7 players stand out of gay pride game

[Subduction Zone]

Again, totally ignorant and wrong. Your religion doesn't get checked at the door of your place of employment. I guess you don't believe in human rights?

It is amazing how you always describe yourself when you try to insult others.. When you agree to go into pro sports you agree to wear their uniform. You know going in that there will be various sponsors and that your uniform may reflect that. The players freely chose to play for those teams. Therefore superstitious beliefs have no say in what a player wears or does not wear.

When you do not understand something, ask questions. There is no doubt that the players were in the wrong here.

By the way, no one lost any human rights. They were not forced to play for those teams for a very good amount of money,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, being forced to wear a shirt supporting anything you are opposed to is violating basic human rights. This isn't complicated or hard to grasp.

And again, they knew going in that they would have to wear the shirts of sponsors. They were not forced to sign a contract. They could have gotten a job at the grocery store. There were all sorts of jobs that they could have gotten. They got a very public job and part of that is agreeing to wear a uniform. They can express their hatred on their free time. But their individual sponsors might not appreciate that. They could lose quite a few sweet endorsement deals if they made their immoral beliefs public.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How? Do you believe we should be able to force you to wear a " Jesus loves you" T shirt?

When I was a teacher, I had the 'pleasure' of assisting in the running of religious education classes. They were run by an independent group, and they needed a teacher in the room, since they weren't qualified teachers, etc.
I was chosen because no-one much wanted the job (so the senior teachers were out) and I knew more about religion, apparently. Of course, it wasn't religious education, but instead presenting certain Christian theological principles as fact.

It was a public school, not a religious one. And it's far trickier being asked a question by kids you have a relationship with, and teach everyday on 'so, what swallowed Jonah?' or some other similar story than wearing a uniform the organization you work for has provided for a day.

Wearing a 'Jesus Loves you' T-shirt for a single day would have been a doddle in comparison, although that's kinda hyperbolic. If you asked me to wear one saying 'Christians welcome', I wouldn't have an issue at all.

 

[PureX]

I side with the players.

They have the right not to be used as advertisements for the front ofice's pet political issues.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

On the news tonight they met with management and have agreed to wear them next year. I'm guessing a little extra money.

They're a funny group, actually. I would say that I think in their mind they are taking a principled position, so I feel like maybe I should give them the benefit of the doubt over whether more money was involved.
I think it's (hopefully) as simple as adjusting the wording a little to ensure that no-one wearing the jersey is making a personal statement of support for homosexuality, but instead the team is acknowledging the fact that the LGBTQIA+ community exists, and that they are welcome in Rugby.

I do wonder if anyone has asked these gents how they'd feel if some of the resources being placed around Pasifika integration, respect and acknowledgement were redirected based on their stand. But again...hopefully it was simpler than that. And I would readily acknowledge that the club didn't initiate this whole (in my opinion worthy) idea in a very good manner to start with.

Pasifika Players Advisory Group acknowledge traditional landowners | NRL.com

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I side with the players.

They have the right not to be used as advertisements for the front ofice's pet political issues.

The right? In a human sense, of course that is true, and no-one 'forced' them to play. But contractually I'm not so sure.
Do you mean you side with their right to sit out? Or more than that, are you suggesting the uniforms should be free of <insert political/social messaging here> entirely?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I side with the players.

They have the right not to be used as advertisements for the front ofice's pet political issues.

Really? Where is that write written down? Why is a hate based decision a right? Please note, their shirts often support many other "sins". This is not a biblical belief since they did not oppose other behaviors that are banned by the Bible, but for one where they do not even have to participate unless they want to that was where they put their foot down.

Also, they knew going in that wearing shirts supporting sponsors was part of the job. They get paid very well, that money has to come from somewhere. You may not have thought this out.

 

[PureX]

The right? In a human sense, of course that is true, and no-one 'forced' them to play. But contractually I'm not so sure.
Do you mean you side with their right to sit out? Or more than that, are you suggesting the uniforms should be free of <insert political/social messaging here> entirely?

They are being paid to play a sport, not to advertise a cause. If the people paying them want them to advertise a cause, too, that should be a separate job with separate compensation. A job that the players do not have to accept if they don't want to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You agree with forcing players to support something that they oppose on religious grounds.

What an overblown sense of entitlement you must have to think of this as "forcing" players to do anything.

These players are free to quit. Also, the only reason they're playing on that team at all is because of their contracts with the team that they freely agreed to. If they wanted to have veto power over the design of their uniforms, that's something they should have negotiated when they sign on with the team. They didnt, though. They agreed to play according to the terms they freely agreed to, and they get paid well in exchange.

There's no "forcing" in saying to someone that they need to hold up their side of the bargain for you to hold up yours.

That's just ignorant and unlawful in any Free society.

Oh - are we playing the "what I don't like is unlawful" game now? Great - I'll play along: bananas are illegal!

