Rays screw up pride night

[rwilfong86]

Just now, nicksaviking said:

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.

Disagreement with lifestyle choices regardless of what they may be, doesn't equal hate. 

[chpettit19]

20 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

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. 

And every company you've ever worked for could refuse to allow you to work if you weren't willing to follow company guidelines. If your religion stops you from doing certain things that are necessary for a job then you'd be relieved of duty for that time. They can't fire someone for being Christian, Muslim, etc., but if you're unwilling or unable to perform your job duties, or follow company guidelines they're not forced to keep paying you just because you're Christian, Muslim, etc. You can/could have been fired. The players can/could have been stopped from taking the field.

[nicksaviking]

3 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

Disagreement with lifestyle choices regardless of what they may be, doesn't equal hate. 

I said doing so perpetuates and breeds the hate. And it does and is still happening because some people continue to say the lifestyle is not OK.

[AceWrigley]

3 hours 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.

I don't think anyone should be "forced" to show support for something they feel uncomfortable with. I support the 2nd amendment but I would not want to "have to" wear a gun insignia on my jersey on National Rifle Day.

[rwilfong86]

3 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

And every company you've ever worked for could refuse to allow you to work if you weren't willing to follow company guidelines. If your religion stops you from doing certain things that are necessary for a job then you'd be relieved of duty for that time. They can't fire someone for being Christian, Muslim, etc., but if you're unwilling or unable to perform your job duties, or follow company guidelines they're not forced to keep paying you just because you're Christian, Muslim, etc. You can/could have been fired. The players can/could have been stopped from taking the field.

Every company I've worked for had expectations clearly spelled out in the contract. And if it wasn't specifically documented, there was a religious exemption "opt out". I'm not sure what MLB or the Rays have but I would be curious. 

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

Every company I've worked for had expectations clearly spelled out in the contract. And if it wasn't specifically documented, there was a religious exemption "opt out". I'm not sure what MLB or the Rays have but I would be curious. 

(a) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players’ uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their backs.

(c) No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game.

Those are the 2 relevant parts of the MLB uniform rule. The players can absolutely refuse to wear those patches, but they were breaking MLB rules the second they stepped foot on that field.

[rwilfong86]

4 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

I said doing so perpetuates and breeds the hate. And it does and is still happening because some people continue to say the lifestyle is not OK.

I guarantee you none of the Rays players who opted out hates anyone in the LGBT community. 

[rwilfong86]

1 minute ago, chpettit19 said:

(a) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players’ uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their backs.

(c) No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game.

Those are the 2 relevant parts of the MLB uniform rule. The players can absolutely refuse to wear those patches, but they were breaking MLB rules the second they stepped foot on that field.

So it looks like MLB didn't enforce it's own policy. 

[TwinsDr2021]

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

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.

Your 1st paragraph is super legit, What does the pride patch mean to the Rays (is it virtue signaling or a real openness), did they explain? The statement the players made seems to say they don't agree with the life style (which I think is a condescending thing to say) but love and care about them, kind of contradicting IMO.

Your second paragraph, I was just pointing out a person on the field was protesting the 2nd amendment and nobody seems to care. As for the Rays, they didn't have to let them play and MLB shouldn't have if they broke the rules, that seems simple.

Your 3rd paragraph, I understand freedom of religion and speech, it was pretty straightforward in the past, but now not so much with what companies are forced to do with muslims for example. To be clear I am not saying this is bad or good, just pointing out that companies and schools have been forced to change some stuff up.

 

[TwinsDr2021]

2 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

So it looks like MLB didn't enforce it's own policy. 

Looks like the Rays might be looking at a fine? They don't have to forfeit the game, they already lost.

[chpettit19]

3 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

I guarantee you none of the Rays players who opted out hates anyone in the LGBT community. 

You can't make that guarantee in any way, shape, or form. Unless you personally know those players, and even then you can just be pretty sure about the people they are. You can argue that their stance doesn't equal hate, but you don't know if they hate anyone or not.

[nicksaviking]

6 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

I guarantee you none of the Rays players who opted out hates anyone in the LGBT community. 

That is not something you can guarantee.

And it doesn't matter; if a pro ballplayer is saying that your lifestyle is not OK, there's a bunch of other people believing that the implication is that it's OK to marginalize them.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

So it looks like MLB didn't enforce it's own policy. 

Correct. Which was a mistake in my opinion, and why I'm arguing that this is a slippery slope.

[chpettit19]

4 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Your 1st paragraph is super legit, What does the pride patch mean to the Rays (is it virtue signaling or a real openness), did they explain? The statement the players made seems to say they don't agree with the life style (which I think is a condescending thing to say) but love and care about them, kind of contradicting IMO.

