The fact that we still call it "coming out" in 2022 is disgusting. Just love who ever the feck you want. There shouldn't be a need to announce it. Just don't assume everybody is straight and be done with it.
Gay footballers | Czech Republic international Jakub Jankto comes out as gay
- Thread starter Pablo76
- Start date
He and everyone should have the free will to choose whether or not they want to publicly support social causes without it being forced on them.
Hahahaha. Oxford dictionary defines tosser as someone that tosses something. I'm sure you've thrown something in your life? No rules broken there, you dweeb
I never said the flag didn't represent gay pride, I was laughing because you don't understand what that term means, as illustrated with your doesn't promote equality crap.
That's fair.
I don't think it's unreasonable to explain why though, otherwise people will assume he is simply a bigot.
We know it's not a religious thing, given his history of wearing other stuff which a lot of religions dont like.
You're saying "let's be honest" but you're not actually being honest at all. I've already debunked this flawed point earlier which you conveniently ignored.
If a company catering for gay weddings etc. was printed on the shirt, and he refused to wear it, but he did wear a gambling company's logo, then yes, you can make the case that he's being hypocritical.
But that's not what's happening here. You're trying to compare a business, with a social cause. I've already addressed this point in detail & you're conveniently ignoring it.
And btw, I know this has nothing to do with you personally but because I can see that you're a Chelsea fan, I just wanted to say that the most racist forum I have ever joined was the Shed End. Their politics section was absolutely disgusting around the time of the Brexit debates.
Surely religious faith is not in itself hypocritical, whatever else it is. We all live according to a set of beliefs about right and wrong, religious or otherwise. My point was that even if you do live your life by some religious faith (and I can assure you I'm not one of the people who do), it's not necessarily that clear either what that faith demands, and still less that this requires or justifies demanding that non-believers live by the same rules. That's the difference between faith and bigotry - and between personal beliefs and religious fundamentalism for that matter.
Well said, Jeff.
Several issues in the thread are being conflated, though, in my opinion, and could all be doing with separate analysis.
About the Blackpool player - Good on the lad, but I do fear for him as him being elevated to this position, it just makes him a target and if it's not followed by a mass 'coming out', it could become horrendous for him. What happened to Fash was a disgrace, absolutely tragic when you discover his own brother disowned him (devastating).
The PSG fiasco/hypocrisy is enough to make anyone wretch. I wonder what Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani thinks of the rainbow flag and the players opposition to wearing it? How can anyone take PSG's efforts seriously when the club is owned by an individual who will imprison any transgressors in his own country? You can't make this stuff up!
Homophobia in African countries is largely a legacy of Colonialism and a function of Imperialism -
https://africasacountry.com/2019/06...olonial-intervention-of-african-conservatism/
I think the authorities are loath to do anything about it and players unwilling to 'come out' because it reveals attitudes and opinions common in many British football fans that the authorities prefer remain hidden, as Glasgow Rangers fans currently show us the way in Spain; the current holders of the mantle for the UK's ugliest and most fascist fans.
No condemnation of them today by the right wing press, though, their behavior casually dismissed as a bit of 'high-jinx'. And no 'slapdown' by an unnamed representative of the clown with a 'firm no'.
As has been mentioned above, the only hope we have is with the younger generations who seem to be more open-minded and more likely to step up and challenge vile and archaic opinions.
Well, here's hoping, anyway.
You haven't "debunked" anything.
You saying "he's not promoting gambling, he's promoting a gambling company" was the dumbest post I've seen on here in long time which is why I ignored it and you.
If you don't know the difference between a business and a social cause, then you shouldn't be discussing this topic. You're trying to bring everyone down to your level.
I even gave you an example E.g. difference between promoting a Palestinian business, and equality/freedom for Palestine as a social cause. Israelis wouldn't equate the two.
Advertising a business, is not the same as advertising as a social cause and like I said, if you can't understand that, that doesn't reflect well on you.
Last edited:
You are the one who is dumb. Wearing a kit which has all sorts of commercial, contractual sponsors versus wearing something you are not obliged to wear contractually are different.
The main difference is that club is taking the decision in the first one and the individual is taking the decision in the second.
