Marc Guehi

[Tiresias]

6 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

I don't think I'll win many friends saying this, but I do think it also includes no racism messaging either. I think it's a societal issue, but one we should definitely punish, vilify and not tolerate along with any kind of hate speech and there should be appropriate bans and action taken to enforce it. I'm just not sure personally how well received the messaging will be by the people we're effectively wanting to educate or change for the better. I'm not sure it's going to have the effect people with the best of intentions think it will. Intolerance is the enemy in my view. One club, one family.

 

It doesnt happen overnight and I don't think it upsetting people is a good argument. It's never more obvious who the real 'snowflakes' are when people get really upset they may see a rainbow and be somehow mortally offended

[Ellis H]

29 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

I’m actually half interested in this TBH. More so than the actual main discussion.  
 

Perhaps because Guehi is an England international and higher profile? As surely if you take issue with what Guehi has done. Then refusing to wear it is ‘worse’ in this instance?

 

It would be nice to know why one might face an FA charge and the other is seemingly fine to say ‘sod off, I’m not wearing it.’ 
 

I don’t actually care, either way. But if no explanation is given. Then it won’t be long until the EDL/Tommy Robinson types will be saying that it’s anti-Christian and the media don’t dare speak out against Islam. I’m sure they’ve already arrived at that conclusion, TBH. 

Players don’t actually have to wear them. The FA went after Guehi because he broke some form of messaging rule. 

Seems like he’s got something else written on tonight and the Ipswich captain has again opted out.

 

[BlueStar]

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

In fairness he does put a good cross in, particularly from the right hand side, still not utterly convinced hes got the height we need for a commandant CB but he might still grow a bit as still young.

Not worth the £70M though 

[HawK]

13 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

 

It doesnt happen overnight and I don't think it upsetting people is a good argument. It's never more obvious who the real 'snowflakes' are when people get really upset they may see a rainbow and be somehow mortally offended

Not really sure I said anything to that effect really. It's ok to have different viewpoints without making strawman arguments.

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

6 minutes ago, BlueStar said:

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

6 minutes ago, BlueStar said:

 

 

[Displayname]

[Ronaldo]

No issue with Guehi doing that. The Ipswich captain should at least explain himself though. Religious beliefs against rainbows?

[St. Maximin]

1 hour ago, Memphis said:

 

Here's the thing. All of your discussion is proving my point - the original meaning of the armband is being twisted for people's religious purposes. There's really not much room for interpretation seeing as how the message was clearly outlined from the start of the campaign.

 

This is the message that the armband was designed to convey, straight from the people who started it: Wearing it shows that your club is a safe place where everyone can be themselves and that you actively support LGBTQ+ inclusion. 

 

It's not an endorsement of homosexuality. It's not a value judgement on lifestyles different than the societal norm. It's simply a way to outwardly say, "Hey, if you're gay, we're fine with you playing alongside us. We're fine with being your teammate." That's all.

 

And if people can't do that, it says a lot about them.

I think you’ve proven my point mate, that stuff gets interpreted differently, regardless of whether it’s correct. He may have (wrongly) assigned a different meaning to it and you’ve made assumptions about his attitudes as a result, despite there being zero evidence. 
 

He never said he had an issue with those things and he’s still worn the armband, so for all we know he supports the cause but is also cautious about how the rainbow flag can be used politically against Christians. And as a Christian in a Christian family and community it’s not hard to see why he might feel conflicted, rightly or wrongly. People don’t care about that part though. 
 

If we’re going to bring in official meanings for things, well that brings us back to the poppy argument. ‘The left’ are very quick to stick it to ‘the gammons’ for saying McLean is an IRA supporter by acknowledging his own personal reasons, but there’s nothing in the poppy message about supporting the killings on his estate. 
 

Anyway, as has been suggested already, whether people choose to participate in a certain gesture doesn’t mean they really care about it (or even know what the meaning is). The behaviour of a player towards a community says a lot more. 
 

It’s like people are looking for issues and want to think the worst of people. 

[Ellis H]

He’s got “Jesus loves you” on it tonight. Regardless of what he’s writing it’s extremely thick to do it again after getting a warning. Him getting banned over it will be a massive can of worms.

[Ronaldo]

Respect him for doing it. As others have said, he’s wearing it at least.

[STM]

17 minutes ago, Ellis H said:

He’s got “Jesus loves you” on it tonight. Regardless of what he’s writing it’s extremely thick to do it again after getting a warning. Him getting banned over it will be a massive can of worms.

 

Imagine the can of worms had he wrote "I love Mohammed". There'd be more gammon on the pitch than that time Luis Figo swapped Barca for Real.

[SAK]

3 minutes ago, Ronaldo said:

No issue with Guehi doing that. The Ipswich captain should at least explain himself though. Religious beliefs against rainbows?

Why does he need to explain himself? Religion is an article 9 freedom under ECHR and written into UK law. Rights cut both ways and it bothers me when one group tries to shut down the rights of another.
 

Not wanting to endorse something doesn’t equate to him wanting harm upon that group. 

 

I read the argument here that gay people exist and religion is just opinion. We know gay people exist so why the need to wear an armband to acknowledge they exist and does not wearing an armband make them less of a reality? It makes no material difference in my opinion. 

[andyc35i]

2 hours ago, Elliottman said:

So he has to be forced to wear an armband supporting something he doesn’t believe but he’s not allowed to share his own beliefs in return?

