Inclusivity and the NHL: We Have a Problem

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

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.

I already clearly stated I don't believe homosexuality is a choice - so you can see what you want in my post, but I think I was pretty unambiguous on that particular point.

As for everything else you wrote, I 100% agree. Ideas should be allowed to be expressed and argued. I am simply against anyone forcing another to do something they don't want to do.

[CroFlames]

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.

I don't think his employer is trying to force him to "support the lifestyle". His employer is trying to send a message to a traditionally marginalized community that they are welcome.

By the way, "lifestyle" implies it's a choice.

[Torture]

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.

OK, but where was his freedom limited? He was not forced to support a lifestyle he didn't support because he wasn't forced to wear the jersey. He continues to be employed by the Sharks and can play in the NHL. He did not face any violence. He wasn't locked up or told he can't speak about the issue.

What happened, is he did get blasted for it on the internet because while he's free to not participate and put out his statement, we're all free to say that he's a bigot.

[TheIronMaiden]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences or criticism.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't think his employer is trying to force him to "support the lifestyle". His employer is trying to send a message to a traditionally marginalized community that they are welcome.

By the way, "lifestyle" implies it's a choice.

Would you be offended if someone called it a heterosexual lifestyle (assuming you are heterosexual - if not my apologies)? Lifestyle does not imply choice, look up the definition. It is simply the way in which someone lives their life.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Would you be offended if someone called it a heterosexual lifestyle (assuming you are heterosexual - if not my apologies)? Lifestyle does not imply choice, look up the definition. It is simply the way in which someone lives their life.

That's ignoring at least 60 years of colloquial use of that term.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I am simply against anyone forcing another to do something they don't want to do.

Reimer got to sit out the warmup, what part of that sounds like being forced to do something to you? he's getting rightly roasted for it, but again where's the forcing?

it's pretty simple, Reimer and the others who refused the jersey think wearing it means "I personally enjoy hot sweaty gay action", when all it's really just letting that community know they are on equal footing in sport participation and fandom. when you can't even agree to that then you're just a piece of crap and deserve all the criticism you get. it's already been said, intolerance is the one exception to tolerance.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Either way, the message of the jerseys is only “you can play hockey without discrimination”. That’s it. Maybe they should just design them with that written in bold writing so we can continue hand holding people through this.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

That's ignoring at least 60 years of colloquial use of that term.

Pretty sure dictionaries account for colloquialisms.

What is your preferred word for a way of life?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Pretty sure dictionaries account for colloquialisms.

What is your preferred word for a way of life?

"Way of life" is an idiom

[Yeah_Baby]

For what it's worth here is what an Affirming Christian Community has to say

—“lifestyle,” “religious reasons,” “not how I was raised”—are part of a long tradition of rhetoric used in religious communities to vilify the LGBTQ community.

There are two main areas of her comments that are routinely used by Christians to place their “disagreement” under a sacred canopy of religious freedom. The first is the issue of a “lifestyle.” Many people in religious communities abide by the stereotype that gay life is nights filled with drunken party hopping, drug use, and an overall lack of morals.

These ideas would be considered sin even for straight people, but these “party animal” traits are often deemed to be intrinsic to being gay. To them, “gay” is a series of willful decisions to live a life devoid of the values that most consider highlighting a Christian life. Rarely is consideration given to the idea of gender identity, and if it is discussed it is within the context of fairly rigid gender roles.

https://www.believeoutloud.com/voice...gay-lifestyle/

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Would you be offended if someone called it a heterosexual lifestyle (assuming you are heterosexual - if not my apologies)? Lifestyle does not imply choice, look up the definition. It is simply the way in which someone lives their life.

Heteros being the dominant "lifestyle" in society means that it is not offensive to say heterosexual lifestyle.

I am certainly not an expert on the matter, but I think it is offensive to the LGBT community because when you say lifestyle, it implies that homosexuals could have chose to not live a homosexual lifestyle, i.e.: just be celibate, no dating, and go to and from your boring accounting job and die alone. Then guys like Reimer wouldn't have a problem with them.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

That's ignoring at least 60 years of colloquial use of that term.

In any case, people are choosing to ignore the fact that I clearly said homosexuality is not choice and focus on twisting what I’m trying to say. My point has precisely nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by VilleN

In any case, people are choosing to ignore the fact that I clearly said homosexuality is not choice and focus on twisting what I’m trying to say. My point has precisely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Which is why I proceeded and took it at face value. But did want to flag that it was/could be a red flag

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by VilleN

In any case, people are choosing to ignore the fact that I clearly said homosexuality is not choice and focus on twisting what I’m trying to say. My point has precisely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Weird, huh?

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Weird, huh?

Yeah, it's not weird. I think it's just folks trying to educate/inform about coded language that folks may not be aware is coded that way.

But as we all know tone is implied online so if you want to continue to be a martyr feel free *shrugs*

[USflamesfan]

Honest question: Is there anyway to move this thread from the hockey part of the forum?

[Yeah_Baby]

nm

[Jiri Hrdina]

And people can also choose not to click into it. It's pretty clearly labeled.
If you don't want to read and discuss it don't click in the thread.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by USflamesfan

Honest question: Is there anyway to move this thread from the hockey part of the forum?

Why is this a pressing matter for a very unique subsection of the forum?

It shouldn't be moved. This is directly relating to the game of hockey. These are hockey players that are refusing to wear a team organized piece of clothing, and it is causing controversy.

If you don't want to engage with it, don't click on the thread. But it's in the right spot.

Perhaps you should analyze what makes this an uncomfortable subject to discuss.