Marc Guehi

[Slim]

Also using something that's not even real to justify does not make it ok.

[Erikse]

3 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

"People feel they need to have strong opinions"

 

Being gay is not about opinions. It's a fact gay people like myself exist. There is no debate, no opinions.

 

I misread it as you were saying that it's not an issue.

 

You know that it's possible to not want to wear the armband and still not be against gay people? I'm talking about the Ipswich player for instance.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:29 by Erikse

[Smal]

1 hour ago, loki679 said:

You can't be forcing people to promote a viewpoint they don't agree with.

 

supporting LGBTQ is about supporting basic human rights though. It’s not really a viewpoint, opinion or political matter.

 

The clubs should’ve just made someone else captain that day if players refused to wear it or, arguably worse, wanted to deface it.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:30 by Smal

[Tiresias]

It's a difficult minefield, if we force people to wear it what kind of show of support is that? If we don't probably see so few would undermine rather than help. It does stick in the craw that people will promote whatever hideous gambling stuff but object to this. Equally it is absolutely the arena that needs to be visible. I'm not sure if anything good comes from singling people out too much for not showing it, especially when it is ambiguous. Guehi may have meant no offence, I do not mind him saying he loves jesus it just feels obviously somewhat pointed. I'd rather that we just did more education, more actual outreach rather than just sticking the rainbow on and calling that everything and then calling outrage when a few don't. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:31 by Tiresias

[Skeletor]

Just now, Erikse said:

 

I thought you were saying that it's not an issue.

 

You know that it's possible to not want to wear the armband and still not be against gay people? I'm talking about the Ipswich player for instance.

 

That doesn't even make any sense. Not wearing it and citing religious beliefs is a message you don't support gay people.

[Erikse]

1 hour ago, Skeletor said:

 

That doesn't even make any sense. Not wearing it and citing religious beliefs is a message you don't support gay people.

 

And this reads "you either love it or you hate it", as I said.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 14:21 by Erikse

[DiddyLevine]

No one should be forced to agree with something they dont agree with 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:37 by DiddyLevine
sp

[andyc35i]

Someone with beliefs like that isn’t a person I want representing our team. I get there’s a religious element he’s getting at, but you just don’t make a statement like that as it’s irrelevant to the campaign and not about a ‘belief’ - it’s a human right to live the way you want to and not have fear for your sexuality

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:36 by andyc35i

[DiddyLevine]

People religious beliefs , as barmy as they might sound to the rest of us ought to be respected . Doesnt mean we have to agree with them . We can agree to disagree

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, loki679 said:

You can't be forcing people to promote a viewpoint they don't agree with.

This sounds great and I agree with it principle. But how about things which are as basic as this.

 

If someone opted out of an anti racism campaign because they thought black people were inferior, I don’t think we’d just be saying “fair enough, it’s personal belief”. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

3 minutes ago, DiddyLevine said:

People religious beliefs , as barmy as they might sound to the rest of us ought to be respected . Doesnt mean we have to agree with them . We can agree to disagree

Not as simple as that though. People’s freedom to practice their religion is to be respected, but when it comes into the public sphere it becomes a lot more complicated. 

[Chris_R]

10 minutes ago, DiddyLevine said:

No one should be forced to agree with something they dont agree with 

 

 

 

Absolutely. 

 

But they should be judged on that stance. 

 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

[DiddyLevine]

Just now, Chris_R said:

Absolutely. 

 

But they should be judged on that stance. 

 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

There should be consequences for disagreeing on something ? 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Maybe the best option would’ve been that he had to step down from captaincy if he felt he couldn’t wear the armband. 
 

FWIW I respect religion immensely but it’s a lot more difficult when they have a belief like this which is in conflict with basic human life. I’m not sure how you can respect that bit so much. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:47 by AyeDubbleYoo

[DiddyLevine]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I’m completely for freedom of religion but there must be a point where you say, “it’s not OK to think gay people are inferior” etc. 

 

 

 

So we should police what people think ? 

How would you do that ? 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, DiddyLevine said:

So we should police what people think ? 

How would you do that ? 

You obviously can’t police what people think, not really sure what you’re asking. You can have standards for what people say or do. 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

25 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

Being gay is not an opinion issue. We exist.

I do not understand this statement; many groups of people exist. One can acknowledge they exist without wearing the group's paraphernalia at their place of employment. Refusal to do so does not make them hateful or evil, no matter how much certain people will protest. Frankly, trying to frame the issue as ”not political" is just a rhetorical attempt to limit discussion and push back. The statement is inherently political, to the point that there are actual policy debates around it to this day.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:49 by Segun Oluwaniyi

[DiddyLevine]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Maybe the best option would’ve been that he had to step down from captaincy if he felt he couldn’t wear the armband. 
 

FWIW I respect religion immensely but it’s a lot more difficult when they have a belief like this which is in conflict with basic human life. I’m not sure how you can respect that bit so much. 

 

 

 

Its respecting their right to disagree with the rest of us . Its not agreeing with them . We are free to criticise their opinion . Its the very definition of free speech

[Pablo123]

4 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Absolutely. 

 

But they should be judged on that stance. 

 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

So there should be consequences for him having Christian beliefs and loving Jesus?

[Skeletor]

Just now, Segun Oluwaniyi said:

I do not understand this statement; many groups of people exist. One can acknowledge they exist without wearing the group's paraphernalia at their place of employment. Frankly, trying to frame the issue as ”not political" is just a rhetorical attempt to limit discussion and push back. The statement is inherently political, to the point that there are actual policy debates around it to this day.

 

Its not political. We are real people with real lives who just want to be left alone by people who think religious beliefs gives them the right to discriminate or disinclude us from society.

[DiddyLevine]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

You obviously can’t police what people think, not really sure what you’re asking. You can have standards for what people say or do. 

Ok so how does society set those standards ? 

What happens if someone fails those standards ? 

[KennyUtd]

I just don't understand what he was trying to achieve here. I very much doubt he'd refuse to play in a side that had an openly gay player. Wouldn't he have been better just not wearing the armband rather than defacing it. He's perfectly entitled to his beliefs and I'm sure they're very important to him. But just get on with it and be respectful. Everyone is allowed to not agree with something but when it an issue like this just say nowt. 

[DiddyLevine]

Just now, Skeletor said:

 

Its not political. We are real people with real lives who just want to be left alone by people who think religious beliefs gives them the right to discriminate or disinclude us from society.

Theres plenty of gay christians 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, DiddyLevine said:

Its respecting their right to disagree with the rest of us . Its not agreeing with them . We are free to criticise their opinion . Its the very definition of free speech

I respect their right to different beliefs but I can’t accept that extends to accepting that people are fundamentally inferior because of things like sexuality. Do we just say to racists that their believes are equally valid? 

[Skeletor]

Just now, DiddyLevine said:

Theres plenty of gay christians 

 

There is nothing wrong with being religious. There's nothing wrong with being gay. There's nothing wrong with being religious and gay. There is something wrong about being religious and using that to discriminate against gay people.