I would think "Jesus" would be the very last person to cite in support for an anti-gay position. If he wasn't "gay" himself he seemed to live a pretty gay "lifestyle" (that absurd thing that these evangelicals are always talking about.)
44
The left continues to have an obsession with mandatory symbolism.
Mask mandates that do little-to-nothing to combat covid are all about signaling. So too does mandating a vaccine that similarly does little to control transmission (and yes, I'm vaccinated, not that it should be any of your business...). Both are largely symbolic gestures that blue areas are making mandatory.
Mandating cultural celebration is similar. People should be allowed to quietly opt out of things they disagree with. Nobody on this team was disparaging anybody, they just didn't want to participate in the celebration. I think that's reasonable.
139
@Reasonable Person - confusing public health measures that have been scientifically validated through many peer-reviewed studies with wearing a patch is the worst kind of false parallelism. Masks and vaccines actually work to reduce Covid transmission and severity. As for only the left being obsessed with symbolism, one need only be reminded of the backlash when players knelt during the national anthem (to name just one recent example) to know that mandatory symbolism (and suppression of opposing views) is rife across the entire poltical spectrum.
150
@Reasonable Person “Nobody on this team was disparaging anybody…”
Meh. The player who explained the decision was most definitely using language intended to disparage gay folk.
45
@Reasonable Person (Hilarious moniker)
Someone who states that "Mask mandates that do little-to-nothing to combat covid are all about signaling. So too does mandating a vaccine that similarly does little to control transmission (and yes, I'm vaccinated, not that it should be any of your business...). Both are largely symbolic gestures that blue areas are making mandatory" is most assuredly not a Reasonable Person.
20
All this did is demonstrate the ignorance of the ball players. I do not believe these ball players woke up one day and decided to pursue a straight "lifestyle" as much as a gay person pursued their own path. You can support a community without being part of it.
38
I'm all about gay rights and am an obnoxious atheist.
But all the people saying that this isn't a first amendment issue and the players should have just worn the kit... would you say the same if the owner wanted the team in MAGA hats? When the owner wanted Kapernick to wear normal socks instead of his "cops are pigs" socks?
Kapernick wore different kit from the rest of the team because he wanted his beliefs on the issue to be known by other people. Ditto the Rays guys who didn't wear the rainbow kit. Judge them for their beliefs (I certainly am) but don't argue that they should have just gone along with it, because that's not what you'd be saying if the positions were reversed. I'm glad I know where everyone stands on the issue.
56
I do not wear my beliefs on my sleeve, literally.
What we practice and how we live is more important.
One of my choices is not to make a display of my beliefs. Doing so does not make you a better person, just like simply showing up for church every Sunday does make make you a religious person.
13
While it doesn't speak well of them, I don't think it would be right to force the players to wear something they feel would violate themselves. If they would refuse to play with someone, force them out of the dressing room or bully them in any way that would be an entirely different story. Right now I don't think there is one out player in the major leagues and very few in most male sports. So the way it looks like is that major league baseball feels it is in its interest to make some kind of gesture to paying gay fans that they will create an environment where they feel they are welcome to spend money. But not one where even one player feels safe to come out.
8
The only time Jesus mentioned marriage was to say those who get divorced and remarry commit adultery.
"I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)
Where is the outrage from these players against divorce?
12
Who is it that won't wear the ribbon?
People are pretty much free to be as gay as they like, and other people are apparently uptight and don't want to wear the ribbon..... they are free not to. that is what happens when you have freedom.
8
I would love for Jason Adam to relate to Times readers how and where Jesus discouraged people from a "gay lifestyle". I can find no such instruction from Jesus in my Bible. Although homosexuality was not rare during Jesus's lifetime, he made absolutely no mention of it, either for or against.
19
I'm trying to get around the unintended irony of this quotation from the article.
"Yet by allowing the players to opt out of the promotion — and to use the platform to endorse an opposite viewpoint — the Rays undercut the message of inclusion they were trying to send."
17
We went to a Colorado Rockies game on Friday. They didn't wear special jerseys, but they brought in reps from a local LGBTQ+ organization- and one of our state representatives who's transgender- Brianna Titone- and celebrated their work for the community. They sold a ticket package where proceeds went to local advocacy organizations- and there were a ton of fans wearing the t-shirt that came with that package in the crowd.
Although it would have been nice, I don't think the team needed to wear a logo to support Pride. I DO wish they would donate routinely to LGBTQ+ orgs throughout the year- and not just on Pride night.
Anyway, Tampa Bay fans might want to take the lead of other fans upset by their players' anti-gay comments. Some Rockies fans did that a few years ago with Bases for Pride after the team signed Daniel Murphy (who has since retired). They ended up raising about $10k for local LGBTQ+ orgs. https://www.outsports.com/2019/4/29/18521683/daniel-murphy-colorado-rockies-fans-lgbtq-fundraising-money-donation
7
There are a number of comments who compare what the Tampa players did to someone taking a knee during the National Anthem and that is a flawed comparison.
The Tampa players opted out of wearing an added patch. They didn't cover the added patch with another, say a religious one they think counters the gay pride flag.
Players who take a knee during the national anthem are making a counter-statement and not simply opting out. How many kneel when not otherwise told what to do? None. Opting out of the National Anthem would be to stay in the locker room or sit on the bench or stand around paying no particular attention to the flag and song.
Ask yourself "what would this person be doing but for this requirement?" The Tampa players are doing that - wearing their uniform as they usually would with no added patch. Players kneeling for the Anthem are not doing that - they are making a counter-statement.
7
This reminds me of the Seinfeld issue when Kramer was mocked (and assaulted) for not "wearing the ribbon" while marching during a Pride parade. His view was it's about one's actions that matter, not shallow virtue signalling.
Sometimes life imitates art.
20
@Bill It was an AIDs walk, but the thought also came to me. "Who? Who does not want to wear the rrribbon?"
4
@Dan the san francisco giants stopped wearing the ribbon when players objected to it. #irony
2
@Dan
I stand corrected.
1
I was against Kap being entitled to kneel and I’m against these players being entitled to opt out. It’s a workplace where employers make the rules — you don’t have the “right” to opt out; you have the right to find a different employer.
However, if the Rays allowed people to kneel, then they should allow these players to also opt-out. I think both are bad workplace decisions, but at least they are consistent.
6
I'm actually surprised everyone else wore the patch! It's amazing. And Yankees, when is Pride Night?
8
While I'm not religious and would happily wear a pride patch if my organization suggested it, it's folly to think we can shame or scold people out of their deeply held religious beliefs.
The Rays apparently have an admirable track record of promoting LGBT rights and inclusion. Bullying people of faith in a misguided effort to alter their religious convictions -- that would likely backfire and do more harm than good.
21
@softmonkey I don't disagree. But forcing people to support things they genuinely don't believe in is not the answer. I'd gladly wear a pride patch if my employer asked me to. But it should be voluntary, not coerced.
6
@softmonkey You're not wrong, but compelled speech isn't the way to change minds. We have to convince people and win at the ballot box.
The liberal tendency in recent years, in the face of Republican minoritarian rule, has been to use cultural power to cram our message down on unwilling audiences. It just breeds resentment, and makes it less likely that persuadable people will listen if they feel bullied.
5
@JSC Yet it's interesting how these religious folks highly value their own personal freedom and ability to make their own choices, yet insist that a woman has no choice over her own body.
15
The 5 players have as much fight to their values as anyone. Forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs is unamerican and will only hamper the gay movement. If you don't like hate and discrimination, respect peoples religious freedom.
13
@Jack "religious belief" - what religion discriminates against gays?
4
@Jack Yet they have no problem wearing Nike patches, advertising sneaker companies and wearing offensive military caps -- maybe because Nike and the military pay for the privilege. You know that the military pays to have the seventh inning stretch devoted to the military?
4
Show me all the “behaviors “ Jesus condemned. You won’t find being gay on that list. You will find a whole host of other things “religious” people seem fine ignoring.
31
For many years People of faith used religion to justify slavery and also Jim Crow laws. This is just another example of using a self justifying reading of the Bible to enshrine their bigotry.
28
This is the problem - the slippery slope. First everyone was asked to accept different life styles and preferences. Happy to do so! But now you are being forced to show "support" and condemned if you don't (reminds me of the Seinfeld episode with AIDS ribbon incident). I support your rights, I vote for your rights. It does not compel me to show any more support beyond that.
23
Say what you may about the players who chose not to wear the rainbow patch. What impresses me is to read how the Rays, residing in red-state Florida, have consistently supported the LGBT community in their right to marry and in speaking out about the necessity of more stringent gun controls. This is the real story here, buried in the non-story. I have my home team but in this instance I have to say it: Go Rays! Good on you!
17
I am a Christian who believes in the Bible. With respect to homosexual conduct, relevant and appropriate Scriptural verses are found in the Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans in Chapter 1, which should be read in its entirety, for context. Martin Luther King relied on the 1st Chapter of Romans for his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, because he was relying on the idea of natural revelation. One may disagree with the Apostle Paul, or the Bible, for any number of reasons - but one may also agree with it, promote it, live by it, because it is God's Word - clearly a religious belief protected by the 1st Amendment (I'm an attorney also). What the author of this Op-Ed means by a 'collective show of unity' I would describe as an oppressive example of the unacceptable arrogance of the woke left. Clearly that's my opinion, but it is these differing opinions which the 1st Amendment is designed to protect. Opinions, including my faith, cannot be steamrolled by political correctness or the demand for conformity for some social good which the author recognizes, when the social goods I recognize go in a different and opposing direction.
