There really isn't though. Either you think LGBTQ+ people should have the same rights as the rest of us, or you don't.
The players were asked to do a very very basic little gesture to support the rights of a historically repressed group of people. He refused to do it, even though doing so would have cost him nothing, and he would have just blended in with his teammates without drawing any attention to himself of any kind. Yet he chose to stick out like a sore thumb. It was a d### move.
He specifically stated that he respected the fact that everyone should be able to live their life as they choose.
If he thinks it's immoral for LGBTQ+ people to get married, adopt kids, etc, that's a bigoted position to have.
If he had it his way, LGBTQ+ people wouldn't have those rights.
You're claiming he said something that he did not say. Worse, you're claiming he said something that is the opposite of what he said.
There are many, many examples of things people might find immoral, but simultaneously don't want to restrict peoples' rights to do. This is the basis of classical liberal thinking, and quite frankly is the the underpinning of western liberal democracies.
-Many people think consuming alcohol is immoral, but don't want to restrict its use by others
- Many people think pre-marital sex is immoral, but don't want to restrict others' freedoms on sex
etc
Interestingly, I don't recall there being backlash (maybe there was?) against Kadri for taking the Stanley Cup to a mosque this summer - a mosque that is overtly and publicly anti-gay.
-Many people think consuming alcohol is immoral, but don't want to restrict its use by others
- Many people think pre-marital sex is immoral, but don't want to restrict others' freedoms on sex
By definition, these positions are contradictory and therefore impossible. If you truly believe something is immoral, you believe it is so unacceptable that it should be banned by law.
Maybe what you meant to say was, he thinks LGBTQ+ rights are "unfortunate but tolerable". Most people in 2023 would probably still classify that as a bigoted position.
Everyone having equal rights is not something that should be viewed as unfortunate or negative. Such a simple concept...
Ok then you don't know what the word immoral means.
It should be self evident that people don't take a disagreements on morality and automatically turn that disagreement into competing crusades to limit rights.
It should be self evident that people don't take a disagreements on morality and automatically turn that disagreement into competing crusades to limit rights.
Let's try phrasing this in a different way. Let's say you lived in a country where 75% of people thought it was immoral for same-sex couples to get married. What do you think the likelihood would be that same-sex couples would have the legal right to get married in that country?
Answer: 0%. All you have to do is look at our own country in the not-too-distant past.
Almost like people's attitudes toward things are what ultimately shape what the laws are. Huh, funny how that is? Attitudes and beliefs do matter, and there's grounds for being disappointed in people who hold bigoted ones.
Not what I expected from this thread. My take : he's Russian, in a time where tensions back home are really high. He probably balanced the benefit of trouble with the lgbtq community with trouble with his family back home, and made a call. It can be argued whether it was the right call, but I doubt he's a monster for making it. Just fitting into Russia is more important to him than fitting into Philly.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
Let's try phrasing this in a different way. Let's say you lived in a country where 75% of people thought it was immoral for same-sex couples to get married. What do you think the likelihood would be that same-sex couples would have the legal right to get married in that country?
Answer: 0%. All you have to do is look at our own country in the not-too-distant past.
Almost like people's attitudes toward things are what ultimately shape what the laws are. Huh, funny how that is? Attitudes and beliefs do matter, and there's grounds for being disappointed in people who hold bigoted ones.
Most western democracies have constitutions to ensure the sanctity of the individual over the tyranny of the majority.
This is why same sex marriage was determined by the SC, in an analysis of the constitution.
Furthermore, anyone who is a true liberal would understand that sitting on either side of that morality divide should not result in punishment for anyone, but rather a discussion about the merits of the competing ideas.
This perspective is what the left has lost, instead pursuing a more kangaroo court and witchhunt approach to disagreement.
This is basically like that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer won't wear the ribbon.
No... No it's not.
First of all, Kramer doesn't have a job. His entire persona is that he lives his life free of any responsibility and as a singular entity. He states in the clip that he won't wear the ribbon because he doesn't want to be like everyone else. A very Kramer position.
Provorov has responsibilities towards two groups. His team and his religion. It is almost the opposite of what Kramer had because he didn't choose individuality. He chose the sheep like group think of his religion.
That clip in Seinfeld would have been very odd and not funny had Kramer said that he supports people with aids but people with aids go against his religious beliefs and therefore he doesn't really want to align himself with those that have it though they are free to live and die as they please.
It should be self evident that people don't take a disagreements on morality and automatically turn that disagreement into competing crusades to limit rights.
Uhhhhh abortion?
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
2016:
National anthem - Show respect.
LGBTQ community - No need to show respect.
Got it, Torts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
Absolute garbage. If they were employed by the Flames, I'd want to never see them coach and play for my team again
The Calgary Flames are the only team in Canada since October 2021 that has not respected & performed the long-reading Treaty 7 land acknowledgment prior to every home game.
Most western democracies have constitutions to ensure the sanctity of the individual over the tyranny of the majority.
That "tyranny of the majority" BS is really just made-up nonsense. So I reject the premise of what you're saying here.
Quote:
This is why same sex marriage was determined by the SC, in an analysis of the constitution.
It was ratified in 2005. What about the years 1867-2004? Funny how your "we conservatives don't want to restrict anyone's rights" policy didn't seem to apply then.
Quote:
Furthermore, anyone who is a true liberal would understand that sitting on either side of that morality divide should not result in punishment for anyone, but rather a discussion about the merits of the competing ideas.
There are no merits to the idea that same-sex marriages are immoral. There literally is no case to be made for it. And no, saying "because my invisible friend in the sky said so" is not a case.
Quote:
This perspective is what the left has lost, instead pursuing a more kangaroo court and witchhunt approach to disagreement.
Nope. It's just that we see situations were harm is being done, and we take steps to minimize that harm. Sometimes it means calling out people who have views that are rooted in a time when certain groups were viciously oppressed.
