truly believed in inclusion for everyone, he would have wore the damn thing.
Quote:
In your context of a social contract, the only thing that violates that social contract is when you attempt to do harm to another person. In Reimer's case, he did not do that and made very clear statements that he would uphold his end of the social contract by welcoming everyone.
Reimer's position on LGBTQ+ people might be distasteful and incorrect, but ideas themselves don't violate the fundamentals of a liberal society. However, trying to coerce him into making public statements does violate the fundamentals of a liberal society.
|
He's receiving harsh criticism, as he should. He made a bad choice and there are consequences for making such a choice. However, he's carrying on with his NHL career, and his life of extreme privilege, uninterrupted, so no he is not being "coerced" into making public statements.