NHL BoG: No themed Warm Up jerseys next season

[Kidder]

Originally Posted by Matata

Govern me harder, corporate-daddy. I dont want kids pushed into lifestyles with staggering suicide and mental health rates. Im such a monster lol.

Like… what?

Are you suggesting pride events persuade heterosexual youth into converting to homosexuality? Based on…?

If you’re looking for some sources then you could try, I don’t know, talking to people from the LGBTQ community about how they found themselves apart of said group? Hell, there’s a well written account just a few posts back to peruse.

Like it seems your uneducated assumption is they are lured by the pretty colours, and then after which are lambasted with the mental illnesses and suicide ideation that plagues the community.

From the Trevor Project:
“LGBTQ youth are not inherently prone to suicide risk because of their sexual orientation or gender identity but rather placed at higher risk because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized in society.“

Now I assume you’d refute that statement due to the source, never-minding the studies it cites to craft such an inference. But let’s revisit the crux of your post.

You want to save kid’s lives? And hope to accomplish that by reducing iniatives meant to support LGBTQ awareness?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39043149.amp

As this BBC article points out, suicide attempts decrease as means to a more supportive society increases.

If your assumption is a decrease in awareness and support will mean less gay youth, or at least keep them in the closet ashamed of their feelings, and that will lead to less mental anguish and suicides as a total, well I’m afraid to say that the studies and evidence do not back that up.

And based on your original claim, if you do care most about the well being of children, but don’t care about the evidence pointing out that societal support saves lives, well choose whatever personal descriptor you like.

Monster seems apt.

[Haplo]

Not really surprising given the hate the players that would not wear the jerseys got. I'm sure some foreign players (Russians not least) risk getting a lot of hate from home as well. Now, I get most on this board will think that breaking some rotten eggs is worth it for the bigger picture, but an employer can't think that way. Maybe have an audience pride shirt night instead?

[OptimalTates]

I wonder if Matata will ever realize he is part of the LGBTQ+ community? His posts make it clear that he chooses same-sex relationships and chooses to identify with his gender based on the genitals he was born with. Making a choice to do so, which is perfectly fine, makes you a form of bisexual and nonbinary.

Cis-heterosexuals don’t make a choice. The same way a gay or transgendered person doesn’t. There is no pushing of lifestyle, there is no choosing to be gay.

[CliffFletcher]

The issue is obviously the negative publicity the league got from the media frenzy over the handful of players who chose not to wear the jersey. Not hard to see why the league doesn’t want a repeat of that next year.

So do fans want an annual recurrence of last year’s round of naming and shaming at each team’s pride event? Some do. But the owners clearly don’t. And I’d wager neither does the NHLPA.

The outcome that some fans seem to want - for all the players to wear the jerseys - is only possible if they’re compelled. But is that really a good outcome - that wearing a pride jersey becomes an expression of conformity rather than freely-offered support?

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I think you misunderstand. In cases like this, employees aren't being forced to support a social cause. That's impossible (employers can't change the way you think). Rather, employees are being required to demonstrate their employer's support of a social cause. I see little difference in your employer requiring employees to demonstrate their employer's dedication to the environment, or to customer service, or to Canada Day, etc.

What if your employer asked you to wear a "don't tread on me" insignia to show corporate support for their "freedom of speech" position. Or asked you to wear a Conservative Party pin to show corporate support for their "deregulation" position. Or asked you to wear a "MAGA" hat to show corporate support for their "American manufacturers first" position.

I hope you'd tell them to #### right off.

Your employer can ask you to wear things to support the employer. That's it. You work at McDonald's, you wear the McDonald's uniform. You work at TD, wear the TD pin. You work at the Calgary Flames, wear the logo.

If your employer has social causes they care about, they don't have the right to ask employees to associate with that cause in any way. It's beyond their right. Your employer does not own you the 8 hours you work there. You do not cede your rights or identity to your employer while you're getting paid.

If TD cares about indigenous people, maybe they should hire some more indigenous people at all levels of their organization. Or offer money management, lending programs or social support specifically for indigenous customers. Or pay employees to attend mandatory indigenous issues workshops. And TD can highlight all that stuff in commercials or around their branch or on their website.