18
So there are 27 other teams in the MLB that did absolutely nothing at all for pride night, but you’re going to write a scathing article about one of the three teams that did? Do you see how unappreciative and petty this makes you sound? Judging by the tone of the article, these five individuals are the last five people in the world holding up the wheels of progress. Out of three teams, five players have a different scale of promotional tolerance on the matter than you do, even though they released a statement saying that they love people from the gay community, and that’s an absolutely unacceptable percentage to you? I am all about the wheels of progress, but these people weren’t slinging hate speech. They weren’t using their platform to protest the gay community. In fact, if it wasn’t for articles like this one nobody in the country would even know about it. Call it stupid and be judgmental yourself if you choose to, but they didn’t want to wear a little rainbow patch on their jersey because they felt that their god would be mad at them if they did. Other people have freedom in this country too, not just the self-righteous ones at the forefront of a social revolution who don’t know when rapidly-moving progress is good enough for now. Nobody wants religion shoved down their throats. Don’t be the zero-tolerance warrior who pushes social justice to the same exact level of repugnance.
30
Keith.
Totally agree. This opinion is tone deaf and chooses to see the glass as half empty, despite the obvious progress made in recent years in acceptance of the LGBT community.
But this is the current state of the Democrat party. They are not interested in incremental gains. They want what they want, and they want it yesterday.
7
As a gay man, I don’t like or agree with the tone of this article. Instead of focusing on the fact that when given a choice, most of the players chose to support Pride, the writer talks about more work needing to be done. More work? The reality is that there will always be people who don’t support the LGBTQA movement due to religious reasons. But I like the civil way in which both sides handled this. And while I don’t agree with the stance of the 5 players, I do like that it opened up a dialogue on the issue in MLB. I also don’t like that the writer negatively compared Tampa Bay to Los Angeles. The Times non-stop focus on an intolerant social justice agenda keeps getting in the way of an open airing of issues that deserve a more honest conversation. This was a missed opportunity by this writer and, yet again, by this newspaper — and years of this kind of journalism has severely compromised the Times reputation as the nation’s newspaper of record.
23
@Eric
Being gay is not a choice. Neither is acceptance.
Gay people are tired of waiting for people to evolve.
Worse, how would these 5 players react to a gay teammate?
What message are they sending to their young fans?
2
Baseball players are (over) paid employees of their individual franchises. They have a player's union. It's so nice they can be paid obscene money and then NOT do what's asked of them by management for one night or one month, regardless of if they have an sanctimonious, all-consuming fear that they'll be somehow demerited at the pearly gates of heaven if they do it.
10
"As the primary messengers for the franchise, the players should have been expected to reflect that position. If doing so made them uncomfortable, they could have been given the night off."
Go home if you don't conform to non sports related messaging from a sports team...um 🙄 Can we just play sports and only sports? No more ribbons, socks, special uniforms, special colors, pins, patches, themes, designated nights, months etc unless they are honoring a previous teammate or a national tragedy.
Just play sports and everyone wears the same exact sports uniform or yes you stay home because it's sports!
11
“Companies are free to engage or not engage in whatever discourse they want, but clearly it’s inappropriate to be doing tax dollars for professional sports stadiums.” Ron DeSantis
It's funny... Republicans are never against public dollars funding professional sports venues when the club ownership keeps its mouth shut about our national orgy of gun violence, gerrymandering, graft or any other Republican means to govern. Or when the club owners donate heavily to the Republican party.
Through my taxes I paid for two separate stadiums for the Buccaneers under the conservative and mute on social issues ownership of the billionaire Glaser family and a training facility for the Yankees. Nobody in Florida government batted an eye then.
Only when companies speak up against the chicanery and sedition of the Republican party, as Republicans go hoarse saying is their right, are they punished.
15
Judge me by how I treat other people every day, not by wether I wear the silly badge you think everyone should wear.
10
One would think that the stance of those players who abstained from displaying the rainbow patches have their own closeted issues they are wrestling with. Not that there's anything wrong with that- except their hypocrisy.
6
Whatever so called religion these players practice, just keep it as far away from me as possible.
16
Jason Adam explained the dissenters' decision saying, "it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.”
He's either ignorant or lying. According to the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about "that behavior."
20
I think every player should be required to wear a patch denoting their political party, religion, sexuality, gender and opinion on gun rights and abortion. That would make the game so much more fun!
9
Evangelicals are confused about the timeline of the history book of The Jews we all call "The Bible." The "old testament," the history from the begining to the fall of the second temple, contains "prohibitions" that today's christian bigots find solace in when reinforcing their world view. The all-CHRISTIAN "new" testament covers the life of The Christ and the aftermath of his death. So, a little cherry picking from the ancient parables of prohibition and abomination, but always with the evangelical focus on "THE" christ, (who lived, if at all, nearly 1500 years AFTER the earliest times recorded in the old testament) is the colossal leap in logic they perform every time they need to reinforce something they are against. It's kind of like justifynig something scientific with a bit of aristotle and alchemy. Total nonsense.
13
Being gay is not a “belief” or a “value.” Lots of comments seem to equate the three when defending the players here.
11
@Ally
Exactly!
It is like looking at a yellow bell pepper and saying "I have only seen green peppers, so yellow ones must be made in a lab."
3
I encourage everyone to think of something that you are morally opposed to then imagine that your employer is requiring you to wear a patch at work that encourages acceptance for it. Now imagine that if you don't wear the patch that you'll be labeled, fired, blacklisted, and maybe even be physically attacked. Is that the precedent we want to set?
5
Would you rather they go along with it and hide how they really feel to make you happy? The answer appears to be yes. Not conforming is a good thing.
3
How many NYT subscribers would be fine if their employer asked all employees to wear a patch supporting gun rights? Yeah I am all in favor of full gay rights, adoption, etc. But the article misses the larger issue--what happens when a business wants employees to wear a promotional insignia that they might disagree with? At least the Rays did not require it.
7
@bdmp
There is no equivalence between Gun Rights and Human Rights.
4
"Glenn Burke was a well-regarded prospect for the Los Angeles Dodgers who had his career derailed by discrimination."
We are told this every Pride Month, but modern statistics say that Burke's career was actually derailed by Burke's incompetence as an MLB player.
I recall Glenn Burke vividly from listening to Vin Scully broadcasts of Dodger games in 1976-1978. In contrast to all the hype about him now, Burke was awful, a rally-killer with no power who seldom got on base. And he was a poor outfielder. He was the epitome of the Looks Good In A Uniform bust whom modern statistical analysis exposes. Across his four year MLB career he was -2.4 Wins Above Replacement worse than the typical faceless replacement player:
WAR
-2.4
AB
523
HR
2
BA
.237
OBP
.270
SLG
.291
OPS
.561
OPS+
57
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/burkegl01.shtml
Rather than the Dodgers shooting themselves in the foot by homophobically trading Burke in 1978, snagging the aging but adequate centerfielder Billy North for the useless Burke in a May 1978 trade was a key to the Dodgers holding off the Big Red Machine and making the 1978 playoffs. In 1978, North's WAR was 2.4 and Burke's was -0.8. The Dodgers edged the Reds by 2.5 games.
8
DeSantis, who I do not support, is right about this one. Millions for sports teams that only a small % of the population enjoy or benefit from? Better to spend the money on schools, roads, parks, programs to help the poor, etc. The owners of these teams tend to be billionaires. Let them build their own practice facilities.
1
@TripleJ
But DeSantis based is decision on the Rays' pro-LGBTQ stance, not on the cogent reasons you cite.
7
Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the course of his employment and many embraced his stance and courage. Think that his actions may have undercut a message? (I know. Many thought that he created a message.) Now, these baseball players take a stance, having Kaepernick as a precedent for such actions, and there is now outrage. It cuts both ways. Once professional sports became engaged in the culture wars, they went down the slippery slope of no return. Just play the games and stop the lecturing.
13
"Just play the games and stop the lecturing."
Exactly, time to stop playing the National Anthem before every game or event.
14
@T.S.
A protest against the killing of African-americans is not the same as trotting out false tropes like "lifestyle" and "behaviors" as a way to demean LGBT. You know what really is a chosen lifestyle and a chosen behavior? Religious belief and bigotry.
I'll bet that nothing in Kaepernick's contract stipulated a particular position he had to maintain during the playing of the National Anthem. I'd also wager that the wearing of the franchise uniform by the Rays players is slayed out in their contracts. Rays management determines what constitutes the franchise uniform. On this one night, it was slightly more colorful than on other nights. This was apparently beyond the pale for these three men who then should have sat out the game and kept their mouths shut.
7
Why always the focus on the negative? Of the approximately 100 players and coaches on the three participating teams 95 wore the logo - isn't that a positive story?
6
The corporation for which I worked had a "mission statement" which was the fad at the time for companies to have. I didn't agree with it or believe in it but I didn't get to "choose" to rebut it publicly or disagree with it publicly. We were even urged to carry it on a business card in our wallet. I did what I was being paid to do -- be part of the team.
The players who didn't want to participate should have been benched that night and no interviews expressing "their" view on the matter. Do it for the team which obviously felt it was an important message to their fans to know that everyone was welcome at their games.
