It sends an awful message and if we refuse to bring Greenwood back, rightly thinking about the message it sends and how uncomfortable some at the club would be having such person around, it would be completely hypocritical to sign an open homophobe. Do you think any LGBT players from our academy or other teams would like to join the dressing room where there’s a guy thinking his religious views are reason enough to deny human rights to a group of people? What about the LGBT fans, do you think they’d be comfortable with such dud in United shirt? Do not want, go express your religious freedom in a country that’s fine repressing minorities, if European values bother you so much that you can’t put a rainbow piece of cloth, perhaps you ended up in a wrong place.
I think it’s important to be aware of the fact that there are millions of people in the world that will not let people live how they want, but actually kill, bully, use violence against and sabotage the lives of people with different orientations. This happens in every country in the world, and is well documented. Most people in the world are not like this, but that doesn’t protect people from the people who are. LBGTQ rights is not about flaunting, it is about rights, more specifically the right not to be targetted, mistreated or even imprisoned or killed for who you are. If not for several million bullies in the world, there would be no need for it.
Stop talking sense in here. Poor Orkun's religious belief is a lot more important than these people's rights, according to some posters here.
Read the actual article and what he said before judging someone maybe. He is fully supportive of everyone being free to do what they want, but also because of his religious beliefs didn't want to be promoting something that is against his beliefs. Had no problem with someone else wearing the armband or being in the team or people living what they want.
What utter BS this is. Freedom of choice?! If he chooses to be intolerant towards a minority, there's no freedom of choice there, or at least there shouldn't be. It's not as if you can say, you either support the LGBT community or not, it's freedom of choice. It's really not, since the former is a discriminatory position to take. 70 years ago, there was this guy wanting to terminate an entire race, it's also not 'freedom of choice' to either support him or not. There's only freedom of choice if both choices mean no harm is done to any other group/race/gender, etc. Once there's one choice that is actually hurtful to other groups, there's no more freedom of choice.
While I understand what you are saying. I don't think it is right to expect everyone to show support in equal measure. We as humans have biases and carry some form of prejudice whether we accept it or not. Forcing people to conform to what we believe in equal measure isn't really fair is it?? Not everybody is going to be comfortable with the idea of homosexuality no matter how mainstream it becomes. As long as he doesn't disrespect them or antagonize them, I see no reason to get worked up over his refusal to wear an armband.
Well I can tell you I definitely have issues with people expressing their discriminatory views even if they do it in the most peaceful and PR-polished manner. Also, as already mentioned here, if you’re so offended by the rainbow peace of cloth and it’s so much against your religion, but you have willingly moved to the Netherlands and fully accept promoting alcohol and gambling on your shirts, for me that’s cherry picking and I can’t take such person seriously
If the armband represented muslins having the right to exist free of prejudice and a player refused to wear it, then yes they should be condemned.
100% and it’s such and obvious answer to a question asked millions of times, yet the extremists always seem to be perplexed
Right. Like a lot of other players who trot out the exact same formula. The trouble with it is that it's bullshit. Designed not to mean anything, but to minimise the negative fallout from the action by sounding conciliatory. The reason it's bullshit is that if he actually respects everyone and believes everyone should be free to live as they want, then his religion is no reason not to wear an armband making that exact statement. If it is, then he doesn't actually believe everyone should be free to live as they want.
I see a lot of discussion here that's generally fairly respectful towards other posters. What's the rubbish exactly and what would you expect the mods to do? If it's individual posts, please report them. (That's genuinely appreciated; the mods can't read and notice everything.) Don't expect the mods to shut down non-football discussion though, that's never their approach.
I'm sorry but this again is a cop out and skirting round that what he thinks is bigoted. What does "against his beliefs" mean exactly? Hes intentionally vague because we all know it would boil down to he thinks homosexuality is morally wrong, which fly's in the face of what he caveated his reasoning with.
He says that he thinks its a message that would mean more coming from somebody else. Naturally, as he's a Muslim. Against his beliefs means that it isn't allowed in Islam. Is the only acceptable thing for you guys for everyone to convert away from their own religion? Very accepting. He is allowed to have his own beliefs. Even if somebody's opinion is shit in your opinion, he is allowed to have it. His beliefs you may not agree with, but he is entitled to them. He didn't say anything wrong - he said somebody else should wear the armband for support as he would be seen as hypocritical no matter what. Hypocritical for his religion, from his country, etc.
Yeah let's all play dumb and pretend we have no idea about the issues Muslim religion have with LGBTQ+
I'm sure some people would want to make sure there are 0 practising Muslims part of United as well by the logic people are going on here. Guy says "would be a better gesture if it came from someone else" and people on here losing their shit and calling him bigoted now ffs.
What an infantile argument. People aren't entitled to a belief without criticism, how old are you? Especially if said belief paints a percentage of the population as morally wrong for their sexuality.
How predictable. So to be a practicing Muslim you have to be against homosexuality?
Exactly what do you think is being promoted by it?
There are literally people in this thread who think he shouldn’t be signed because he didn’t wear an armband. That goes beyond criticism and for me is a pretty ridiculous route to go down. Should all prospective future signings be asked to complete a western morality test in future? Can we ban the signing of Tories too?
Why is it a "western morality test" to not be against homosexuality? Isn't that just a normal decency test? If you did it with any other group, we'd all label it discriminatory. It's also not about the armband, it's about his reasoning behind not wearing it is discriminatory.
We sold Sinisterra for 25 which can go up to something like 34 I think. Kokcu is far more important and he'll leave after we've won the league so I just hope we can get 45. I mean, Chelsea paid, what, 45 million for Madueke who has been healthy for about 5 games in 2 seasons. Though he's of course English.
There is a difference with being against it, and not wanting to be the one on the team to wear the armband supporting it. For countless of legitimate reasons. That is all we know. And it's a reasonable view from him.
Promoted by what? People who criticize Kokcu because he chose to not be the one to wear the armband? It is lacking any respect for someone else's private opinions and private beliefs, private choices. He is Turkish. He is Muslim. Ever think he just doesn't want to be the one wearing the armband promoting it on his team? Even if he is pro-LGBTQ, maybe he would rather not say his opinion loudly or wear it on his arm and be the face of the movement because of views his country or family might have, and the backlash that might give him?
Bullshit.
Good post.
People are entitled to a belief, period. You don't get to force yours on somebody else, you don't get to force somebody else to protest a cause they don't believe in. That is it.
There literally isn't, you can't just say vague things and think that's a real debate. You actually have to state these legitimate reasons that aren't discriminatory.
Again, what the feck is the problem with someone not wanting to be the face of a protest? What the feck? Is "join in on our protest or you're a shit human being" the only option now? Talk about a lack of tolerance. It can be literally ANY reason, and he sure as feck doesn't have to tell the world what his own reasons are. That's called keeping your own beliefs private, which he sure as feck is entitled to do unless you prefer to go down a "they must wear their badge to identify themselves" sort of route. Because that's gone down well in the past.
So if you were gay hypothetically, would you ever support a practising Muslim player?