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are being paid to play a sport, not to advertise a cause. If the people paying them want them to advertise a cause, too, that should be a separate job with separate compensation. A job that the players do not have to accept if they don't want to.

Where do you think that money comes from to pay sports teams? There are numerous sources. Advertising is a very very big source of income. If the players agreed to take a pay cut not to have messages from sponsors on their shirts then you might have a valid claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are being paid to play a sport, not to advertise a cause. If the people paying them want them to advertise a cause, too, that should be a separate job with separate compensation. A job that the players do not have to accept if they don't want to.

Question for any Australians here: how long have teams in this league had sponsor logos and other advertising on their uniforms? Has it been basically forever?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh - are we playing the "what I don't like is unlawful" game now? Great - I'll play along: bananas are illegal!

No, religious discrimination is literally illegal.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When I was a teacher, I had the 'pleasure' of assisting in the running of religious education classes. They were run by an independent group, and they needed a teacher in the room, since they weren't qualified teachers, etc.
I was chosen because no-one much wanted the job (so the senior teachers were out) and I knew more about religion, apparently. Of course, it wasn't religious education, but instead presenting certain Christian theological principles as fact.

It was a public school, not a religious one. And it's far trickier being asked a question by kids you have a relationship with, and teach everyday on 'so, what swallowed Jonah?' or some other similar story than wearing a uniform the organization you work for has provided for a day.

Wearing a 'Jesus Loves you' T-shirt for a single day would have been a doddle in comparison, although that's kinda hyperbolic. If you asked me to wear one saying 'Christians welcome', I wouldn't have an issue at all.

I guess I don't like being forced to conform. When everyone was wearing " let's go on strike" T shirts, I wore Micky mouse.
And I don't think an atheist should be forced to wear a Jesus T shirt either. This is just basic human rights.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The players freely chose to play for those teams. Therefore superstitious beliefs have no say in what a player wears or does not wear.

You really need to read up on religious rights. This is job place discrimination 101.
I know, I've had to fight for my right to get Sundays off before.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They are being paid to play a sport, not to advertise a cause. If the people paying them want them to advertise a cause, too, that should be a separate job with separate compensation. A job that the players do not have to accept if they don't want to.

Then that approach should be consistently taken...

Indigenous and Pasifika stars behind ‘awesome’ NRL protest scenes, Latrell Mitchell stars in Rabbitohs win | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

ACT Brumbies hold Pasifika round in Super Rugby | The Canberra Times | Canberra, ACT

NRL celebrates Harvey Norman Women in League Round | NRL.com

This is a group of devout Christians who run onto the field with gambling logos on their chest, play in stadiums sponsored by alcohol brands, use their position as players to spread messages both about God, and in relation to BLM, and promote inclusiveness and how important it is for minority groups.

But draw the line at LGBTQIA+.

I get that their position is based on religious and cultural principle. That doesn't mean I think it's well thought through, or consistent. And whilst I respect their right to have their own views on things, anyone entering the NRL knows they'll need to put up with certain things outside their own beliefs. I'm not saying they need to accept anything, moreso that you put yourself in a position of compromise going in, and they have been fine to compromise on everything. Except this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guess I don't like being forced to conform. When everyone was wearing " let's go on strike" T shirts, I wore Micky mouse.

Contrarians are important. It's a role that good comedians can play, for example. The heyoka, in Native American societies, were more extreme versions of this. But if you sign on to the military, the police force, or to play NRL, you are also agreeing to tow the line to a certain degree.

And I don't think an atheist should be forced to wear a Jesus T shirt either. This is just basic human rights.

Meh...I've lived in a country where I got to see just how simple 'basic human rights' really are. It was 97%+ Christian, too, so I was a little cautious on advertising my atheism in general terms.
Wearing a Jesus t-shirt doesn't come close to violating my basic human rights.

Still, I get your position. My thoughts around these type of things is that if you truly value your freedom of choice, etc, you have to be willing to sacrifice for it. These guys are sacrificing almost nothing, so I'm struggling to see it as a big deal in terms of their 'loss of rights'. But we are unlikely to agree on that, and that's fine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, religious discrimination is literally illegal.

Where is the discrimination?

 

[Brian2]

Really? Why not? What excuse do they have?

The reasons given were religious and cultural reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really need to read up on religious rights. This is job place discrimination 101.
I know, I've had to fight for my right to get Sundays off before.

How so? And I am willing to bet that your Sundays off" is an action of yours that is more than a bit hypocritical.

In fact it is all but impossible for a "Sundays off" position not to be hypocritical in the world today. You will still rely regularly on people that do have to work on Sundays. But let's leave that bit of hypocrisy behind for now.

They knew going in that shirts have messages from sponsors and that they would have no say in those sponsors. If they did not realizer that they were ignorant to the point of stupidity. There is no "right to stupidity". How can the players justify their actions after they agreed to wear these jerseys.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reasons given were religious and cultural reasons.

So no valid reasons at all.