Rays screw up pride night

[gunnarthor]

https://www.outsports.com/2022/6/5/23155403/tampa-bay-rays-lgbtq-rainbow-pride

 

[rwilfong86]

How did they screw it up? Players have the right to exercise their freedom of speech and religion and not do something that violates their conscience. Kudos to the Rays for letting players opt out. 

[NorthernAggression]

2 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

How did they screw it up? ...

The article is pretty clear how they screwed it up. They allowed players who are apparently anti-LGBTQ+ to promote a message that they do not support inclusivity while the point of the night was to do the exact opposite and encourage everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, to feel safe and welcome at the ballpark.

No one is taking away free speech or their ability to practice their religion. The Rays could have said if you don't support this, then you can sit out. There is a difference between free speech and doing whatever you want. The players are still free to share their feelings on LGBTQ issues. I work at a job that requires helmets. It is a required part of the "uniform" to do the job. Some don't like wearing them. They are free to speak out against it. They can likely do their job just as well without it. But if the boss says it is necessary and they want to work, then they have to wear it or find some place else to work.

As the article said, the organization made the decision to put rainbows on a uniform. Uniforms signify unity and the Rays failed to show unity around this issue. So, yeah, they screwed it up.

[rwilfong86]

17 minutes ago, NorthernAggression said:

The article is pretty clear how they screwed it up. They allowed players who are apparently anti-LGBTQ+ to promote a message that they do not support inclusivity while the point of the night was to do the exact opposite and encourage everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, to feel safe and welcome at the ballpark.

No one is taking away free speech or their ability to practice their religion. The Rays could have said if you don't support this, then you can sit out. There is a difference between free speech and doing whatever you want. The players are still free to share their feelings on LGBTQ issues. I work at a job that requires helmets. It is a required part of the "uniform" to do the job. Some don't like wearing them. They are free to speak out against it. They can likely do their job just as well without it. But if the boss says it is necessary and they want to work, then they have to wear it or find some place else to work.

As the article said, the organization made the decision to put rainbows on a uniform. Uniforms signify unity and the Rays failed to show unity around this issue. So, yeah, they screwed it up.

I am guessing the team knew beforehand they had players who wouldn't support it, so why put them in an awkward position? That isn't a display of unity either. The team could have/should have discussed this with the players to see if they would be on board, and if there was kickback they could have nixed it for the sake of team unity. Your comparison between wearing a piece of protective equipment to keep oneself safe versus a decorative patch patch doesn't quite work. Two completely different situations. The Rays did a great job of respecting the individual beliefs of their players and hopefully the rest of professional sports will follow suit.  No one should be forced to participate in any promotion they don't feel comfortable with. 

 

 

[nicksaviking]

****Moderator Note****

This is 2022, I don't believe this is a controversial topic any longer, please keep your posts civil, on topic, and away from discussions about moderation. If your responses are going to veer into those territories, please refrain from participating in this thread.

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

How did they screw it up? Players have the right to exercise their freedom of speech and religion and not do something that violates their conscience. Kudos to the Rays for letting players opt out. 

Players are also under contractual obligation to perform roles and they're paid handsomely to do it.

This seems like a colossal screw-up on several levels, though. The Rays should have known well ahead of time how players were going to react to this and altered their approach to adapt. Either make the players wear the uni or don't play them that day. Do something to not make what should be a pretty low-key celebration into a sideshow.

Inversely, it's pretty sad that so many won't acknowledge that gay people exist in this space and are not villains. They're just people doing their thing and deserve the respect and consideration to be open about who they are.

[rwilfong86]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Players are also under contractual obligation to perform roles and they're paid handsomely to do it.

This seems like a colossal screw-up on several levels, though. The Rays should have known well ahead of time how players were going to react to this and altered their approach to adapt. Either make the players wear the uni or don't play them that day. Do something to not make what should be a pretty low-key celebration into a sideshow.

Inversely, it's pretty sad that so many won't acknowledge that gay people exist in this space and are not villains. They're just people doing their thing and deserve the respect and consideration to be open about who they are.

If the Rays did a "Church at the Ballpark" night and requested the players to wear a cross patch on their cap and jersey and some players opted out I don't think anyone would find fault. I think forcing players to partake in promotions is just a bad idea. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

7 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

If the Rays did a "Church at the Ballpark" night and requested the players to wear a cross patch on their cap and jersey and some players opted out I don't think anyone would find fault. I think forcing players to partake in promotions is just a bad idea. 

