Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The point of the conversation is that Reimer should wear the jersey despite his personal beliefs. No one is saying James, we need you to demonstrate your gayness in front of 18,000 fans by kissing Logan Couture.

What they are saying is that James, we want the gay community to feel welcome at our organization. Wear this jersey showing that we welcome them.

If he refuses, then he is just an #######. It actually has nothing to do with religion right now. If he can be friends with a Muslim (Kadri) why can't he just show that he would welcome a gay person into his place of employment? As far as these types of Christians are concerned, both muslim and gay are antithetical to Christianity.

Good point. Showing that someone is welcome, does not mean endorsing anything.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Give it time. Others have been "cancelled" for similar transgressions. Multiple posters in this thread have called for Reimer to be banned from hockey. Agree that it is a "bit extreme".

The NHL isn't going to do that. To argue that it's going to happen is a straw man argument.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by cannon7

It's hyperbole for sure. But I've been actively attacked in this thread for advocating tolerance. Accused of being a racist bigoted homophobe numerous times. If there is anything to be drawn from this thread, it is that there is increasing intolerance for tolerance.

No, as pointed out, you’re advocating acceptance, not tolerance. You’re saying we have to accept his views and arguing with people who dare criticize them. His views are fully tolerated, he has not received any punishment for them and the vast majority of people you’re arguing with don’t think he should be punished for them, but believe in our right to criticize his views. You do not. And what’s worse, is that you don’t believe we should be allowed to criticize his views under the guise of this made-up version of tolerance.

You’ve been called a racist, a homophobe, and a bigot because you, like a lot of us, have been here for years and as much as you like to mock everyone here and call them dumb or say they can’t read, we’re not so dumb that we forget your contributions to other topics. They are memorably bad. And all you do is blame everyone else and mock everyone else while pretending you’re so forgiving and tolerant. It’s hilarious. We’re humouring the little fantasy you have about your contributions here. You’ve shown who you are enough times that nobody takes it seriously.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

When I talked about punching up you said this

So yeah. You did.

Muslims were the context there, so no, I didn't. But since you're so hung up on this, I'll offer an answer.

The "powers" here are the ones choosing the groups that are to be protected and the ones that are not. The powers and the protected groups are not necessarily one and the same. Unless you think the LGBT+ and Islamic communities run every major corporation?

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Engine09

Basically make no attempt to progress as a society and continue to allow religious people to treat the gay community as less than human?

Your idea sucks.

No. That is not what I am saying. I watch hockey (sports) for one reason. To watch sports. I don't want political statements mixed in with my sports entertainment. It is not their job.

James Reimer is fully within his rights to not support LGBTQ+ lifestyle, in a free society he should not be demonized for having religious beliefs. More importantly, I don't think he should be put in a position where he has to defend his beliefs in order to play hockey.

I don't agree with his religious beliefs. I 100% agree that he should be free to have those beliefs and practice his religion. It is about personal freedom and autonomy - based on his statement he does not hate gay people, he doesn't think they are less than human - it simply goes against his beliefs. If the NHL wanted to celebrate families that have had children outside of marriage, should he also have to comply with that?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Muslims were the context there, so no, I didn't. But since you're so hung up on this, I'll offer an answer.

The "powers" here are the ones choosing the groups that are to be protected and the ones that are not. The powers and the protected groups are not necessarily one and the same. Unless you think the LGBT+ and Islamic communities run every major corporation?

As I said in the post that you quoted with the quote, was about how white folks and Christians are not marginalized, and that those that are allowed to 'punch up'

You replied with that quote.

But sure, keep moving the goal posts, bud.

Sorry for getting hung up on attitudes that lead to people wanting me dead.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, as pointed out, you’re advocating acceptance, not tolerance. You’re saying we have to accept his views and arguing with people who dare criticize them. His views are fully tolerated, he has not received any punishment for them and the vast majority of people you’re arguing with don’t think he should be punished for them, but believe in our right to criticize his views. You do not. And what’s worse, is that you don’t believe we should be allowed to criticize his views under the guise of this made-up version of tolerance.

You’ve been called a racist, a homophobe, and a bigot because you, like a lot of us, have been here for years and as much as you like to mock everyone here and call them dumb or say they can’t read, we’re not so dumb that we forget your contributions to other topics. They are memorably bad. And all you do is blame everyone else and mock everyone else while pretending you’re so forgiving and tolerant. It’s hilarious. We’re humouring the little fantasy you have about your contributions here. You’ve shown who you are enough times that nobody takes it seriously.

Show me one post where I said we had to accept Reimer's views. Hell, show me one post where I said you couldn't criticize him. If I've done this repeatedly, as you say, then this should be a simple exercise.

Still waiting on that post where I defended Miller's actions, too.

I won't hold my breath.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by VilleN

No. That is not what I am saying. I watch hockey (sports) for one reason. To watch sports. I don't want political statements mixed in with my sports entertainment. It is not their job.

James Reimer is fully within his rights to not support LGBTQ+ lifestyle, in a free society he should not be demonized for having religious beliefs. More importantly, I don't think he should be put in a position where he has to defend his beliefs in order to play hockey.

I don't agree with his religious beliefs. I 100% agree that he should be free to have those beliefs and practice his religion. It is about personal freedom and autonomy - based on his statement he does not hate gay people, he doesn't think they are less than human - it simply goes against his beliefs. If the NHL wanted to celebrate families that have had children outside of marriage, should he also have to comply with that?

