Frasbul
Full Member
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.
Nobody is trying to force beliefs onto someone, it's a rainbow on a shirt.
And lets be honest, this has nothing to do with his religion unless he is a member of some strange religion which is fine with gambling but hates gay people.
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 dweebIt can symbolize technically anything in fact, some people and organizations who wave the flag are now saying it symbolizes anti-racism as well. They're literally making it up as they got along, because that's the nature of symbols, it doesn't need to have a fixed meaning.
But this idea that it is only about equality, and not about what it fundamentally it was designed for - which is gay pride - is just astonishing disinformation on Redcafe. It's just an outright lie. The other uneducated user won't even admit that the flag represents gay pride, he'd rather call me a "tosser" (which is against the rules), than engage with the actual facts.
Some people rely on false information and disinformation to argue their points online, and I can't respect that.
That's fair.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.
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.Nobody is trying to force beliefs onto someone, it's a rainbow on a shirt to show a bit of solidarity.
And lets be honest, this has nothing to do with his religion unless he is a member of some strange religion which is fine with gambling but hates gay people.
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.Picking and choosing how you want to interpret the words of texts that are 1000s of years old and using it as some sort of value system to live by and judge how others live compared to your beliefs is hypocritical.
Then again. Isn't trying to force your beliefs on someone who's faith denounces such things not also bigotry?
Simply, we don't know whether or not he made this decision based on his faith. But, he's had no problem wearing shirts promoting gambling and alcohol in the past. So maybe he is a hypocrite or a bigot or maybe he is just a homophobic person. We'll never know unless he tells us.
Well said, Jeff.I'm not sure how, in any work environment, we can expect gay people to be open about their sexuality if they know full well they have coworkers who openly demonstrate disdain for gay people. We need zero tolerance if we want progress, and zero tolerance means exactly that. As in any other work environment, people can hold whatever views they like privately, but if they let it affect their work by choosing to air those views publically in-work or on social media, there should be consequences up to and including sacking them. Anything less sends a message that that homophobic individual's contribution to the club is more important than the wellbeing of gay players/staff.
Ultimately, it's all well and good posting the rihtj stuff on social media and all, but creating an environment where players feel comfortable coming out is going to require clubs to make real material sacrifices which I'm unsure they will be willing to make.
You haven't "debunked" anything.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 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.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.
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.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 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?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.
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.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.
Exactly!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.
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.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.
Quite obviously so, I might add.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.
Absolute nonsense, and defeats the purpose of solidarity.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.
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.What a lad, in an ideal world it should make no difference to anyone, fans or teammates or the club what the sexual preference of a player is.
Hope the next gen of footballers normalize this.
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.Absolute nonsense, and defeats the purpose of solidarity.
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:People that choose not to fall in line with (your interpretation) one of their religion's stances shouldn't be criticized "just because".
There's obvious cases where it's the moral right choice,
Gueye is a twat for not wanting to wear a symbol that promotes acceptance and tolerance, not because he's not a correct Muslim in your view.
You're view indirectly supports fundamentalism, but this seems lost on you. Good day.
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.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.
Forcing people to show support is not solidarity...Absolute nonsense, and defeats the purpose of solidarity.
The outrage is a little strange, I have to agree.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.
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.Forcing people to show support is not solidarity...
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.That’s really sad to hear, is this in the UK?
Insult the post, not the poster.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.
Your condescending tone doesn't reflect well on 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 a very simple example just in case you find it difficult to understand easy concepts. 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.
Refusing to take part doesn't mean you are an asshole. Unless you come out with bigoted reasons for not taking part.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.
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.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.
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).Refusing to take part doesn't mean you are an asshole. Unless you come out with bigoted reasons for not taking part.
As Gueye and his band of homophobic clowns proved recently, it isn't really that simple, unfortunately.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.
Contradiction. If he isn't welcomed then he is being forced to choose between his profession and beliefs.Then he shouldn't be welcome to the game. No one should be forced to do anything,
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.but if his reasons for the refusal are bigoted, then it deserves to be questioned.
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.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.
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'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.
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.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.
I’m confused - where have I mentioned anything about abuse?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.
The reality is he doesn’t owe anyone an explanation other than the people paying his wages (and maybe the manager).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!).
Not really. Welcomed would be bending over to offer him accommodations because of his personal beliefs.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 never mentioned wearing pride colours, did you reply to the wrong post?You're saying, if straight people don't wear the gay pride rainbow colours, they're showing disdain for gay people, is that right? You need to be clear about what you're saying here.
There is no work environment in the UK which I'm aware of which mandates that people wear gay pride colours. In your workplace, are you forced to wear it, and if you don't wear it, are you deemed a homophobe?
You need to be clear-cut, and not be ambigious.
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 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).
I'm Muslim. Just to establish my background in my response.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.