Marc Guehi

[Conjo]

45 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

Thing is, that's not what Guehi is doing. There is no evidence whatsoever he thinks the LGBTQ community are inferior. Clearly he's made his interpretation of the rainbow flag that might differ to others, but clearly other people have made their own interpretation of his intentions.

 

I get that, and said as much in my previous post.  

 

The question was more specifically to Segun when he wrote "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." as I was curious if he had the same opinion if the refusal was racially motivated.

[Dr Jinx]

Putting anyone's personal beliefs or full on bigotry aside, you cannot be a captain of a football club that's supposed to represent everyone in the community, rather than just some.

 

If Marc Guehi wants to carry on like that.. let him off, but give up the arm band. It's a wider responsibility, not a soap box for a personal statements.

 

I don't want to see this cunt linked with us again, anyone bringing that sort of negativity into a club and hiding behind religion can only be a bad thing and say what you want about some of our players limitations, but we have a squad of really good eggs overall.

[DiddyLevine]

6 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

Putting anyone's personal beliefs or full on bigotry aside, you cannot be a captain of a football club that's supposed to represent everyone in the community, rather than just some.

 

If Marc Guehi wants to carry on like that.. let him off, but give up the arm band. It's a wider responsibility, not a soap box for a personal statements.

 

I don't want to see this cunt linked with us again, anyone bringing that sort of negativity into a club and hiding behind religion can only be a bad thing and say what you want about some of our players limitations, but we have a squad of really good eggs overall.

How would anyone know what any of our players think on issues like this if they dont say one way or another ? For all anyone knows some of them may not agree with you . 

Bet theres a few that vote Tory 

[Memphis]

To refuse to wear a rainbow armband can only be interpreted as choosing to tell gay players and people at large that you do not think they should be included in sport. The message intended by the proliferation of the armbands is that gay people are to be included and discrimination against them is not to be tolerated. If you want to twist that message into something that then doesn't conform with your religious beliefs, you are intentionally obscuring the truth in order to allow your homophobia to persist.

 

Gambling is considered sinful by Guehi's church. Yet he endorses a bookmaker called NET88 with his shirt - a very shady operator without a UK presence and that has courted controversy in the past - and manages not to write 'I love Jesus' on it every game. Odd that he would find one "sin" too sinful to be seen as endorsing, but the other he seems to be fine with. It's almost as if there's more than a religious element to his statement.

 

And that's the point. Gay people exist. Gay athletes exist. They have been forced to compete in a world that harasses and bullies them at every turn. Players like Guehi would love to ignore that gay people exist. Would love to turn their backs and pretend that homophobia/bullying aren't a life-threatening problem for gay athletes. And allowing them to shame-facedly claim some religious exemption helps to normalize treating gay athletes and gay people differently. 

 

It's not enough to be non-homophobic. If you are a person with empathy, you've got to help fight against this kind of "soft" bigotry.

[BlueStar]

20 minutes ago, Pablo123 said:

Have a think about it

 

I have done, and that's why I have a problem with it. McClean's objection to the poppy is because, rightly or wrongly, he sees it as a glorification of the British Army and their actions including towards his fellow Northern Irish Catholics.  His clubs have provided him with a poppyless kit but if they didn't and he wore it with "I Love The Pope" written over the poppy, I think people would see it as a sign he was saying it was an anti-Catholic symbol, was wearing it under duress and wanted to stick two fingers up at it. Not just "Aw, he's expressing his faith". As people have pointed out,. Guehi could have written "I LoveJesus" on his shirt, on his socks, on a t-shirt underneath his shirt, but he wrote it over the pride armband.  As for "standing up for his beliefs" I think if he wanted to do that he should have said if the captain's armband has a pride flag on it, then I'll turn down the honour of being captain, and take whatever career implications go with it. I'm reminded of people claiming Djokovic was willing to sacrifice to stand up for his antivax beliefs. Not by refusing to compete in tournaments that mandated vaccines and accepting the loss of honours and prize money, oh no, but by having a dodgy Slovakian doctor forge a note claiming he'd recently had covid and was therefore exempt from the vaccination rules so he could compete anyway .