The first one, he would have to think before he signed the contract - but that is a compromise people can be justified in making - because a job is more important for most than something you have no direct control over and you are pretending dumb if you don't think most people would do that, i.e., make a relatively small moral 'compromise' that you can justify personally to keep/get a job.
If your religions convictions can be bought then you don't have any religious convictions. How much money would it take for him to wear a rainbow flag?
If he's saying it's religious reasons to not wear it (which he has not done) then he's simply a hypocrite hiding behind a religion to cover up his homopohobia.
Who said anything about convictions being bought? For a footballer refusing to sign a contract because of a kit sponsor may result in career suicide - as I said he is just making an unavoidable compromise. That's not the same as refusing to participate in a campaign.
It's quite obvious the reason is religious - whether he is phobic or not, you are no one to make that claim on his behalf. LGBT activism is now a very large spectrum - and it can't be said of one who is not willing to support all points of that spectrum to be a homophobe.
Exactly!
It's astonishing that he can't tell the difference between a commercial contract to promote a business - which is a concept on which literally the entire economy runs on - and a charitable social cause.
Businesses have the freedom to bid for contracts and promote, and clubs can sign partnerships with them etc. that's how they bring in revenue in the first place, that's how they exist in the first place! That's how these players get paid.
He's saying that this is exactly the same as a social cause - it just beggars belief how utterly brain-dead that is.
People like Duffer pretend to act righteously, but in reality, they are opposed to the fundamental idea that human beings ought to be free to cherry-pick & endorse social causes and social movements which they want - just like the sports organizations which he purports to endorse.
Once they set up these purity tests, where you absolutely MUST wear the symbol, OR ELSE you are a bigot, then you end up basically blanket labelling people as bigots.
The fact that 99.9% of workplaces in the UK never mandate the wearing of gay pride colours, does that mean that the overwhelming majority of businesses are more homophobic than the football organization who demand that players should wear it?
The cowards will never answer that question. They're cowards. They want to hide from these difficult questions because it exposes their arguments completely.
Last edited:
I did. If he's happy to advertise gambling every weekend then I don't believe he has strong religious convictions. It's not an "unavoidable compromise", he just has a price tag to his morals.
Quite obviously so, I might add.
It’s almost funny to see what weird criticism people come up with, in order to defend decisions and acts like the one of Gueye. It is very telling in my opinion.
Absolute nonsense, and defeats the purpose of solidarity.
I think the biggest problem here is that homosexuality is illegal in his home country and is a jailable offense. So an entire generation is basically brainwashed into thinking that it's not only wrong but actually immoral. It's going to take more than just wearing a few patches on kits and raising awareness to change that.
Personally and as a queer person myself, I disagree. I think everyone should absolutely have the right to refuse solidarity and the right to refuse taking part in such campaigns. Everyone has the right to be an asshole of their very own choosing.
They just have to live with the criticism that refusal might bring.
These are a set of weird conclusions you have drawn to beat that poster over the head with. It seems @Oranges038 is stating two things:
- if he's not wearing the shirt for religious reasons he's a hypocrite, b/c he wore a betting sponsor before. That is correct based on the definition of hypocrite
- a person should be able to choose what social causes they publicly support, which I see nothing wrong with. I know black people who don't support BLM b/c they see it as virtue signaling. Nothing wrong with it IMO.
Agreed. These social justice purity test detract from the movements they are support. Personally, I don't like wearing any marketing materials for social justice issues and it has nothing to do with my stance on these issues.
Forcing people to show support is not solidarity...
The outrage is a little strange, I have to agree.
We have players not taking the knee for racism, players refusing to have a poppy on their shirt, and other examples of players participating or not participating in a political gesture.
If Gueye wants to exclude himself from this then that is his right, as is the right of players to not take the knee or not have a poppy on their shirt.
Then he shouldn't be welcome to the game. No one should be forced to do anything, but if his reasons for the refusal are bigoted, then it deserves to be questioned.
Yeah, it’s been a mess trying to sort it all out. He’s given up going back. It’s worse as it’s his GCSE’s next year and he’s fallen so far behind.
Insult the post, not the poster.
Your condescending tone doesn't reflect well on you.