Except ballgames are already littered with various aspects of religious stuff. They sing "God Bless America" in most parks, to my knowledge.

A better comparison would be a Padres player refusing to wear camo on military celebration nights, which I've never heard happen and suspect many defending the Rays' players here would be outraged about.

Just wear the uniform the team gives you that day. I don't think this should be controversial.

[LA VIkes Fan]

At the risk of wading into the deep end, I just don't get this one from the players. One of the players was stating that his refusal to wear the patch was a "faith based decision".  I don't know what his faith is (none of my business) but as a Christian, his faith must be something other than Christianity. 

[rwilfong86]

10 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Except ballgames are already littered with various aspects of religious stuff. They sing "God Bless America" in most parks, to my knowledge.

A better comparison would be a Padres player refusing to wear camo on military celebration nights, which I've never heard happen and suspect many defending the Rays' players here would be outraged about.

Just wear the uniform the team gives you that day. I don't think this should be controversial.

They do, I'm not sure if players would be expected to give special attention to "God Bless America", I've never paid much attention to the dugouts in the middle of the 7th inning to notice, but I would guess they aren't. 

 

[rwilfong86]

3 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

At the risk of wading into the deep end, I just don't get this one from the players. One of the players was stating that his refusal to wear the patch was a "faith based decision".  I don't know what his faith is (none of my business) but as a Christian, his faith must be something other than Christianity. 

The players are all Christians from what I read, and Jason Adam was their "spokesman". 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Something to note is that sponsorships are coming to MLB uniforms and I suspect when that happens, teams will not be interested in listening to players who refuse to wear the sponsorship of a company they dislike.

Which makes the Rays' decision the wrong one to make. If they'd make a different decision because money was involved, they shouldn't make a different decision here.

[gunnarthor]

There are a lot of problems with this but to cut through all of it, it is 2022. Homophobia - which is what these players are showing - should be mocked. The Rays should have, as the article suggests, been out in front of this like other organizations have done so this didn't happen. 

Also, this is my fairly annual reminder that you all can usually march in the pride parade. Just reach out to organizations that are registered. It's a lot of fun. 

[chpettit19]

25 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

At the risk of wading into the deep end, I just don't get this one from the players. One of the players was stating that his refusal to wear the patch was a "faith based decision".  I don't know what his faith is (none of my business) but as a Christian, his faith must be something other than Christianity. 

It was a group of Christian players and Jason Adam gave a statement about their stance. Their stance was that they didn'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 He encourages me as a heterosexual male to abstain from sex outside of the confines of marriage. It's no different." That's the quote from Jason Adam, who I hope saved himself until his wedding night.

[nicksaviking]

45 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

The players are all Christians from what I read, and Jason Adam was their "spokesman". 

My Christian church flies a rainbow flag and adamantly supports the LGBTQ community. This isn't a situation where you can only be Christian or a civil rights supporter. You can absolutely be 100% both, just like the majority of Americans. These guys are intentionally choosing not to be supporters.

[rwilfong86]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

My Christian church flies a rainbow flag and adamantly supports the LGBTQ community. This isn't a situation where you can only be Christian or a civil rights supporter. You can absolutely be 100% both, just like the majority of Americans. These guys are intentionally choosing not to be supporters.

Not every church believes the same way nor does every Christian believe the same way. 

[Puckettsprintstofirst]

5 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

How did they screw it up? Players have the right to exercise their freedom of speech and religion and not do something that violates their conscience. Kudos to the Rays for letting players opt out. 

 

Agree.  Players should not have been put in this position.  Rays could have celebrated the night while still respecting the diversity of their players' beliefs.  Kudos to these players, as you wrote.

[chpettit19]

This feels like a slippery slope for teams to let their players decide which patches/hats/whatever they want to wear and which ones they don't. What if next year one of them doesn't want to wear 42 for Jackie Robinson day? What if one of them doesn't want to wear the ALS patch for Lou Gehrig's day? As someone mentioned above, what if someone doesn't want to wear the camo hat/jersey for military day? Also mentioned above, what if one of them doesn't want to wear the patch of a team sponsor when those start happening? 

Where is the line drawn? Which patches/jerseys/whatever are a player's choice to wear and which aren't? To me that's the question. Are the league and teams prepared to give players the option to wear patches or not?