Lmao that is by no means the same thing, my guy. That's largely a choice and not a marginalized identity.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Welcoming everyone to enjoy the game of hockey isn't political.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

As I said in the post that you quoted with the quote, was about how white folks and Christians are not marginalized, and that those that are allowed to 'punch up'

You replied with that quote.

But sure, keep moving the goal posts, bud.

Sorry for getting hung up on attitudes that lead to people wanting me dead.

Literally a post back you said the context was LGBT, and you wanted me to explain how LGBT were in power. Now it is white folks and Christians. Whatever, bud.

[The Big Chill]

Originally Posted by VilleN

No. That is not what I am saying. I watch hockey (sports) for one reason. To watch sports. I don't want political statements mixed in with my sports entertainment. It is not their job.

James Reimer is fully within his rights to not support LGBTQ+ lifestyle, in a free society he should not be demonized for having religious beliefs. More importantly, I don't think he should be put in a position where he has to defend his beliefs in order to play hockey.

I don't agree with his religious beliefs. I 100% agree that he should be free to have those beliefs and practice his religion. It is about personal freedom and autonomy - based on his statement he does not hate gay people, he doesn't think they are less than human - it simply goes against his beliefs. If the NHL wanted to celebrate families that have had children outside of marriage, should he also have to comply with that?

Not everybody has the privilege to turn all that stuff off and just go to a game. That is the whole point of this.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Literally a post back you said the context was LGBT, and you wanted me to explain how LGBT were in power. Now it is white folks and Christians. Whatever, bud.

I was talking about the initial post that you replied to with the original quote.
But you're clearly suffering from the comprehension issues you claim others have. Try harder to follow along, dear.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Lmao that is by no means the same thing, my guy. That's largely a choice and not a marginalized identity.

My point is, why should have to support a lifestyle that he doesn't agree with? Is he not allowed to hold beliefs like that? I understand homosexuality is not a choice. I understand they are marginalized. However, my fundamental belief is in personal freedom. James Reimer is not forcing his views on anyone. The NHL is doing that to him. He should not be forced to do/support something he disagrees with. This should be an obvious stance in a free country.

I shouldn't need to say this, but I will: Speech/beliefs that calls for violence towards another group is not acceptable and deserves no protection.

I think it was Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

At the end of the day just because you think Reimer should have to support LGBTQ+ by wearing a special jersey should be irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what James Reimer feels comfortable supporting as he is an individual living in a free society.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I shouldn't need to say this, but I will: Speech/beliefs that calls for violence towards another group is not acceptable and deserves no protection.

Wimp.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Welcoming everyone to enjoy the game of hockey isn't political.

Having a Welcome Ukrainian Refugees Night might raise a few political eyebrows.





*I support Ukraine unequivocally.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I was talking about the initial post that you replied to with the original quote.
But you're clearly suffering from the comprehension issues you claim others have. Try harder to follow along, dear.

My point: the powers that be are choosing which groups can and can not be criticized.

Your interpretation: Tell me how queer folks are in power?

See the disconnect?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by VilleN

My point is, why should have to support a lifestyle that he doesn't agree with? Is he not allowed to hold beliefs like that? I understand homosexuality is not a choice. I understand they are marginalized. However, my fundamental belief is in personal freedom. James Reimer is not forcing his views on anyone. The NHL is doing that to him. He should not be forced to do/support something he disagrees with. This should be an obvious stance in a free country.

I shouldn't need to say this, but I will: Speech/beliefs that calls for violence towards another group is not acceptable and deserves no protection.

I think it was Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

At the end of the day just because you think Reimer should have to support LGBTQ+ by wearing a special jersey should be irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what James Reimer feels comfortable supporting as he is an individual living in a free society.

Careful. They're going to accuse you of being an alt account of mine.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by cannon7

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
~ -Kevin Alfred Strom

Originally Posted by cannon7

My point: the powers that be are choosing which groups can and can not be criticized.

Your interpretation: Tell me how queer folks are in power?

See the disconnect?

There's a disconnect, but it's coming from inside the house.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by VilleN

My point is, why should have to support a lifestyle that he doesn't agree with? Is he not allowed to hold beliefs like that? I understand homosexuality is not a choice. I understand they are marginalized. However, my fundamental belief is in personal freedom. James Reimer is not forcing his views on anyone. The NHL is doing that to him. He should not be forced to do/support something he disagrees with. This should be an obvious stance in a free country.

I shouldn't need to say this, but I will: Speech/beliefs that calls for violence towards another group is not acceptable and deserves no protection.

I think it was Voltaire who said "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

At the end of the day just because you think Reimer should have to support LGBTQ+ by wearing a special jersey should be irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what James Reimer feels comfortable supporting as he is an individual living in a free society.

Calling homosexuality a 'lifestyle' is a major red flag, but taking that at face value and moving on, James Reimer is totally able to hold and express his views. He can and has done that. But what he, and no one, in an alleged 'free society' (it's really not a free society under Capitalism but I'm likely in a minority here thinking so) is entitled to is freedom of consequences. And so far the only consequences for James are cirtques online. Pretty low stakes in terms of consequences.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Calling homosexuality a 'lifestyle' is a major red flag, ...

Semantics!