Your second paragraph, I was just pointing out a person on the field was protesting the 2nd amendment and nobody seems to care. As for the Rays, they didn't have to let them play and MLB shouldn't have if they broke the rules, that seems simple.

Your 3rd paragraph, I understand freedom of religion and speech, it was pretty straightforward in the past, but now not so much with what companies are forced to do with muslims for example. To be clear I am not saying this is bad or good, just pointing out that companies and schools have been forced to change some stuff up.

 

The statement from the Rays seemed to suggest that they were showing that they were a welcoming place for all. The statement from Adam sounded awfully contradictory to me as well. It's why I think the Rays screwed this all up. Shouldn't have been in a position for this to become a story at all.

Yeah, I got ya. But many people cared over the last couple years when members of MLB teams protested during the anthem for other reasons. They felt the league should've made people stand, etc. I have no idea if the people who said that then are now saying these players should be allowed to refuse the patch or what. But previous protests have been met with great anger. And I agree, they shouldn't have let them play and MLB needs to do something now. The Rays forced the league into a corner and they need to make a stand on the jersey rules now. Again, just a silly situation for them to put themselves in, in my opinion.

Things have become so confusing because freedom of religion, speech, whatever has been wielded as a weapon when it fits people's agendas, and been shot down when it doesn't. I'm not making any sort of statement on the player's stances, but I agree with the idea that the Rays screwed this up mightily. This shouldn't be a story. And freedom of religion and speech shouldn't be so complicated, but both sides of our almighty political aisle have bent and broke it to fit their agendas and now here we are.

[rwilfong86]

30 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

That is not something you can guarantee.

And it doesn't matter; if a pro ballplayer is saying that your lifestyle is not OK, there's a bunch of other people believing that the implication is that it's OK to marginalize them.

As a fellow Christian, I would assume a guy who quotes the example of Jesus to explain his lack of participation in something that violates his religious convictions would also quote the example of Jesus when it comes to loving others. 

[In My La Z boy]

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The statement from the Rays seemed to suggest that they were showing that they were a welcoming place for all. The statement from Adam sounded awfully contradictory to me as well. It's why I think the Rays screwed this all up. Shouldn't have been in a position for this to become a story at all.

Yeah, I got ya. But many people cared over the last couple years when members of MLB teams protested during the anthem for other reasons. They felt the league should've made people stand, etc. I have no idea if the people who said that then are now saying these players should be allowed to refuse the patch or what. But previous protests have been met with great anger. And I agree, they shouldn't have let them play and MLB needs to do something now. The Rays forced the league into a corner and they need to make a stand on the jersey rules now. Again, just a silly situation for them to put themselves in, in my opinion.

Things have become so confusing because freedom of religion, speech, whatever has been wielded as a weapon when it fits people's agendas, and been shot down when it doesn't. I'm not making any sort of statement on the player's stances, but I agree with the idea that the Rays screwed this up mightily. This shouldn't be a story. And freedom of religion and speech shouldn't be so complicated, but both sides of our almighty political aisle have bent and broke it to fit their agendas and now here we are.

Things have become so confusing because big business has decided to take political positions, which drags their employees and customers into the issue of the day, whatever it may be. It isn't fair to shareholders, customers or employees. Play baseball. Leave the culture wars to the citizens to debate, to vote, to shop and to spend. Why big business has to align itself with the political and cultural battles of the day I'll never know. Michael Jordan refused to play this game. Both republicans and democrats buy my shoes. 

[rwilfong86]

39 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

You can't make that guarantee in any way, shape, or form. Unless you personally know those players, and even then you can just be pretty sure about the people they are. You can argue that their stance doesn't equal hate, but you don't know if they hate anyone or not.

I would assume a guy who quotes the example of Jesus to explain his lack of participation in something that violates his religious convictions would also be aware that the example of Jesus requires them to love people, even those they disagree with. That's probably the most basic thing about the Christian religion. 

[rwilfong86]

1 minute ago, In My La Z boy said:

Things have become so confusing because big business has decided to take political positions, which drags their employees and customers into the issue of the day, whatever it may be. It isn't fair to shareholders, customers or employees. Play baseball. Leave the culture wars to the citizens to debate, to vote, to shop and to spend. Why big business has to align itself with the political and cultural battles of the day I'll never know. Michael Jordan refused to play this game. Both republicans and democrats buy my shoes. 

I just hate it when companies take a stand that will divide people. I just wanna watch baseball!?

[Squirrel]

It’s really a pity to me that we can’t have an honest discussion on these issues and instead get the ‘what abouters’ doing their thing claiming some kind of constitutional freedom or religious right to object to people who have done nothing to you. There is a reason we have protections for people who are demeaned, threatened, and violated in countless ways. Shame on all of you for claiming a righteous path when Jesus’ message is about loving one another and not just people you think deserve it.

thread closed.