Refusing to take part doesn't mean you are an asshole. Unless you come out with bigoted reasons for not taking part.
You're missing context here. He keeps ranting about the religious hypocrisy angle, as if that's the issue when Gueye refuses to do his job, rather him being a cnut for not supporting gay people.
It implies had Gueye been more consistent he'd have been worthy of more respect.
To me, whatever his religious text says or how it's interprets shouldn't absolve him of his actions in any way, shape or form.
In fact if a religious person (like millions already do) goes against the mainstream interpretation of their religious texts in their views on gay people, they should be commended and shouldn't be labeled a hypocrite. This doesn't pertain to Gueye obviously.
That's the thing for me, Matic and McClean not wanting to wear the poppy is 100% fine with me because they've said why and I think their reasons are perfectly reasonable. Same when QPR stopped kneeling and Les Ferdinand gave their reasons (they thought it had lost impact and was just lip service).
Guaye has not said why he won't take part so most people just assume he doesn't like "the gays".
He doesn't owe me an explanation of course but without one I will have an opinion (which everyone is free to ignore!).
I almost read the title as 17 of BFC squad have come out as gay!
Fantastic and brave stuff by Jake Daniels. It's a pity we're still living in a world where announcing this still makes headlines.
Fantastic and brave stuff by Jake Daniels. It's a pity we're still living in a world where announcing this still makes headlines.
As Gueye and his band of homophobic clowns proved recently, it isn't really that simple, unfortunately.
Contradiction. If he isn't welcomed then he is being forced to choose between his profession and beliefs.
If he doesn't give his reasons is that fine as well? If he does explain, who decides if his reasons are bigoted? It's a slippery slope.
I'm actually fine with him not participating (if that is the reason etc), but I don't get your point here at all, Mclean gets an unbelievable amount of abuse for not wearing a poppy.
I'm not missing context. I read the whole exchange and he's not implying any of that. He never said he would be more worth of respect, just that he wouldn't be a hypocrite, which is factually true.
You keep using straw man arguments. He never said they should be commended for not being hypocrites, you did. And yes, the people in your example are hypocrites as well, regardless of how just their views are.
I’m confused - where have I mentioned anything about abuse?
My point is that’s their right and they choose to exercise it, just as Gueye is. Getting abuse for it is abominable just as it would be for Daniels getting abuse for being gay (if it was to happen).
The reality is he doesn’t owe anyone an explanation other than the people paying his wages (and maybe the manager).
Not really. Welcomed would be bending over to offer him accommodations because of his personal beliefs.
Not giving a reason is dicey and opens yourself up to all sorts of assumptions, especially when he comes from a country that is known to persecute homosexuals.
I never mentioned wearing pride colours, did you reply to the wrong post?
I misinterpreted your comment, I thought the "outrage being strange" meant you thought the not wearing a poppy thing happened without any outrage in that incident. Though I disagree about the outrage being strange, I think a player should be allowed to not take a knee or wear a pride symbol, but I also think people are allowed to have an opinion on those actions too.
I'm Muslim. Just to establish my background in my response.
Islam in itself has "rulings" on most (I would say all) issues. Often the lack of knowledge (from Muslims and non Muslims) leads us into certain arguments. Yet if we look at these "rulings" the maybe the issue becomes clearer.
I'll use an example to highlight my point, where I believe you are wrong, outside of football. Hopefully it explains things somewhat. Note here I say explain not accept.
A Muslim person is allowed to work in your supermarkets, Tesco, Asda so on and so forth. These places sell pork and sell alcohol. They are non Muslim owned and run. A person works in these and gets a wage.
Same Muslim cannot open up an off license and/or have a business that sells pork etc. And yes I appreciate there are people that do but that isn't the point. The point here is Islamic ruling not practise of individuals.
As Muslims we can go into a shop, say to get a loaf of bread, even if it is an off license and/or sells products which are "haram" (not allowed in Islam). This can be meat products such as pork or gambling products.
However if these places (off license etc) are owned by a Muslim then we as Muslims are told not to purchase even a loaf of bread from there.
Again note I'm not saying what individuals do, many may not know this even if Muslim by birth etc. I'm just putting forward what the scholars etc have said and there is no dispute on this matter in Islam.