[Pablo123]

9 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

Putting anyone's personal beliefs or full on bigotry aside, you cannot be a captain of a football club that's supposed to represent everyone in the community, rather than just some.

 

If Marc Guehi wants to carry on like that.. let him off, but give up the arm band. It's a wider responsibility, not a soap box for a personal statements.

 

I don't want to see this cunt linked with us again, anyone bringing that sort of negativity into a club and hiding behind religion can only be a bad thing and say what you want about some of our players limitations, but we have a squad of really good eggs overall.

"This cunt" how fucking disrespectful. Bringing negativity because of his Christian beliefs in a supposed Christian country. You sound like a complete and utter wanker

[Pablo123]

4 minutes ago, BlueStar said:

 

I have done, and that's why I have a problem with it. McClean's objection to the poppy is because, rightly or wrongly, he sees it as a glorification of the British Army and their actions including towards his fellow Northern Irish Catholics.  His clubs have provided him with a poppyless kit but if they didn't and he wore it with "I Love The Pope" written over the poppy, I think people would see it as a sign he was saying it was an anti-Catholic symbol, was wearing it under duress and wanted to stick two fingers up at it. Not just "Aw, he's expressing his faith". As people have pointed out,. Guehi could have written "I LoveJesus" on his shirt, on his socks, on a t-shirt underneath his shirt, but he wrote it over the pride armband.  As for "standing up for his beliefs" I think if he wanted to do that he should have said if the captain's armband has a pride flag on it, then I'll turn down the honour of being captain, and take whatever career implications go with it. I'm reminded of people claiming Djokovic was willing to sacrifice to stand up for his antivax beliefs. Not by refusing to compete in tournaments that mandated vaccines and accepting the loss of honours and prize money, oh no, but by having a dodgy Slovakian doctor forge a note claiming he'd recently had covid and was therefore exempt from the vaccination rules so he could compete anyway .

Guehi can do whatever he wants. If people choose to get offended, then that's their problem. 

[DiddyLevine]

7 minutes ago, Memphis said:

To refuse to wear a rainbow armband can only be interpreted as choosing to tell gay players and people at large that you do not think they should be included in sport. The message intended by the proliferation of the armbands is that gay people are to be included and discrimination against them is not to be tolerated. If you want to twist that message into something that then doesn't conform with your religious beliefs, you are intentionally obscuring the truth in order to allow your homophobia to persist.

 

Gambling is considered sinful by Guehi's church. Yet he endorses a bookmaker called NET88 with his shirt - a very shady operator without a UK presence and that has courted controversy in the past - and manages not to write 'I love Jesus' on it every game. Odd that he would find one "sin" too sinful to be seen as endorsing, but the other he seems to be fine with. It's almost as if there's more than a religious element to his statement.

 

And that's the point. Gay people exist. Gay athletes exist. They have been forced to compete in a world that harasses and bullies them at every turn. Players like Guehi would love to ignore that gay people exist. Would love to turn their backs and pretend that homophobia/bullying aren't a life-threatening problem for gay athletes. And allowing them to shame-facedly claim some religious exemption helps to normalize treating gay athletes and gay people differently. 

 

It's not enough to be non-homophobic. If you are a person with empathy, you've got to help fight against this kind of "soft" bigotry.

I think you have to accept that Guehi is there to play football and not be an advertising hoarding for any number of causes . 

[Memphis]

3 minutes ago, DiddyLevine said:

I think you have to accept that Guehi is there to play football and not be an advertising hoarding for any number of causes . 

 

What?

 

Professional footballers are literally advertising hoardings. That is part of their job. The money they receive comes from sponsors, which they are contractually obligated to display. 

[Pablo123]

1 minute ago, Memphis said:

 

What?

 

Professional footballers are literally advertising hoardings. That is part of their job. The money they receive comes from sponsors, which they are contractually obligated to display. 

But they don't have to agree with what's the clubs are sponsoring. They're well within their rights to say no, unless it offends a minority they don't agree with 

[Wullie]

I don't want to see homophobic scum like Guehi linked with us ever again. 