 

Massively hypocritical no? 

I don’t agree with the logic here.

 

Firstly, he’s not being forced and could just refuse to wear the armband rather than write a message that will deliberately fuel a fire and start debates just like this.
 

Secondly, what is it that he doesn’t believe in - that people can’t live their lives freely… It’s all well and good to have personal views about a subject and maybe that’s been grounded in religious teachings, but this campaign is about supporting inclusion and equality in society and the removal of persecution of the LGBQT+ community. Surely that’s the society we all want to live in no matter what scripture says.

 

Oh and someone mentioned our ownership, I get there’s some hypocrisy there and I accept it. But it’s not like the owners are spouting views related to the LGBTQ+ community with our players then used to promote this agenda. 

[Ronaldo]

5 minutes ago, SAK said:

Why does he need to explain himself? Religion is an article 9 freedom under ECHR and written into UK law. Rights cut both ways and it bothers me when one group tries to shut down the rights of another.
 

Not wanting to endorse something doesn’t equate to him wanting harm upon that group. 

 

I read the argument here that gay people exist and religion is just opinion. We know gay people exist so why the need to wear an armband to acknowledge they exist and does not wearing an armband make them less of a reality? It makes no material difference in my opinion. 

Religion doesn’t negate a captain’s ambassadorship of a club / town does it? What point is he trying to make? As has been said, it’s just a message of inclusivity. Would he have an issue sharing a dressing room with a gay footballer? That’s the message he’s sending without explaining himself.

[Groundhog63]

Psalm 34:15

 

"Thou shalt wear hand coverings when running around in November"

[Amir_9]

Relgious people keen to let you know about their beliefs and shove it down you just as much as the "woke brigade" on the other hand - nothing new.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 21:23 by Amir_9

[DiddyLevine]

2 hours ago, Memphis said:

 

Here's the thing. All of your discussion is proving my point - the original meaning of the armband is being twisted for people's religious purposes. There's really not much room for interpretation seeing as how the message was clearly outlined from the start of the campaign.

 

This is the message that the armband was designed to convey, straight from the people who started it: Wearing it shows that your club is a safe place where everyone can be themselves and that you actively support LGBTQ+ inclusion. 

 

It's not an endorsement of homosexuality. It's not a value judgement on lifestyles different than the societal norm. It's simply a way to outwardly say, "Hey, if you're gay, we're fine with you playing alongside us. We're fine with being your teammate." That's all.

 

And if people can't do that, it says a lot about them.

Ffs he wore the armband

[SAK]

@Ronaldo Legally speaking it does (I’m not speaking about morals). He obviously feels he doesn’t have to and his club have accepted that (don’t think they have much choice due to the mentioned laws).  
 

Not being flippant but he signed a football contract not a contract to be a LBGTQ ambassador so I think the criticism is unfair. If he’d signed up on the basis he must wear the armband and refuses, fine call him out and sack him but it appears it’s not a contractual part of his role.

 

 

[David Edgar]

11 hours ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why don't we just... shut off the lights.

 

Body of Christ
Sleek swimmer's body, all muscled up and toned
Body of Christ
Oh what a body, I wish I could call it my own
Lord almighty, I've never been so enticed
Oh I wish I could have the body of Christ
Body of Christ
Body of Christ
Body of Christ
Lord almighty, I've never been so enticed
Oh I wish I could have the body of Christ

[janpawel]

🍿

[Weezertron]

This conversation came up on Reddit the other day. More so about the Ipswich captain. Christ the comments were gross, and that’s on a left leaning platform. I can’t imagine what the average football fan thinks. 

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

Seem to remember that religious messages are banned in football.

 

I do think that the player should have the right to refuse to wear the rainbow armband, which would make a lot more sense than scrawling on an armband.  And I have the right to think he’s a bigoted cunt, hiding behind the figure of someone who may not existed and of whom it can be said that if they did exist they said the sum total of sweet fuck all about homosexuality.  
 

58 minutes ago, SAK said:

Why does he need to explain himself? Religion is an article 9 freedom under ECHR and written into UK law. Rights cut both ways and it bothers me when one group tries to shut down the rights of another.
 

Not wanting to endorse something doesn’t equate to him wanting harm upon that group. 

 

I read the argument here that gay people exist and religion is just opinion. We know gay people exist so why the need to wear an armband to acknowledge they exist and does not wearing an armband make them less of a reality? It makes no material difference in my opinion. 

No-one is arguing against his freedom of religion.  That doesn’t give you the right to proselytise in the workplace, though.  His rights to do what he chooses in his free time are not impacted.  

[madras]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Seem to remember that religious messages are banned in football.

 

I do think that the player should have the right to refuse to wear the rainbow armband, which would make a lot more sense than scrawling on an armband.  And I have the right to think he’s a bigoted cunt, hiding behind the figure of someone who may not existed and of whom it can be said that if they did exist they said the sum total of sweet fuck all about homosexuality.  
 

No-one is arguing against his freedom of religion.  That doesn’t give you the right to proselytise in the workplace, though.  His rights to do what he chooses in his free time are not impacted.  

Would that include crossing himself, offering up a prayer or the many other religous motions many players do on the pitch?

 

Us atheists really need to up our game and come up with a "your imaginary God had nowt to do with it" gesture.