Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Fun that these guys value liberty and freedom of speech so much that they categorize speech critical of someone’s belief as being equivalent to imprisoning them.

There's also something called "freedom of religion". At least down here. I don't know what you heathens up north are up to these days.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by btimbit

That's how it works for these wackjobs. His freedom of speech matters when it comes to being intolerant, but your freedom of speech calling it out, now that's the real issue here

And let's be clear, Reimer's "intolerance " is not wanting to wear a jersey and sitting out practice. How could we let this stand? Or sit, I guess.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by cannon7

There's also something called "freedom of religion". At least down here. I don't know what you heathens up north are up to these days.

Is this jersey thing in the States part of a law passed by Congress? Because if it is not it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Is this jersey thing in the States part of a law passed by Congress? Because if it is not it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

PepsiFree is the braintrust who brought up the first amendment.

[devo22]

who exactly is taking Reimer's freedom of religion away?

these discussions are so frustrating. I can't believe so many people really struggle with the whole concept of freedom of speech and so on.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by cannon7

And let's be clear, Reimer's "intolerance " is not wanting to wear a jersey and sitting out practice. How could we let this stand? Or sit, I guess.

No it isn't. You're being distracted by a prop.

Burke has already been quoted in this thread, but he does sum it up perfectly.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1637288639767126018

And here is a direct quote from Reimer:

"For me, to some extent, that's what you want to do is you want to love them, but where I keep reiterating what I'm saying is where it intersects for a Christian and the way I personally and the people close to me in my life interpret the Bible is you love them, but you can't support the activity or lifestyle."

He is intolerant of the LGBTQ+ community. Full stop.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Well this is progress at least, you seem to have dropped this religious ruse.

Your complaint is that individuals should be allowed to discriminate against whatever groups they deem individually they dislike. And they should be allowed to demonstrate their discrimination against these groups by refusing to wear a hockey jersey for 15 minutes.

What discriminatory actions has Reimer taken?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by cannon7

PepsiFree is the braintrust who brought up the first amendment.

Gotcha, cause I thought we had established that this has nothing to do with religion (although you hold that there can be individual religions for people like Reimer) and that this was just a bigot who did not want to wear a jersey. Was worried that the Republican congress had passed a NHL jersey law or something.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Someone brought up Kap.

Will the NHL teams collude like they did in the NFL to keep Kap out of a job and mask it by saying hes just a crappy goalie.

Because he is a crappy goalie and we are finding out he's just as crappy a human being.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

What discriminatory actions has Reimer taken?

He stated that he does not support the activity or lifestyle because of his personal bigotry.

The action was not participating in the night to support the community by not wearing the jersey.

Hope this helps your understanding.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Yamer

No it isn't. You're being distracted by a prop.

Burke has already been quoted in this thread, but he does sum it up perfectly.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1637288639767126018

Oh, Burke said something? Well, then I'm convinced. He does have a freakishly large head, there must be more than water in there.

Originally Posted by Yamer

And here is a direct quote from Reimer:

"For me, to some extent, that's what you want to do is you want to love them, but where I keep reiterating what I'm saying is where it intersects for a Christian and the way I personally and the people close to me in my life interpret the Bible is you love them, but you can't support the activity or lifestyle."

He is intolerant of the LGBTQ+ community. Full stop.

Sounds like he's more unsupportive than intolerant? Just reading the actual words here.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Gotcha, cause I thought we had established that this has nothing to do with religion (although you hold that there can be individual religions for people like Reimer) and that this was just a bigot who did not want to wear a jersey. Was worried that the Republican congress had passed a NHL jersey law or something.

Did you buy one of PepsiFree's jump to conclusions mats by any chance?

A person's faith is a pretty personal thing, from what I understand. But I'm all in on Pastafarianism, so what do I know?

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

And let's be clear, Reimer's "intolerance " is not wanting to wear a jersey and sitting out practice. How could we let this stand? Or sit, I guess.

You're still missing the point, but you're doing it on purpose so you already knew that.

He made a clear choice not to participate in a message that says everyone is welcome. By making that choice, he is sending the opposite message. That's his right, nobody is trying to take that away from him, despite what some odd posters are claiming in here. And it's everyone else's right to call him out for it if they want too.

What would be really weird is if someone were to then get upset that people are calling him out, and push for tolerance of intolerance instead. It sure is interesting to me that some people completely gloss over what actually happened and are instead just defending the right to be an intolerant prick. What someone speaks out against really tells you a lot about them, so I guess I'm a little surprised that people are willing to skip over Reimer saying that he "can't support the activity or lifestyle" like that's a perfectly reasonable stance, but then be vocal against the people saying he's an idiot. How is he so special that his views are above criticism?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Oh, Burke said something? Well, then I'm convinced. He does have a freakishly large head, there must be more than water in there.

I'm just using Burke's words to highlight the meaning of the jersey. He's been an enduring advocate for inclusivity in the NHL. If you want to be flippant about he has to say you're free to hold that opinion, but his words carry weight whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

That, and he's correct.

Sounds like he's more unsupportive than intolerant? Just reading the actual words here.

Sounds like you've fallen for Reimer's double speak. Sexuality and identity are not simply "acts" or "lifestyles". It is who they are. Most competent people can see through this coded language to understand what people like Reimer are actually saying when they regurgitate this nonsense.

Reimer is not accepting of who these persons are. Despite what you and Reimer appear to like to think that isn't tolerant at all.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

He stated that he does not support the activity or lifestyle because of his personal bigotry.

The action was not participating in the night to support the community by not wearing the jersey.

Hope this helps your understanding.

And herein lies the problem. You confuse someone saying something with actions.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Sounds like he's more unsupportive than intolerant? Just reading the actual words here.

What's the difference?

The fact that he called it an activity and a lifestyle is itself incredibly intolerant. This isn't a hobby, it's who you are. And he's saying that he does not value who they are.

If you don't see that as intolerant then there's really nothing else to say here

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And herein lies the problem. You confuse someone saying something with actions.

oh it's pretty obvious you're confused.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

And herein lies the problem. You confuse someone saying something with actions.

In this case we have both words and actions, so where is the confusion?

[Sylvanfan]

I doubt teams will collude to keep him out of the league. They don't need to. He's old and mediocre and no one would notice he's gone. Not even close to Kaepernick.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by btimbit

He made a clear choice not to participate in a message that says everyone is welcome. By making that choice, he is sending the opposite message.

There is an enormous difference between saying you don't support someone's choices and saying they aren't welcome.

Conflating the two is disingenuous and at the heart of the confusion of people undertaking this Inclusivity Inquisition.