TD should not ask employees to wear "every child matters" t-shirts. It's simply a line that - in my opinion - shouldn't be crossed.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Clear to see society still has a long way to go...sheesh.

When it comes to humanity, 90 per cent is effectively consensus. The only way to reach 100 per cent agreement on pretty much anything is through coercion.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

credit where due.

https://twitter.com/user/status/167237255907610624

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/edmonton...says-1.6453911

I assume most teams will do this. Have pride night, but follow league in not having the warm-up jerseys. I read it quickly, but they didn't say they would wear warm-up jerseys.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

What if your employer asked you to wear a "don't tread on me" insignia to show corporate support for their "freedom of speech" position. Or asked you to wear a Conservative Party pin to show corporate support for their "deregulation" position. Or asked you to wear a "MAGA" hat to show corporate support for their "American manufacturers first" position.

I hope you'd tell them to #### right off.

Your employer can ask you to wear things to support the employer. That's it. You work at McDonald's, you wear the McDonald's uniform. You work at TD, wear the TD pin. You work at the Calgary Flames, wear the logo.

If your employer has social causes they care about, they don't have the right to ask employees to associate with that cause in any way. It's beyond their right. Your employer does not own you the 8 hours you work there. You do not cede your rights or identity to your employer while you're getting paid.

If TD cares about indigenous people, maybe they should hire some more indigenous people at all levels of their organization. Or offer money management, lending programs or social support specifically for indigenous customers. Or pay employees to attend mandatory indigenous issues workshops. And TD can highlight all that stuff in commercials or around their branch or on their website.

TD should not ask employees to wear "every child matters" t-shirts. It's simply a line that - in my opinion - shouldn't be crossed.

I can give legitimate reasons why I would not want to wear those shirts, the harm they do and the negative impact of me wearing one.

The same cannot be done with the jerseys that the NHL teams have worn in the pre-game warm-ups.

[CliffFletcher]

Two options:

A) Pride jerseys are worn voluntarily, expressing personal support for pride. Some people don’t wear them, but you can be confident that the people you see wearing them are supporters.

B) Pride jerseys are mandated (either formally, or informally through denouncing and shaming those who don’t wear them). Everyone wears pride jerseys, but it’s impossible to know if any given player you see wearing one genuinely supports the cause or is just wearing it to conform.

It sounds like a lot of people prefer B. And I have trouble understanding why.

[Jason14h]

I think the fear in #1 is that the NHL worries too many people start to opt out which can create a negative PR situation for the league as well . Imagine only half the players wore it (and I doubt that happens but it is a risk )

So we get C - no jerseys for anyone

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I think the fear in #1 is that the NHL worries too many people start to opt out which can create a negative PR situation for the league as well . Imagine only half the players wore it (and I doubt that happens but it is a risk )

So we get C - no jerseys for anyone

Easy solution. If you don't want to participate in warm-ups, its an automatic 1 game suspension.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Two options:

A) Pride jerseys are worn voluntarily, expressing personal support for pride. Some people don’t wear them, but you can be confident that the people you see wearing them are supporters.

B) Pride jerseys are mandated (either formally, or informally through denouncing and shaming those who don’t wear them). Everyone wears pride jerseys, but it’s impossible to know if any given person you see wearing one genuinely supports the cause or is just wearing them to conform.

It sounds like a lot of people prefer B. And I have trouble understanding why.

Third option
C) the pride jersey is literally the Flames jersey, so the players wear them as the uniform they play for. Perhaps that is too close to option B, but the players don’t have an option and that is ok. They don’t just pick any old jersey to warm up in, or even practice in. This isn’t beer league.

[ComixZone]

The way that online media reacted to Player A choosing not to wear the jersey screams "COMPLY OR DIE" when it comes to a certain structure of beliefs/ideologies - and these sort of things are loaded with ideological undertones at this point in our societies. Compliance through flogging is not how ideas progress.