7
Giving recalcitrant players the night off would have been the right decision (and might have prevented a team loss). Instead they were given a platform to present a message inimical to the evening’s celebration of LGBTQ inclusion. So it was less a celebration of love and acceptance and more a State of the Union address followed by an opposition party rebuttal.
11
@Mullingitover They weren’t presenting a message. They were declining to present a message.
3
The players should not be forced or shamed into wearing a rainbow patch on their uniforms. This should be up to the individual player.
28
@Dave and what about Jackie Robinson day when all the players wear number 42? Should players be allowed to object and wear a different number instead?
9
@Dave why is it even controversial? that's what I don't get. wear the patch. who cares.
3
No it shouldn’t. However, maybe the Rays could have taken the temperature in the room before doing it.
I’m looking for where the Yankees or the Mets are the heroes, since they didn’t participate.
2
@Janet As annoying as the Yankees can be in this area, they initiated scholarships to LBGQT students a couple of years ago. They also had a ceremony and put a plaque up in Monument Field in honor of Gay Lives, right next to Babe Ruth. They are holding Pride Night, but I don't think they will wear patches. I'd love a Pride cap - it would sell out here in NYC! Yankees and Mets are losing out on revenue!
1
When are we going to figure out that it is critical for us as a species to recognize that there is more that binds us than divides us, whether we are conservative or liberal.
10
So let the individuals be singled out as those who didn't participate. It only looks bad for them, not for the team; they didn't "undercut" the team's message. We also seem to be struggling with some word definitions here... Demanding conformity of absolutely everyone is the *opposite* of inclusion. Let people be diverse. These players held certain beliefs and opinions, whether they were wrong-headed or not. Don't condemn the heretics for not believing in the one Truth that all people must loudly support LGBTQ rights in the most trivial possible ways at all times.
42
@McGuffin
Diversity doesn't cut it here. Baseball is a business. Players are employees. They're payed to wear that jersey, no matter what's on it. They have a player's union.
1
How about this for a better headline: On pride night demonstration of support was optional, and the vast majority of players opted in
46
@Evan
That's too positive a message; the negative must take precedence or the real message won't get through.
9
@Evan I wonder how many people would object to their employer making them wear a symbolic item on the job that they didn't want to wear. Like suppose the bosses said everybody had to wear some statement of Pride support to work today, whether it be rainbow, a patch, a pin, or whatever. Wouldn't that be considered inappropriate by many?
12
@Boomer
If their contract stipulates that they must wear the uniform of the team(it does) and team management determines what constitutes the uniform of the team(it does) and the players are paid multi-million dollars to wear said uniform as they run and hit and throw(they are) it seems pretty cut and dry that they should wear the patches for one entire night of their lives and then move on.
5
This was misfiled as a news article. It should have been classified as an op/ed. I'm about as Blue a Liberal-Democrat voter as ever was or will be, but even I found the woke editorializing here objectionable. Beginning with the headline: "An Attempt at Inclusion Proves There Is More Work to Do" .... A small minority of players exercised their option, which their management apparently allowed, to not join in a political statement with which they disagreed. I don't see how that materially "undercut" the generally laudable gesture the team's management wanted to make nor the large majority of players that apparently supported it. Nor why it is a "crime" that the minority exercised their option to opt out. We may disagree with that minority's sentiments or the rationale that apparently underlies it. But to lament that everyone didn't tow the current party line is perhaps an example of why so many non-Dems/non-Libs find us annoyingly intolerant. Just guessing here, but maybe the primary reason these people are hired is to play good baseball, not to be politically correct.
76
@Reid
There was absolutely nothing political about this. You just need to qualify that angle in order to construct your own oposition. Players are employees, paid employees. It's so nice they can be paid obscene money and then NOT do what's asked of them, regardless if they think they be demirited at the pearly gates of heaven if they do it.
3
@Reid how is it a "political statement"? it's recognition of an historically marginalized group. that's not blue/red.
4
@Reid This was labeled as opinion. "On Baseball" is the name of this column, by Tyler Kepner. In a print copy it would likely be more obvious, so I get you missing it.
The thing is, also, no one is saying "It's a crime" Kepner's just saying that the way the Rays arranged the tribute set up a situation that if/when folks decided to opt out, it would show some young person that their favorite player has issues with Pride Night and that kid's sexual orientation. And that would undercut the whole thing.
1
Reading Jason Adam’s “explanation” for the hateful and prejudicial actions of himself and a few others, I am struck by his utter lack of honesty. Assuming that he believes in the truth of what he his saying, Jesus would not agree. How can you claim adherence to a religion which is supposed to be based on forgiveness, acceptance and understanding without yourself forgiving, accepting and understanding? You are not being honest to yourself, let alone the rest of us. This is a problem in our society with elevating individuals because they possess unique physical skills. That doesn’t mean that they have anything to say which is worth hearing.
18
@Jerry S God and the Bible identify homosexuality as a sin. Some of these players as Christians chose not to celebrate those sexual choices.
2
@James
But homosexuality is not a choice. It is how some folks are born with it, how their brains are wired.
2
@James
Yup , selective piety.
I am sure Jesus would approve of the millions of dollars they earn and keep for themselves.
Where does Jesus encourage this: "..if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior"
Using religion to justify bias, prejudice and homophobia just shows how ignorant Christians are about the teachings of Jesus. What he did say was, "love one another."
27
@Rev Bates these guys aren't Rhodes Scholars...I agree with some that it might have been just best to let these guys keep dragging their knuckles on the ground, and focus on the fact that most players wore the patch.
2
He also said, “go and sin no more”. Considering the Scriptures as a whole and Jesus’ view of sin, it is quite indisputable that his take on homosexuality - the act itself and not necessarily the desire, which is less controllable - would be to consider it an abomination.
Yep. Typical member of the evangelical cult: completely ignorant of the Bible and of the “Jesus” he claims to follow — who, in fact, didn’t say one word about homosexuality in any of the Gospels.
6
I find it fine for any player, whatever the league, to opt out of any political statement. This is First Amendment stuff and we should respect anyone who feels like the message is not in line with their beliefs.
You can call them bigots, as I will, but they have the Constitution behind them. So, let it go.
11
@Louie This has absolutely zilch to do with the 1st Amendment, which exclusively applies to the government. Freedom of speech does not apply to private enterprise. If you read the 1st Amendment you will see that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." MLB isn't a government entity, Louie. The 1st Amendment has no bearing here, in any way.
14
@Jeremy Completely agree. And if you disagree with your employer's policy, you are free to quit and find employment elsewhere. If these players truly held faith is the reason for their position, they should have resigned and taken their chances on other sources of income.
3
@Louie If none of these players has ever done anything to harm or denigrate or ostracize an LGBTQ individual, or done anything to oppose their cause, how can we brand them as bigots? Like Thomas More, their silence - in this case their disinclination to wear a trivial badge - could easily be taken as agreement. Maybe they simply thought, as I know I would, that their opinion on the LGBTQ topic was no one’s business but their own.
And their protest was witnessed by, what, eight thousand fans? Nine thousand?
4
@Lorem Ipsum I would bet that most of the fans didn’t even notice.
As always, it's a long-winded blathering nonsensical unenlightened non-response when someone like this "my faith group spokesman" is asked why [these guys, or just pick any close-minded anybody] can't just live and let live.
But saying: "We don't want them on our bodies" (?!?!).
Gimmee a break!
7
These players chose to practice exclusion on a night dedicated to inclusion. The love the sinner hate the sin reasoning is the usual we-love-y'all Christian escape language for excluding marginalized groups. It seems that most of the push back on inclusion events comes from Christian (or fill in your religion here), heterosexual, men, basically the group the world revolves around, especially if they're white. The push back is generally to rant about not being allowed to have their way, all. the. time., even when it's just for a night to say to a marginalized group we see you, and will demonstrate through our actions that we love you, and want you to feel safe and welcome here (basically Adams words to the LBGTQ community). Faith without action is dead.
In the end Jesus said, "Not tonight, Exclusion Satan," and two non-patch wearing relievers lost the game for the Rays. The Dodgers and the Giants both easily won in their Pride Night uniforms. Perhaps putting others before self can be a winning formula.
Kudos to the Tampa Bay organization for being one of three teams to introduce the Pride Night caps and jerseys, and to their other efforts to support marginalized communities.
49
@obsequi they practiced exclusion? How did declining to wear a miscolored team patch prevent anyone from attending, playing in, working at or watching the game?
2
I'd like to believe that I am a good Christian - if nothing else, I try. My understanding is that to love your neighbor as oneself is one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity and represents Jesus' own words. Since medical science has now confirmed that being gay etc. is not a choice for most (if not all), it seems the failure to wear the insignia in only this instance is misguided and in opposition to Christ's direct teaching.
30
The team and organization had “pride.”
The pitchers who pitched poorly and quickly gave up homers, seemed to lack “pride,”
Lessons?
Regardless, way to go Rays.
7
“Words like “lifestyle” and “behavior” are widely known tropes often interpreted as a polite cover for condemning gay culture.”
Well, no. Those words condemn gay folk, who are after all as much a part of American culture as the bigots who use those words.
That said, the issue is a big yawn for me. That some individuals didn’t want to wear some or another symbol is not particularly notable, and they are free within the rules of their employment to decline the patch. That there are bigots in Florida who use the aforementioned tropes is not really shocking. That they would invoke Jesus to justify their bigotry makes them not really followers of Christ.