[TwinsDr2021]

2 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

****Moderator Note****

This is 2022, I don't believe this is a controversial topic any longer, please keep your posts civil, on topic, and away from discussions about moderation. If your responses are going to veer into those territories, please refrain from participating in this thread.

hmm, seems like it might be bit controversial since not everybody has the same opinion on the matter, which isn't odd because this is basically a political topic.  I am not religious and would have no problem putting the flag on, but I also think the statement made by the player was thought out and well spoken (even if I disagree with it).

[Rosterman]

I guess players now don't need to wear camo caps on Military Appreciation nite, right?

I suppose fan won't wear hats sponsored by Diary Queen anymore on cap night?

Do we have to wear special North Dakota State University caps on THAT nite in Twinsland?

Baseball ahs always panered to whomever. Why do they sing the "Star-Spangled Banner" before every game - because they wanted to brand themselves as The National Pastime, period. 

Thank goodness there's "no religion in baseball." Although lots of players like to write Bible-verse links when they sign autographs.

[TwinsDr2021]

14 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

This feels like a slippery slope for teams to let their players decide which patches/hats/whatever they want to wear and which ones they don't. What if next year one of them doesn't want to wear 42 for Jackie Robinson day? What if one of them doesn't want to wear the ALS patch for Lou Gehrig's day? As someone mentioned above, what if someone doesn't want to wear the camo hat/jersey for military day? Also mentioned above, what if one of them doesn't want to wear the patch of a team sponsor when those start happening? 

Where is the line drawn? Which patches/jerseys/whatever are a player's choice to wear and which aren't? To me that's the question. Are the league and teams prepared to give players the option to wear patches or not?

Does it really? I mean the next thing you know a manage might protest over the 2nd amendment?  Are there religions that allow you to play with black players but not wear a batch honoring a pioneer of baseball? Or are their religions that don't believe in ALS or the treatments to cure it?

I do believe there will be players that might refuse to wear a sponsor's patch and teams are going to have figure out how to deal with that. I imagine if Chick-fil-A is a sponsor there may be many players that say, thanks but no thanks for example.

 

[rwilfong86]

5 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Does it really? I mean the next thing you know a manage might protest over the 2nd amendment?  Are there religions that allow you to play with black players but not wear a batch honoring a pioneer of baseball? Or are their religions that don't believe in ALS or the treatments to cure it?

I do believe there will be players that might refuse to wear a sponsor's patch and teams are going to have figure out how to deal with that. I imagine if Chick-fil-A is a sponsor there may be many players that say, thanks but no thanks for example.

 

Every company I've ever worked for had options for employees with "sincerely held religious beliefs" to opt out of any activity that violated their religious views, and that went for Christians, Muslims, etc. 

[TwinsDr2021]

7 minutes ago, Rosterman said:

I guess players now don't need to wear camo caps on Military Appreciation nite, right?

I suppose fan won't wear hats sponsored by Diary Queen anymore on cap night?

Do we have to wear special North Dakota State University caps on THAT nite in Twinsland?

Baseball ahs always panered to whomever. Why do they sing the "Star-Spangled Banner" before every game - because they wanted to brand themselves as The National Pastime, period. 

Thank goodness there's "no religion in baseball." Although lots of players like to write Bible-verse links when they sign autographs.

Is there a religion against the Military? I think fans can wear or not wear basically any hat, right? Not 100% sure you are correct about the national anthem.

[In My La Z boy]

The line should be drawn on political and cultural movements. I marvel at big giant business getting way outside their lane in supporting political action committees and political agendas. What is Walt Disney doing giving their opinions on government bills? Will baseball be taking an opinion on Roe v Wade? Wouldn't surprise me at this point. Having a corporate logo on your golf cap, or baseball cap is not the same as having a political action committee agenda logo on your cap. This logo in question is not representing our approval, or disapproval of the gay community. This logo represents a political and cultural movement. We should leave that to politics. Politics was invented to debate and solve these cultural issues. 

[nicksaviking]

4 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Does it really? I mean the next thing you know a manage might protest over the 2nd amendment?  Are there religions that allow you to play with black players but not wear a batch honoring a pioneer of baseball? Or are their religions that don't believe in ALS or the treatments to cure it?

I do believe there will be players that might refuse to wear a sponsor's patch and teams are going to have figure out how to deal with that. I imagine if Chick-fil-A is a sponsor there may be many players that say, thanks but no thanks for example.

 

I agree the Rays should have vetted this situation further, and I agree there could be similar situations from many other directions.