Consider Player A, perhaps he does an obscene amount of charitable work but keeps it quiet because he's a private individual, but that Player A chooses not to comply to a practice jersey mandate for any number of personal reasons. Is Player A a terrible person? Because the online communities are treating Player A as a terrible person. The backlash is/was intense. Even if it's not an obscene amount of charitable work, we know of plenty of examples of quiet NHL players who go about their business doing significantly more charitable work than the average person - so turning on and flogging that person over one choice does a disservice to the rest of that person.

The NHL (and likely the NHLPA) both see this. The way it should be is that the organizations stand up for these causes, because that's what is financially important to them right - but they shouldn't enforce that on their contractors any more than any of our employers/contracting companies should be able to force us to wear uniforms that align with the same ideology as the corporation. That's not freedom of speech, that's comply or be tarred and feathered.

The main point of my post is the bolded part.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Third option
C) the pride jersey is literally the Flames jersey, so the players wear them as the uniform they play for. Perhaps that is too close to option B, but the players don’t have an option and that is ok. They don’t just pick any old jersey to warm up in, or even practice in. This isn’t beer league.

Exactly.

The only reason people think this is about individual beliefs is because people who didn’t want to wear the jersey made that the conversation and plenty of people are far happier having that conversation with them.

Nobody cares if an individual wearing the jersey believes it in or not, the event isn’t so that players can express their personal beliefs and never was.

There is zero difference between wearing a Pride jersey and wearing a Flames jersey. People would lose their minds if a player refused to wear the team jersey. Well, they wouldn’t, because it would never happen. But if it’s connected to a night welcoming a type of person they don’t like? “My personal beliefs do not allow me to show any support for these kids.” Like, OK man, nobody asked you to make a team jersey about yourself.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Exactly.

The only reason people think this is about individual beliefs is because people who didn’t want to wear the jersey made that the conversation and plenty of people are far happier having that conversation with them.

Nobody cares if an individual wearing the jersey believes it in or not, the event isn’t so that players can express their personal beliefs and never was.

There is zero difference between wearing a Pride jersey and wearing a Flames jersey. People would lose their minds if a player refused to wear the team jersey. Well, they wouldn’t, because it would never happen. But if it’s connected to a night welcoming a type of person they don’t like? “My personal beliefs do not allow me to show any support for these kids.” Like, OK man, nobody asked you to make a team jersey about yourself.

I think the only solution is for the Flames to move to the pride jersey full time.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Pride flag shoulder patches.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by keenan87

Easy solution. If you don't want to participate in warm-ups, its an automatic 1 game suspension.

Easy solution, players can seek out extra "medical" attention/treatment pre game to avoid warm-up. You can't suspend a player for needing pre game treatments.

[keenan87]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Easy solution, players can seek out extra "medical" attention/treatment pre game to avoid warm-up. You can't suspend a player for needing pre game treatments.

Sure - if that's what they want to do. Other players can still participate. Hopefully as time goes on, less players would make up an excuse.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Two options:

A) Pride jerseys are worn voluntarily, expressing personal support for pride. Some people don’t wear them, but you can be confident that the people you see wearing them are supporters.

B) Pride jerseys are mandated (either formally, or informally through denouncing and shaming those who don’t wear them). Everyone wears pride jerseys, but it’s impossible to know if any given player you see wearing one genuinely supports the cause or is just wearing it to conform.

It sounds like a lot of people prefer B. And I have trouble understanding why.

I prefer A as it would show who the scum are out there.

I would also hope that people in group A would lose their jobs and be cut but I guess that would likely create a B situation that you seem to be against.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Two options:

A) Pride jerseys are worn voluntarily, expressing personal support for pride. Some people don’t wear them, but you can be confident that the people you see wearing them are supporters.

B) Pride jerseys are mandated (either formally, or informally through denouncing and shaming those who don’t wear them). Everyone wears pride jerseys, but it’s impossible to know if any given player you see wearing one genuinely supports the cause or is just wearing it to conform.

It sounds like a lot of people prefer B. And I have trouble understanding why.

The NHLPA probably doesn't want option A which leaves option B as the only viable one.