Finally, the article suggests that the Devil Rays or LGBTQ+ folks have some work to do. It seems to me that they are just fine. It’s bigots who have some work to do, on their own morality and ethics.
30
You state: "Yet by allowing the players to opt out of the promotion — and to use the platform to endorse an opposite viewpoint — the Rays undercut the message of inclusion they were trying to send."
Your idea of inclusion apparently means that people should be forced to wear clothing carrying a message they believe is inconsistent with their religious faith.
You should think more about the implications of your beliefs.
20
I found it encouraging that the vast majority of a pro baseball team chose to wear the symbol, and also found it positive that the Rays made it a voluntary option.
If it had been mandatory, the symbolism of the patch and the moment would have been diluted.
14
They are entitled to their opinions. I may totally disagree but they are still entitled to them.
BUT. I’m also entitled to not watch sports or endorse them. That’s my choice.
11
@Greg
Sexuality is not dependent on opinions.
Its like saying that Canada and America's shared borders is an opinion.
Am I the only one thinking about the Seinfeld episode where Kramer did not wear the ribbon?
16
@Gary
No comparison.
Kramer supported the gay march just didn't want to wear a ribbon; that was the episode's joke.
He also made positive statements and not the hateful, ignorant and bigoted comments that the Rays' players spewed.
3
Being inclusive means accepting diversity, including diversity of thought. The movement used to be “live and let live” - now it’s “comply or we will make you regret it.” Articles like this one are not helping. The author is advocating for an enforceable dogma, which is exactly what we were fighting against. Let people be.
35
@Max Z
If someone wishes to EXCLUDE themselves, which is what you mean, then they shouldn't be present.
I think I’m in the camp that is OK with players who don’t want to wear the patch. It’s a free country, more or less, and the fact that the majority of players did wear the patch says a lot more than the few who didn’t.
But why drag Jesus into this argument? He never said anything about the rightness or wrongness of being gay. The best answer to the folks who are quick to quote the Old Testament is the one that Martin Sheen gave while starring as the President in “West Wing”. If someone could find that and post it here, I would be grateful.
9
@Dave DiRoma Agree 100%, What does Jesus have to do with the issue?
5
@Dave DiRoma Jesus is a Rays fan. He wanted them to win last night. However, at the final stretch of the first half of the season, God has deemed the Rays to be in third place.
@Dave DiRoma
Evangelicals are confused about the timeline of the history book of The Jews we all call "The Bible." The "old testament," the history from the begining to the fall of the second temple, contains "prohibitions" that today's christian bigots find solace in when reinforcing their world view. The all-CHRISTIAN "new" testament covers the life of The Christ and the aftermath of his death. So, a little cherry picking from the ancient parables of prohibition and abomination, but always with the evangelical focus on "THE" christ, (who lived, if at all, nearly 1500 years AFTER the earliest times recorded in the old testament) is the colossal leap in logic they perform every time they need to reinforce something they are against.
2
The Giants-Dodgers event is not until this coming weekend. We'll see if anyone opts out (the Giants had one player back in the day who opted out of an AIDS awareness event)
I am a supporter of the LBGT+ community but not to the extent that everyone has to participate in the gay pride parade. This article is offensive and boring, and Tyler should find another line of work if he doesn’t want to report on sports and prefers to attack people for having a different view even when it is not hostile. And creating a controversy and making ad hominem attacks against a few people when the overall effect of the Rays gesture and the players’ support was extremely positive.
33
You know, not everyone is going to agree with you. Let's say that I don't believe in killing animals for meat, but someone else does. Does it bother me that they have a different point of view? Not at all. I don't judge someone for their ethical or moral beliefs. It's a very personal matter. Well, so is this. Even if I wouldn't want to wear a patch on my uniform, that doesn't automatically translate to believing that a person should be discriminated against because they make different choices than I do. In fact, and very seriously, isn't this a free speech issue? If I'm forced to wear a patch on my uniform, well, that patch is really a form of speech, and therefore, I can no longer uphold my right to freedom of speech. The NYT has to get it through their heads that there are some of us who think differently than they do, and we have the right to think as we do and to speak as we will, or, in this case, to not speak as they would have us do. Whatever happened to objective news reporting?
16
I refuse to stand and recite a pledge of allegiance to a flag and god I do not worship. I wouldn’t expect anyone else to pretend to support someone else’s beliefs or values either.
16
@Amanda
You can do that as a private citizen. I haven't recited the pledge in decades. But employers can compel employees as part of a dress code, unless specifically barded to do so by union bargaining agreements.
1
These players might need to review the scripture. Jesus is not recorded as saying anything about same-sex relationships or homosexual activity. He did, however, praise a Roman soldier's faith and healed his 'pais' (male servant or lover): Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10.
10
Five guys who, presumably, don't have to worry about being shipped back to the Dominican Republic or Cuba or wherever if they fall from grace with the sport. Do the other team members, who must be largely Catholic, feel the same way as them, but choose to go along to get along?
2
Yes, quite all right to "take a knee" or remain in the locker room during the pre game playing of the National Anthem. That of course, as we are incessantly reminded, is an expression of free speech; but this action of disrespect toward the LGBTQ+/- community is a total outrage, and such must quickly be suppressed. The players involved should be permanently banned from the game, and utmost effort must be made to clawback past renumeration.
4
The word is “remuneration,” and taking the knee cost that player his career. Our President at the time criticized him publicly. I had Trump-supporting family members swear off of the NFL just for that. So relax.
9
@BD
WHY in the world do we use EVERY gathering to play the national "anthem?" Do people forget who we are as a nation so frequently that they need to be reminded before every sporting event? It sort of makes sense if there's some Canadian (or other) team in town, but the pompousness of it all is rather absurd.
2
@CM ... taking a knee also resulted in some good endorsement payoffs (e.g. Nike) and legal settlements ... many thanks for the spelling correction.
They had every right to opt out, but bringing Jesus into this exposes them as knowing little about the teachings of Jesus.
Imagine if the teachings of Jesus were actually known and understood by those who like to use Jesus and the cross as props to hide behind.
11
Can't baseball just be about baseball? All this virtual signaling at a corporate level is, quite frankly disgusting. Since when does a sports star or movie star or celebrity of the day personal opinion matter more that anyone elses? Think tom and scientology for example one. I didn't know baseball organizations had organizational beliefs that to stretched to a corporate policy on sexual matters. Ostracizing player for not showing support is just like bullying and it really doesn't have anything to do with baseball nor is it a good way to talk about this issue. A workplace should be free sexual discrimination of all types; by forcing players to wear and/or be called out for their views on this or any any issue is violated that law. A workplace really is not a great venue for social justice problem solving.
17
@Alaska View
If the employees of the Rays don't like it, because of Jesus, supposedly, they can go pitch for some other team, and be overpaid by that other team.
1
The nicest people—truly, the nicest people—can express bigotry and be completely unable to understand that that’s what they are doing.
21
Big deal. No one has the obligation to make a visual display of support support for any cause. Sometimes the lgbt community comes off as real bullies, and the headline of this article reeks of this.
161
@Nick
What do you call wearing a patch with the Untied States flag on it? Playing the National Anthem at ball games? Forced patriotism and many of these players aren't citizens
21
@Nick Kinda like ostracizing someone for kneeling during the National Anthem.
5
The Rays either need to check if everyone is on board or make wearing these patches mandatory before they the announce doing this. The way if worked out, these players were given a platform for their anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. These guys might later regret taking this stand when it comes to their future careers.
5
It really stood out to me that all of the refusers are members of the pitching staff, making me wonder if there is any kind of clique or bullying behavior going on in the bullpen relating to the specific religious beliefs of a few people.
In a time and atmosphere when more of the major Christian faiths are acknowledging that Jesus never actually said anything about this subject and that there doesn't seem to be any religious justification not to embrace all, it seems a bit questionable tha one small group (like one department or office in a larger corporation) has a disproportionate number making this "statement".
It might be a good idea for the management to keep a closer watch on the bullpen to make sure that individuals aren't being pressured about religion in the workplace. That kind of situation is never good for religion, the business or the workers.
6
So - If I refused to wear a team-issued cammo baseball cap to participate in the "Honor Our Troops message during games on the Memorial Day Weekend -- I wonder how that would go over -
Also -
In the NFL - when the league mandates that all players wear a certain special logo or patch for this week's games - any player who refuses to do so will receive a hefty fine -
There are hundreds - possibly thousands - of companies, corporations and employers who require their employees to wear uniforms, patches, logos, ID tags, etc - as a requirement for employment -- all perfectly legal - and those employees who refuse to do so are subject to penalties - including termination...
19
@Howard G I doubt the players' union would support dismissal in this case. After all, there is a contract in place in MLB and other sports. If the parties want to reconsider in the next collective bargaining session, go ahead.
1
Love that they all talked, expressed themselves, tolerated the differences of opinion. What bravery on all sides.
9
Anyone else immediately think of the Seinfeld where Kramer refuses to wear the red ribbon during the AIDS walk?
7
@SeaToSky Or Elaine refusing to remove her Orioles cap?
1
I hope that these players are also abstaining from all pre-marital and extra-marital relations as well as “onanism” since those are also spelled out as sins in the Bible.
28
@Cathy C Those are all listed as sins, but homosexuality is not mentioned.