But this still boils down to a civil rights issue, so the players who refuse to be supporters have well earned any public scorn. The Rays were stupid for letting this easily realizable fiasco from happening. If I knew I had players who didn't support LGBTQ rights, I certainly wouldn't want the fan base to find out.

[dcswede]

The "it's 2022" argument falls on the simple fact that there is a "pride night." If the topic is in fact done and dusted, as some suggest, then there would be no "need" to host any such event - we don't have a left-handed night, or a big ears night. So, clearly, the implication of "it's 2022" means nothing in this context.

Here's the real equivalent to the Rays' rainbow patch: what if a team decided to have it's players wear a "life begins at conception" patch? Would you still argue that players should put their own morals and opinions aside and wear that patch no matter how they felt about the subject?

If we're going to discuss the topic, let's at least argue honestly.

[TwinsDr2021]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I agree the Rays should have vetted this situation further, and I agree there could be similar situations from many other directions.

But this still boils down to a civil rights issue, so the players who refuse to be supporters have well earned any public scorn. The Rays were stupid for letting this easily realizable fiasco from happening. If I knew I had players who didn't support LGBTQ rights, I certainly wouldn't want the fan base to find out.

Is there a difference in supporting their rights and not believing in their life style? I don't know the answer, or if that is even possible. The statement they released seems to think they can.

I am guessing the Rays have done this for a while and maybe were caught off guard that players would be willing to go this far, doesn't surprise me that much every thing from small things to large things are being used to divide the country, and maybe they believe this was a place to take a stand on their Religion, or maybe if was plan to get a head of the possible Roe V Wade hoping the Rays wouldn't take a outspoken stance on that knowing how it might affect the players.

[nicksaviking]

2 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Is there a difference in supporting their rights and not believing in their life style? I don't know the answer, or if that is even possible. The statement they released seems to think they can.

I am guessing the Rays have done this for a while and maybe were caught off guard that players would be willing to go this far, doesn't surprise me that much every thing from small things to large things are being used to divide the country, and maybe they believe this was a place to take a stand on their Religion, or maybe if was plan to get a head of the possible Roe V Wade hoping the Rays wouldn't take a outspoken stance on that knowing how it might affect the players.

No, I don't think there is a difference since condemning their lifestyle is perpetuating the idea that there's something wrong with them, which in turn breeds hate and contempt.

[chpettit19]

11 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Does it really? I mean the next thing you know a manage might protest over the 2nd amendment?  Are there religions that allow you to play with black players but not wear a batch honoring a pioneer of baseball? Or are their religions that don't believe in ALS or the treatments to cure it?

I do believe there will be players that might refuse to wear a sponsor's patch and teams are going to have figure out how to deal with that. I imagine if Chick-fil-A is a sponsor there may be many players that say, thanks but no thanks for example.

 

So the question with all this is what the patch stands for. In his statement Adam said he, and his fellow Christian teammates, wanted members of the LGBTQ community to feel safe and welcomed at The Trop, but they didn't feel homosexuality was ok. So does the patch stand for homosexuality being ok or for the Rays organization, and Tropicana Field, being welcoming to members of the LGBTQ community?

I assume you're referring to Kapler, who didn't refuse to wear something so I'm not sure of the connection there. Players protested during the anthem a few times, but that's also not the same as not wearing a uniform. To my knowledge there's no set MLB rule on national anthem actions required by players or coaches. Maybe I'm wrong about, though. But there are MLB uniform rules. "All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all player's uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their back." Paragraph 3 in rule 3.03 states "No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game." Why were these players allowed to play? Awfully slippery slope I'd say.

Freedom of religion means the team, or league, can't force you to do something against your religion, but that doesn't mean they have to let you play. The league has rules and the Rays players broke them. Don't confuse freedom of religion, or speech for that matter, to mean you can do whatever you want without consequences from individuals or companies. You can refuse to wear a work uniform for religious reasons, but you're not legally entitled to still be able to work that job.

[rwilfong86]

3 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Is there a difference in supporting their rights and not believing in their life style? I don't know the answer, or if that is even possible. The statement they released seems to think they can.

I am guessing the Rays have done this for a while and maybe were caught off guard that players would be willing to go this far, doesn't surprise me that much every thing from small things to large things are being used to divide the country, and maybe they believe this was a place to take a stand on their Religion, or maybe if was plan to get a head of the possible Roe V Wade hoping the Rays wouldn't take a outspoken stance on that knowing how it might affect the players.

You raise good points, it seems like once a team or a sports league opens it's doors to siding with a political/social side, they're asking to alienate a good sized population of fans.