1
Adam says "Jesus ... encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.” Rubbish. Jesus never condemns or even mentions homosexuality. True, the Old Testament does condemn homosexuality. It also says homosexuals should be stoned to deat. So anyone who condemns homosexuality on the basis of the Bible is also committed to demanding that homosexuals be stoned to death. But the Bible also says that Sabbath breakers, adulterers, non-virginal brides, disobedient childre, etc. should be stoned to death. So if you're going to base your moral beliefs on the Bible, this is the sort of insanity you're committed to.
23
My aunt is a fundamentalist Christian; her daughter (along with her brother, my favorite cousins) is a lesbian. She and her wife have two adorable children and, to my cousin's chagrin, are fully now invested in gay "respectability politics." My aunt hosts all of them in her home; lets the couple sleep together under her roof; loves her daughter-in-law (though would prefer that she and her daughter brought up the kids as Christians rather than Jews); and absolutely dotes on her two grandkids.
At the same time, but I think my aunt still believes her daughter is going to hell. I know that she believes lesbianism violates God's law.
As much as I--and my cousin, and her wife--wish it were otherwise, this is probably as good as it's going to get. Ideal? Not by a long shot--especially since, as a Christian myself, I believe the scriptural and theological foundation for being anti-gay is exceptionally thin. But this is probably is good as it's going to get.
The same thing for Jason Adam and the other players. I wish they had worn the rainbow. I wish they had avoided the words "lifestyle" (which seems condescending when most LGBTQ people regard their sexuality as a matter of identity). But in my view, clarifying that he loves LGBTQ people and that all are welcome at Tampa Bay games is about the best he can do--and it's a damn sight better than homophobic slurs, vicious jokes and insults, and outright violence.
13
Holding negative opinions about an individuals sexual orientation is , well, ridiculous. But people also have a right to tolerate, but not approve, on any issue they want. I thought the quoted players were sincere and as welcoming as their (however misguided) beliefs allowed them to be. It's then up to the Rays to decide what penalty, if any, is appropriate.
If Americans were a little more tolerant of one another, the next Civil War wouldn't be so clearly imminent. Half joking...
13
Trying to remember where in Jesus' teachings it said we should openly reject people for who they are...interesting how it always those that proclaim their religiosity the loudest who are the least tolerant? Would these same players dare be openly racist? They should be deeply ashamed, but shame is another human trait which seems to be lacking nowadays..
26
"Credit the Rays for trying." Absolutely not! The Rays are a baseball team. Their job is to play and win baseball games. Anything else is beyond the scope of what they should do. And having "special" nights only causes controversy and increases polarization. And it could have caused violence, especially given the times we live in. Play the game, Rays. That's it.
17
@Andrew So no more National Anthem, Air Force flyovers, bobblehead giveaways, none of which has anything to do with baseball (or any other sport)? It seems all sports these days have lots of event nights (I blame Bill Veeck).
But to be honest most people find them fun and like them. There is nothing inherently polarizing about them. Celebrating a segment of our community is a good thing.
8
While I don't support the five players' beliefs, I do support their right to express themselves in the way they did. Not everyone feels the same way about everything.
35
They expressed their personal beliefs (fine) but cloaked them in religion (not fine). They should at least own their position instead of blaming Jesus. Who, by the way, never mentions being gay.
3
“As the primary messengers for the franchise, the players should have been expected to reflect that position. If doing so made them uncomfortable, they could have been given the night off.”
This is completely absurd. What country are we living in where people should be pulled from employment for not expressing the correct political views? No one should be forced to wear any non-work-related symbol, whether it be a rainbow or a crucifix. Heck I’m a gay man and even I won’t sport a pride flag ever since the NYC Pride parade committee barred gay cops from marching in uniform.
I’ve met many people in life who have the same views as these athletes. I had so much more in common with them than I do with this writer. I’d rather go have a beer with these guys than the people who falsely presume the worst in others.
61
@Kevin This is about human rights, not “correct political views”.
Being gay (or a woman, or non-white) is not a political stance.
5
So said the commenter who literally calls himself “Mobespierre”. The right to express yourself includes the players too; not just those you consider on your team. So yes, it is indeed about human rights. The players are not violating anyones rights. Neither is your local imam, rabbi or priest.
4
@Kevin Mobespierre was my 18 year Dachshund, now deceased, who came to me as a rescue with that name. I kept it, as it was the name he came to me with and responded to.
Didn’t touch on religion in my reply, but you brought it there anyway.
Straight people go about being human in their everyday lives.
I wasn’t aware they were “expressing” something.
Same for gay people. They’re just not straight. I.e., gay people are not expressing” something, anymore than straight people are.
I appreciate that it turned out this way. As many others have noted, the players who chose not to participate (freely, and without reprisal) invoked Jesus and their discomfort with endorsing a “lifestyle” which is just judgmental coded language. That’s not the Jesus I learned in Sunday school.
By the way, I’m a white man, American born, of Northern European ancestry. I’ve got all the privilege in the world, and I certainly don’t feel that I’m under threat from people who aren’t straight white men. Gay people, women, POC want the kind of privilege I have, because they cruelly, tragically don’t have it. Religion and politics are central to this inhumanity.
TL:DR
We can agree to disagree.
Jumping to assumptions about people because of a name (or sexuality, etc.) can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding and conflict.
Words are powerful. Thanks for demonstrating that so clearly with yours.
Be well.
1
We watch ballplayers because they are some of the best athletes on earth. Otherwise, they are normal people with the normal spread of opinions, from laudable to reprehensible according to views of the beholder.
To require members of an organization to express "unity" on some issue is to ask them to participate in a fraud. The two pitchers are to be commended for preventing such a fraud.
29
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Christ Jesus, had this way about putting it down, plainly, for everyone to see. Declaring his preference that you would pick up on what he was saying. He never seemed pressed if you chose not to. I think he would not have forced the players to wear the patch. While encouraging all, to come to the game....
3
Undercut? Since when does EVERYONE HAVE to support everything?
Or is it better to be hypocritical? Suppose that it was a Biden (or Trump) Night. Then what?
I'm fine with it being Pride Month, but I don't feel the need to wear rainbow regalia.
43
I am always happy when bigots are allowed to reveal themselves. I am even happier, of course, when non-bigots also reveal themselves and there are more non-bigots than bigots. So, on balance, I find Pride Night for the Rays reassuring.
10
What about the concept of "uniform" do the five players not understand? The idea is that everybody wears the same stuff, right? It's part of being part of an entity called a "team" (you know, that word there's no "I" in).
Whatever their weasel words, the five players are making the statement that the idea of their team supporting the inclusion of LGBT folks in society is something they don't like.
Why would the team and its management allow this kind of statement by their employees?
9
There's another aspect to this, in the evolution of "Pride". Somehow, we went from "LGB" to "LGB+" (last one I saw was "LGBTQQIP2SAA+"). Literally, with the plus, you have no idea what you're showing support for.
If it was purely a question of being "anti-gay" or something that is a clearly defined (and arguably settled) discussion in our culture, it would be one thing, but when you're signing on for whatever someone comes up with online, maybe it's too far for a sports team to be blindliy expecting their players to use their bodies to advertise a message.
15
The excuse of religion for homophobia is pure ignorance. "We love all the fans who buy our jerseys and pay for tickets - some more than others, y'all." Good old boys - even in 1978, at my Ivy League school there was a "wear denim to support the gay movement day" and I couldn't believe all the northern state fraternity brothers who loudly didn't wear Levis that day, including my good friend from Woodmere, NY. Athletes using Jesus to excuse such behavior are lower on the social scale than entertainers campaigning politically. Florida can't seem to help itself - and this Northern boy is set to retire there. Uh-oh. I want an old age of sittin' at Tropicana and watching the Lightning on ice and the Bucs play in the sun. I better keep my mouth shut except for the beers. Go Rays!
4
I 100% support LGBT rights, but I wouldn't have worn the patch either, only to stick to US corporations and their incessant, annoying virtue signaling... I let my actions (how I treat people) speak louder than rainbow logos on my LinkedIn page.
29
"we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.”
"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40 KJV
Before someone quotes anything from the "Old Testament" referring to or regarding the Ten Commandments (and/or the other 603 laws), he/she might want to remember that Paul explicitly states that the Laws of Moses are not applicable to Christians. Paul also says that the various covenants God made with Jews were non-binding to Christians. (Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18, et al.)
Matthew teaches that there are only two valid commandments: Matthew 22:37-40.
4
Proud of the Dodgers, who won a great game against the Mets on a sold-out Pride night. I was there with my gay friends, my “gay lifestyle” partner, and our 10-yr old son. It was one of the friendliest nights I’ve ever been to at Dodger stadium - no one harassed the Mets fans, strangers danced and sang “Takr Me Out to the Ballgame” together, cheered at gays and straights smooching on the kiss cam. I can support the Rays players deciding whether or not they want to wear a rainbow patch, but when they explain that their religion doesn’t support a lifestyle, do they mean some Christians don’t support a friendly happy violence-free night amongst 50,000 baseball fans? Oh yeah, I can see that - get them their AR-15 patches to virtue signal their “Pro-life” morally bankrupt religious beliefs.
8
"[I]t’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.” The above statement is why so many organized religions are perceived badly by people who value diversity and civil rights.
8
This reminds me of how the Paramount app button on all my devices has changed to include Pride insignia on it. As far as I can tell, it's going to look like this for an entire month.
It's one thing to have a bar within the app with Pride-focused content, and that's great, and I'd watch that content, but the rainbow flag is literally on the button. I have to look at that button every day on my iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV.
I cried when gay marriage was announced and am very liberal, but don't like that I have to look at a blatantly political button for an entire month.
For this story- I don't see how it's a problem that some players didn't want to wear the pride insignia.
12
@JJ Why is the Pride insignia political?
2
Why is support for Pride Night or posting facts about gun violence considered to be “political activity”? This is a very slippery slope and something a state Governor should stay away from. If any government official can claim any activity they don’t like is “political activity”, and then engage in retribution, we’re getting into serious authoritarian territory. Stop now, because it won’t end well.
3
What's the next thing players will be required to wear to support the team owner's political views? Surely, they won't change to MAGA baseball caps! This push by the three baseball team crosses political and social lines and the owners ought to give serious consideration to just playing ball.
22
"[I]t’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.”
As a Protestant minister, I think it is appropriate to ask the famous question, "What WOULD Jesus do?" And to me, the answer is that he would have expressed his love and support for the LGBTQ community by wearing the patch (on his tunic?).
This is where progressive Christians like myself disagree with those who believe that words are enough, and forget that actions speak louder. It's like expressing compassion for a homeless person, but failing to offer them food.
Lifestyle or not, true Christian support for the LGBTQ community demands more than talk - it demands meaningful acts. Otherwise, it is only half way.
14
Please point me to the place in the New Testament where Jesus singles out gay people for condemnation. Alternatively, point me to a place where he says only heterosexual relationships are acceptable.
5
@Maani Rantel
I will note that Jesus never spoke up against slavery in his lifetime, so I think that question is easily answered. Jesus would apparently do whatever was convenient.
2
@Tom "Please point me to the place in the New Testament where Jesus singles out gay people for condemnation. Alternatively, point me to a place where he says only heterosexual relationships are acceptable."
In correcting my own Scriptural error, during Jesus' time, homosexuality and adultery were at the same "level": both were punishable by stoning.
Given this, when the crowd is about to stone the adulteress, Jesus famously says, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." Since all of them were sinners, none threw their stones, and they walked away.
However, people ignore what happens next. Jesus asks her, "Woman, where are those who accuse you? Does no man condemn thee?"
And she says, "No man, Lord."
And Jesus replies, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Note that: "Go, and sin no more." Thus, He does not judge, and He shows compassion. But He does NOT condone her lifestyle, noting that it is a sin.
Replace the woman in the story with a homosexual, and you would get the same ending.
The Rays' players signed a contract to play professional baseball for that organization. Were they told upon signing that they might be expected to be parts of a political statement made by their employer? Although I personally am behind the Rays' front office in including the rainbow design on their uniforms, players shouldn't have to follow the political whims of their employers. They should, however, expect to play baseball, which is what they signed up to do. Surely if the front office had sewn "Proud Boys" emblems on to the Rays shirts, players would have every right to back out from wearing such uniforms. All in all, the lesson here is to keep politics off the playing field.
16
Are you an expert on player contracts? Player contracts Tisdale have clauses requiring various commitments outside the position.
1
I wish they would just say what they mean. We don’t feel “welcome,” or “loved,” or “not looked down on” when you say we should abstain from who we love and how we’re born. Spare me.
If they’re not comfortable wearing a pride flag, fine. But at least have the courage to say you don’t like us and don’t think we deserve equal rights. I care much more about that than whether or not they wear a pin.
Good on the Rays for showing their support, and most of all, for backing it up with real action over the years.
16
@Ryan
ONLY they know what they mean. No one here does.
3
These players don't know the meaning of Jesus' example.
We noticed the conservatives across the street, who never wave or say hello to us, put a big rainbow bounce toy in the front yard yesterday. It disappeared today. Someone must have told them it's Pride Month.
8
If the league wants to acknowledge anything, it should be on a billboard or some kind of visible advertisement. This will eliminate having your employees to be uncomfortable and having to explain. Their explanation will never be accepted no matter what. Again, just because these 5 people didn't want to demonstrate inclusion in this manner, doesn't mean they are excluding or looking down or are intolerable
9
There is no way to force unity. I'm glad they were allowed, or felt encouraged, to express their disapproval of Pride Day. It is unfortunate, and a copout to blame your religion or Jesus for your stance. Just look in the camera and say, "I do not support that lifestyle, or perspective." Have a little pride.
11
@Brad
It is natural for most people to cite some justification for what they did when criticized. The nature of the justification is relevant only to the person in question. I would be very surprised if you do not do the same with your own reasons being cited.
6
I don'’t think they “undercut” anything. They made a decision based on their own values. I don’t agree with them, but that’s, well, democracy.
49
@Mike LIvingston I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect that if every employee of every company for which they work, based their decisions on their own values, there'd be chaos. For me, I don't think my boss would appreciate me choosing to not wear the company's specified "uniform" by coming to work in a t-shirt and gym shorts.
3
So what? I support Pride and what it has accomplished. But freedom of expression, which includes not expressing certain views, did not end with joining a team.
Some will always criticize people for exercising it just as they criticize NFL players who do not stand for the national anthem. Life works like that.
30
@Zack Yeah, I find the player's decision sad and disappointing, but I think the Rays organization handled it well.
Allowing some viewpoint flexibility is especially appropriate for professional sports in which players often have no choice who they play for (if they want to play).
9
"Baseball's attempt at inclusion proves that there's more work to do." The only work that needs doing is leaving people to exercise their freedom of choice without fear from external factors. In other words, just do your thing and allow others to do theirs. Cool?
30
oh no. i'm sure this sets back rights for decades because baseball players being forced to posture for branding for their league refuse to do something for whatever reason. i'm sure there will be serious material repercussions lol
12
"Inclusion" should mean that the work environment is accepting of all and will not tolerate discrimination of any type.
This visible force feeding by an organization upon its employees and paying customers does nothing to serve the cause of inclusion, and is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing pat on the back for the owners and management of the organization.
I would guarantee that a large percentage of the ballplayers and the fans do not look upon this as an "act of altruism".
12
It all comes back to Seinfeld. Remember the episode where Kramer didn't want to have to wear the red ribbon when he was participating in the AIDS walk? He was being forced to wear it, but because he was forced to, he refused.
17
@Carl LaFong No, they said so, they are not LGBT friendly THAT is the reason. Period.
2
@Carl LaFong :
After all, every life scenario has a corresponding Seinfeld episode.
1
I don't mind it let the players who want to wear it wear it and the ones who don't dont. Why push people to advocate for a cause they don't believe in?
56
@Michael Its not advocating, it's creating a safe space. Let me ask you, if you support Womens Tennis, does that mean everyone should join womens tennis and if you don't you are excluding them? Same thing - people can allow a safe space and not 'believe in' it, you don't have to believe in it, you don't have to believe in anything, just create safe spaces for other to believe what they want.
2
The players wearing a patch is advocating for a safe space. they're not going to help you enforce that safe space
2
I thought the statement from Jason Adam was a heartfelt and honest statement. Why are we always making much ado about very little -- so 5 players chose not to promote something that goes against their religious beliefs. Let them be, for God's sake. Why create divisions over every small virtue-signaling matter? If the company they work for wants to say it is a condition of employment that they wear this gay-promotion tag, that's up to the company. Such made-up divisiveness only fuels more fights that have no relevance to our lives. Next week, nobody will care about this. Enough already.
103
@Salim Durrani I'll remember the 5 names, I'll remember who is against me walking the face of this earth free with rights. I will remember.
8
@Salim Durrani Referring to "this gay-promotion tag" says all we need to know about your bias.
And this "making much ado" about something you consider "very little" means a lot to other people.
It's not too much to expect some empathy for others, even for just one evening of baseball.
I don't think it's "made-up divisiveness"; it's real.
7
@Salim Durrani Do they also not play on the sabbath or are they on the cafeteria plan?
10
I can live with some players choosing not to wear the Pride emblem; their choice. Their use of old tropes like "lifestyle" and "behavior" are troubling, however, and the rationale that it's a faith-based decision raises questions for me. Do those players also refuse to work on the Sabbath? "Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates." Doesn't their faith require that they keep the Sabbath holy? It's one of the 10 commandments, whereas there's no commandment saying everyone has to be straight and cisgender. Seems like dubious decision-making on the part of these players.
92
Two thoughts.
There is nothing in the four accepted Gospels (containing the teachings of Jesus) regarding homosexuality.
He does not teach on it. He does teach on loving and accepting people as they are, where they are (see the parable of the Prodigal Son).
All of us might benefit from the idea of “live and let live.”
That includes the LGTBQ community, as well as these five ball players.
A little less preaching, a little more breathing room, for each of us.
33
The notion that because Jesus didn't teach on a given subject, he didn't have an opinion on it or that it wasn't important, is nonsense. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
4
@J Lend This completely misses the fact that Jesus' well-known refrain when accepting people was, "go and sin no more." He was loving and accepting of people, but if they were caught in sin - which the rest of the Scriptures are clear on regarding this topic - his primary aim was to set them free from it.
6
@J Lend Every time I hear the Bible being used to justify some action or another my response is usually "where does it say that?" It makes me question their Bible literacy.
3
"a faith-based decision"
More like a pharisaical-based decision, I would say.
22
Supporters of the five Rays players who didn't wear the rainbow gear: "Athletes should be allowed to opt out of things that offend their views and they should the freedom of expression of their views."
[Colin Kaepernick takes a knee...]
"NO NO NO NO NO! NOT LIKE THAT!"
201
@lexingtonteacher
To not either support or not support BOTH is blatant hypocrisy.
8
@lexingtonteacher Funny, I had the same observation but from the other direction. Cuts both ways.
At the end of the day, it's flat out wrong to compel speech.
To end on a lighter note, hard not to think of the classic Seinfeld episode where Kramer does the AIDS walk but doesn't want to wear a ribbon.
NYT Comment Section: "WHO!? WHO DOES NOT WEAR THE RIBBON??"
9
@Zack Fair enough, but the issue here is the Rays players....
“Major League Baseball’s first gay player”? Unlikely. He may be Major League Baseball’s first openly gay player.
28
@Cindy Allen, I think you've misread the article. Glenn Burke wasn't MLB's first gay player. He was the first to come out as gay after his retirement. Other stories about Glenn Burke state that he didn't hide his sexual orientation, and it was known by many of his teammates while he was an active player.
#BoycottFlorida
Just a ripple effect from the governor on down. Enough.
19
I wonder if Jason Adam remembers the day he chose the straight "lifestyle".
39
There ain't no Karma like baseball Karma!
5
Luke 10:25-37
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus answered that question.
3
@Henry
The gospels were written decades after the death of the Bible's Jesus. Not by the namesakes Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, but by unknown people who wrote what they were told of that Jesus. So what Jesus might have said is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels
4
So now it's come to players having to put into their contracts that they will or won't have to wear these kinds of advertisements? It should be voluntary...
2
@Mr. Autumn It is voluntary, we see who they are, thank you very much. It's not 'advertisement' for gays, it's creating a safe space. Something republicans are VERY against.
2
What am I missing?
Jason Adam said ".......... it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.”
What exactly did Jesus say? Because that bible of his does not contain a lot of quotes from Jesus, and the ones that it does contain don't say anything about sexuality.
http://www.planetofsuccess.com/blog/2017/jesus-quotes/
36
@Vanessa What you're missing is that Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures, which are unambiguously clear on the topic.
1
If these players believe so strongly in following the teachings of Jesus, then why did they recently wear camouflage hats? Surely Jesus didn't believe in the war "lifestyle."
96
@Bruce A Because it was the night they honored our soldiers and wounded warriors. Tampa is the site of one of our largest military hospitals for soldiers with paralysis, amputations, and life-long severe brain injuries. Soldiers who will never walk or talk or go home again. That night was to honor them and their sacrifice and their peers. Many came to the game and were recognized for their service.
You really should apologize.
1
The unasked and unanswered question here is whether or not a rainbow flag is a political statement. If it is, then surely we don't want, in our society, for corporations to force employees to make political statements they might not agree with as a condition of employment, whether we ourselves agree with the statement or not. I seem to recall back in the 80s that the then owner of, I believe, the Giants pressured players to lend their support to some kind of anti-abortion propaganda video effort. I assume most presumably pro choices readers of the Times would disapprove of a sports team owner nowadays behaving in a similar fashion. Players have refused to participate in trips to the White House, players have refused to stand for the national anthem and have also refused to join protests in which others decided to kneel. Would it be a better world if most people did not have any objection or issue with a rainbow flag? As far as I'm concerned, absolutely. But surely what should be empowering about seeing a massive display of rainbow flags should be the voluntary nature of players joining this act of solidarity. If it were to be required by the team, the display of the symbol loses its power and potency.
20
@J I agree with your statement, J. What I did object to was the representative of the players saying something to the effect that homosexuality is something Jesus was against. Jesus was silent on the issue in the Gospels.
13
@Jeff Jesus didn't speak on the matter in the New Testament, but Paul, his hand-picked representative did; and if you believe that Jesus is God (a primary Christian belief), then he had a few things to say about it in the Old Testament.
5
@James A very few, and not at length. There's more verses in the bible about a brother marying his brother's widow than about homosexuality.
1
“Companies are free to engage or not engage in whatever discourse they want, but clearly it’s inappropriate to be doing tax dollars for professional sports stadiums,” DeSantis said at a news conference last Friday. “It’s also inappropriate to subsidize political activism of a private corporation.”
I'm waiting for DeSantis to cut off the tax subsidies for the thousands of Florida corporations, including many "churches," that discriminate against LGBTQ folks. Or say they're fine with the "Don't Say Gay" law. Or support any of dozens of other "conservative" causes.
Wonder how long we'll have to wait for that.
19
@Keith Salkowski Please disclose which churches discriminate by banning people from attending,
Virtue signalling, -placing signs in one's front yard, support of this or that cause, or, where sports teams are in play, affixing logo, to signify the team's support of whatever the au-courant cause happens to be, serves no one but the individuals or the sports team making the display. Pointless.
15
@heyomania I think when you have a subculture of of fear in most communities the least harmful thing a person could do is offer a public message of support. If it's not harming anyone then why does it matter? If people can't get past a pride acknowledgement without being personally offended I think it speaks more to the individual. I am not a yard sign fan myself, but I do also not see anything wrong with it. Everything is some kind of battle position in our culture, people need to move on and live their own lives.
13
@heyomania A team logo is signalling all by itself. It's branding. The loyalty and attachment that people feel to teams and other corporations is an outcome of marketing. There really isn't something suspect about ethical or moral causes that the disdainful term "virtue signalling" implies.
When players where pink ribbons for breast cancer awareness, they aren't literally curing cancer.
1
@Appalled Who is fearful? Because I may disagree with something, anything, does mean I am "fearful." And if an offended person mistakes my disagreement for malicious intent, that's their problem and need to work through their "discomfort" and realize people are not programmed robots...although it's apparent one side of the political aisle certainly wishes we were.
3
Employees should never be forced to express the political or social views of their employers as a condition of employment.
Chris Sale was asked to wear his work uniform in a different style, but it was still his work uniform. It expressed no political or social view.
The Rays could have put a big rainbow up in the stadium to express the organization's social or political view, but they should have never asked their employees to wear political or social symbolism on their uniforms (indeed, aren't we trying to remove Native American symbolism from uniforms and names?).
Imagine the outcry if Chick fil a required all employees to wear buttons that said "abortion kills babies"
33
@OneView These players all sign contracts which presumably contain language covering these things, and the article states the Rays rely on player buy-in for these efforts. No one is being "forced" to do anything.
If players don't want to participate in the team effort they can take the night off. Part of being on a team is doing things you might not do on your own... no sympathy for these highly paid professionals.
9
@Appalled - Waiting….Do their contracts require them to support causes that they do not support?
5
@Appalled "presumably." It's not likely there is a "you-will-participate-in-gay-day-promotions-or-be-fined" clause in most player contracts and if there are, most players are presumably happy to pay the fine. And while most contracts contain community service obligations, most agents make certain that their clients are protected from participating in causes they don't believe in. Sandy Koufax never pitched during the Jewish holy days and flatly refused to pitch game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it was Yom Kippur as an example.
Not a lifestyle.
Not a behavior.
Not understood.
35
There was a time when the Times made a clear distinction between reporting and opinion. This article began as reporting, of a not especially even-handed kind, then veered of into opinion, with a rather uncritical endorsement of the Rays and their supposed values, begging the question of whether the Rays do hold those values or were just trying to sell a few more tickets.
80
Not a lifestyle.
Not a behavior.
Not understood.
I applaud the Rays and their social actions throughout the years. I also applaud that they allowed players to make their own personal feelings known, and encouraging the holdout players to select their own spokesperson to relay their feelings. It highlighted their ignorance in a way the Rays organization could not have accomplished. Someone should point out to Mr. Adam that Jesus traveled with 12 men and never said a word about homosexuality.
26
@Sue Good point to which I might add that an unmarried Jesus traveled and otherwise hung out almost exclusively with 12 men, and never said a word about homosexuality.
10
Here's what I heard Adam say in full;
“It’s a hard decision,” Adam said. “Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior, just like [Jesus] encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It’s no different.
“It’s not judgmental. It’s not looking down. It’s just what we believe the lifestyle he’s encouraged us to live, for our good, not to withhold. But again, we love these men and women, we care about them, and we want them to feel safe and welcome here.”
If he truly believes in what he said above he should be respected for his decision. He's on board with what matters here...inclusivity, love, non judging, safety, welcoming LGBTQ. He doesn't want to wear a label with a colored team logo. I don[t see discrimination, marginalization, inequality, bigotry here. I see someone who is working through his belief system in a pretty democratic, enlightened manner. Must he satisfy everyone else's sense of this or his own, in a pretty well articulated manner? I think we can learn how he's framed this issue...for the betterment of everyone involved.
8
I was raised Roman Catholic. I went to religion and I went to church. We were always taught Jesus loves everyone. Full stop.
I don't remember being told Jesus loves & accepts everyone...
Except those people there , or this group here, or those guys...
29
What's the saying? When someone tells you who they are, believe them? Jason Adam, Jeffrey Springs and Ryan Thompson have told us who they are.
27
I believe these people shouldn't have been forced to wear the emblems, but their statements display their bigotry. Being gay isn't a "lifestyle" or a "behavior", it's an inherent part of our identity. If they had been asked to show support for Black people, would they have said they don't accept that lifestyle? This is no different.
22
These guys were hired to play baseball not make performative moral gestures. The sneering tone of the article is off putting and bullying.
44
Can the team force you to wear a crucifix if you’re not a Christian? How is this different?
17
Its really very different.
Apples and oranges.
Rainbow starburst is not the symbol if any religion I’m familiar with …
For gay people it is a symbol that says they are not hated in a particular place and that its okay to feel safe.
Because saying you wont wear a little rainbow star because its not something Jesus approves of while also saying you love the gay people, well, it feels neither safe nor like love.
The Rays are great. St. Pete is great.
3
Seems like Jesus laid down some judgement on the two that played without the rainbow.
5
To be honest with you, I understand players not wanting to be a billboard for favored causes of the owners or of MLB. I wouldn't stand for it as a player if an owner that supported Trump wanted me to wear a "Make America Great Again" patch on my uniform.
Having said that, I can't really agree with the justification given by the player selected to be a spokesman for the five players who didn't wear the Pride insignia. He said: "it's just that maybe we don't want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who has encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior."
This is a serious question: did Jesus reference homosexuality at all in any of the Gospels? If he did, I certainly don't remember it. I know it is referred to in the Old Testament, but if you are a Christian, the actual words of Christ are the defining ones. I would love to hear a response from anyone who knows whether Jesus spoke to the issue of homosexuality.
53
@Jeff As Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, his position on this topic would have already been "on record". In Christianity, Jesus is considered God, the very same as the God of the Old Testament, who was very clear about it.
3
@James The players referenced Jesus and Jesus in the Gospels said nothing about homosexuality. The God of the Old Testament was a fierce, warlike God. I remembering reading one passage in the Old testament where God was on the side of the Israelites in some battle and he either encouraged them to smite the woman and children of the enemy of the Israelites or he did it himself. Unfortunately, I can't cite the passage right now, though if given enough time, I might be able to. My point is this: though I understand that there are not two Gods, that the God of the Old Testament and Jesus are one in the same, what do we do when the two seem to speak with two different voices? Certainly Jesus would never have advocated smiting the women and children of an enemy. My opinion is that if there is some dispute about a position of "God" on a topic, it seems like we should adhere to the position of Jesus in the Gospels, as Christianity is based on the Gospels. What do you think?
3
@Jeff You raise some good and thought-provoking points, but Christianity's relationship to the Scriptures cannot be reduced to only the four Gospels. If Jesus were asked directly about homosexuality, one would not expect him to deviate from what was written on that very topic in the Old Testament, or in the New Testament by one of his chosen representatives, Paul.
3
"Yet by allowing the players to opt out of the promotion — and to use the platform to endorse an opposite viewpoint — the Rays undercut the message of inclusion they were trying to send."
I cannot agree with this statement. I do not see that they endorsed an opposite point of view, all they said was that their personal religious convictions are such that they are not comfortable wearing a rainbow emblem on their baseball uniforms. It is not suggested that they are proactively taking steps to disparage, diminish or harm non-heterosexuals. To interpret their actions in this manner is to impose a judgment simply not supported by facts as reported in the article.
84
They should no more be forced to wear a pride symbol than I should be forced to wear a cross which to me represents judgement and bigotry.
The only meaningful difference is that I can intelligently explain why I feel that way.
45
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode with Kramer participating in the AIDS Walk.
Except that those folks actually cared about the cause, as compared to MLB's token effort to sell more tickets.
11
@Joe My first thought too.
"Who refuses to wear the ribbon!?!?!"
Honestly if the team and articles like this didn't make a big deal out of it, how many people would have even noticed that some players had the patch on their sleeves and some didn't?
5
“A lot of it comes down to faith, to like a faith-based decision,” he said. “So it’s a hard decision. Because ultimately we all said what we want is them to know that all are welcome and loved here. But when we put it on our bodies, I think a lot of guys decided that it’s just a lifestyle that maybe — not that they look down on anybody or think differently — it’s just that maybe we don’t want to encourage it if we believe in Jesus, who’s encouraged us to live a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior.”
Adam added that “we love these men and women, we care about them, and we want them to feel safe and welcome here.”
Is Herschel Walker doing seminars for athletes that have had their minds stolen from them?
15
Why should anyone have to support an issue that they personally may not agree with?
Now that the Rays players who have chosen not to participate
Are being held up for ridicule by the very woke Tyler Kepner
Let’s see where this goes in November election.
I am a lifelong Democrat but this is a losing issue for them.
59
@Charles alexander Respecting the humanity and personhood of LGBT people is not an issue to agree or disagree with. It is a minimum requirement for being a decent person. They didn't decide to opt out of wearing the ALS patch for Lou Gehrig, or the 42 patch for Jackie Robinson. It's just including LGBT people that upsets them.
30
@Charles alexander
People are gay and trans across time periods, cultures and geographic locations. This is not something to simply "agree or disagree" with. If a person is gay/trans, and someone does not support the equal social, political, and economic rights of gay/trans people, then that is just prejudice and hate, not a good-faith disagreement. Just imagine if someone said, "I do not agree with the lifestyle of people from (X) race." Such a statement would widely be agreed to as being racist. But suddenly, if race is switched out with sexuality/gender identity, it isn't hateful?
20
@Kelly But many players have opted out of using pink bats on Mother's Day.
3
Well, meaningless as it may be, I did at least love the final outcome
5
I looked all through my copy of the New Testament. I did not see one sentence about gays. I also saw nothing attributed to Jesus about his opinion of gays.
No one ever accused a baseball player of being intelligent.
205
@John Harper I am no apologist for the Christian Right, but don't mis-quote the Bible: 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-28.
11
@DP Neither of those quoted passages are the words of Jesus. They are the words of Paul. The religion is called Christianity, not Paulinity. Paul also backed slaves being returned to their masters in his epistles. Is that a tenet of today's Christianity?
45
@DP John is correct. The passages you have cited do condemn homosexuality, but they are the apostle Paul's, not Jesus's, statements. It would be accurate to say that the New Testament, which contains Paul's letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans, condemns homosexuality, but it is not accurate to claim, as Jason Adam, speaking for the group of five, that Jesus "encouraged a lifestyle that would abstain from that behavior."
29
I love the second sentence added to each of the pitchers' photo captions as if their decision is somehow to be interpreted as divine justice. Good grief.
9
@Steven I love it, too! Go White Sox!
2
These players are true throwbacks: Ignorant, uneducated farm boys with more skill than brains. They should be asked the specific cite in the Bible in which Jesus of Nazareth discusses homosexuality. Chapter and verse, please, and stick to facts, not your or some blown-dry TV preacher’s poorly founded opinion.
65
@Brian McGlynn Borrowing from another commenter's references, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. Both Old and New Testaments are clear on this topic. Jesus himself didn't write these passages, but in Christianity, both sets of scriptures are considered inspired by God through human authors.
5
This is crazy. I'm part of the left and I believe people shouldn't have others beliefs forced upon them. 3 players abstained from wearing the kit. What's the problem?
173
The problem is being gay is as much a belief as having blue eyes.
35
Please stop using Jesus to justify bigotry. There is nothing in the Gospels about same sex relations. There is plenty about not judging others though.
131
@Linda, yes, it's the "I love everyone BUT...." sentence construction that says it all. The part after the "but" gets filled in whatever bigoted thing that demonstrates the person doesn't actually love everyone. The first part is meant to show what a great, God fearing person you are. The second shows you're going to hypocritically do whatever you want whether Jesus thought it was a good idea or not.
3
Christianity is not limited to the books of the Gospels. If it were, the New Testament would be comprised of four books instead of twenty-seven. Paul, Jesus’ hand-picked apostle to the Gentiles, did explicitly mention homosexuality in a couple of his epistles, and not approvingly. This is consistent with the view of the Old Testament.
3
Bigotry veiled as religious beliefs is so old and tired. It's no wonder this country is such a mess. When athletes are given a platform for exposing this choice vs nature argument it just furthers the view of the science challenged.
Baseball is a joke with its pride nights. It's inclusion program run by the commissioners office is a joke. It is a money grabbing shameless population on the field and in the front office. Other than the recent work by the Giants and Dodger organizations, this league is a joke when it comes to inclusion.
3
Excellent writing!
1
Are the players allowed to just not care?
14
If the team was hoping for full participation, it should have polled the players in advance. Lacking 100% support it could have avoided the controversy by not making the patch a part of the uniform. Since when do professional athletes have to support in a very tangible way the progressive PC ideologies? Compelled speech and performance. Let 'em play ball.
114
@Reader Bingo!
5
@Reader This is not progressive PC ideology. This is simple courtesy, compassion and human understanding, the golden rule, if you will, something anyone who cites Jesus's wishes should understand.
24
@Reader If they didn't want to participate, they could not play and forfeit their pay for that game.
11
Freedom of speech demands that these players be allowed to control their personal message on such topics.
27
@Kevn Wrong. That's not what freedom of speech means. It refers directly to govt censorship. They work for a company who can enforce dress codes.
124
@David Clayman Can a private company (say the Los Angeles Angels) put a crucifix or Star of David on uniforms and enforce as a dress code? PS: Not against supporting the cause but also not against those that chose not to participate.
17
@David Clayman True the first amendment does not cover this. But as much as I support LGBTQIA+ rights (being a member of the community) I don't think it helps anyone to force someone to wear a symbol they aren't comfortable with. So this is a broader freedom of expression issue.
30