 

In future we must ensure we spend Mohammed bin Salman's money more responsibly in line with our values.

[DiddyLevine]

3 minutes ago, Memphis said:

 

What?

 

Professional footballers are literally advertising hoardings. That is part of their job. The money they receive comes from sponsors, which they are contractually obligated to display. 

No their job is to play football . The capitalist end of things determines the modern games bowing the knee to commercialisation .

Im old enough to remember when shirts just had the clubs crest on them 

[Memphis]

Just now, Pablo123 said:

But they don't have to agree with what's the clubs are sponsoring. They're well within their rights to say no, unless it offends a minority they don't agree with 

 

Again - how would that affect him wearing the armband? 

 

Gambling is a sin according to his church. Guehi wears a bookmaker sponsor on his shirt. 

 

Homosexuality is a sin according to his church, Guehi wears a rainbow armband BUT writes "I love Jesus" on it. 

 

Now why would he choose to do that on one but not the other?

[DiddyLevine]

1 minute ago, Wullie said:

I don't want to see homophobic scum like Guehi linked with us ever again. 

 

In future we must ensure we spend Mohammed bin Salman's money more responsibly in line with our values.

😎

[DiddyLevine]

Just now, Memphis said:

 

Again - how would that affect him wearing the armband? 

 

Gambling is a sin according to his church. Guehi wears a bookmaker sponsor on his shirt. 

 

Homosexuality is a sin according to his church, Guehi wears a rainbow armband BUT writes "I love Jesus" on it. 

 

Now why would he choose to do that on one but not the other?

I have a friend who was a vicar and is now a social worker who has been gay since before he was a vicar and he would have no problem saying he loves Jesus 

[Memphis]

2 minutes ago, DiddyLevine said:

I have a friend who was a vicar and is now a social worker who has been gay since before he was a vicar and he would have no problem saying he loves Jesus 

 

You are choosing to miss the point, it would appear.

[DiddyLevine]

Just now, Memphis said:

 

You are choosing to miss the point, it would appear.

Nope . He'd happily wear Guehis armband and support Guehis right to do so 

[JEToon]

the internet is great sometimes. 

[Pablo123]

6 minutes ago, Memphis said:

 

Again - how would that affect him wearing the armband? 

 

Gambling is a sin according to his church. Guehi wears a bookmaker sponsor on his shirt. 

 

Homosexuality is a sin according to his church, Guehi wears a rainbow armband BUT writes "I love Jesus" on it. 

 

Now why would he choose to do that on one but not the other?

You'd have to ask him. He wore something which he clearly doesn't agree with because of his beliefs. Maybe ask him, or understand that people have different beliefs

[Memphis]

1 minute ago, Pablo123 said:

You'd have to ask him. He wore something which he clearly doesn't agree with because of his beliefs. Maybe ask him, or understand that people have different beliefs

 

Here are you referring to his own hypocrisy?

 

I can't take someone seriously claiming to be a serious zealot who cannot compromise their beliefs when that same person has endorsed other sinful behavior without incident for years. That then removes the idea of strictly "religious opposition" allowing you to write 'I love Jesus' on the armband - knowing full well why you're choosing to call attention to your unwillingness to just wear the armband as is.

 

Either you are a devout Christian who cannot countenance wearing anything that would endorse sinful behavior, or you are a hypocrite and a homophobe because you're OK with gambling but somehow not OK with endorsing the idea that gay people should be allowed to play sport without being bullied or threatened.

[Hanshithispantz]

After reading @Memphisposts I wouldn't wear the armband either 

 

Fuck this noise

[DiddyLevine]

3 minutes ago, Memphis said:

 

Here are you referring to his own hypocrisy?

 

I can't take someone seriously claiming to be a serious zealot who cannot compromise their beliefs when that same person has endorsed other sinful behavior without incident for years. That then removes the idea of strictly "religious opposition" allowing you to write 'I love Jesus' on the armband - knowing full well why you're choosing to call attention to your unwillingness to just wear the armband as is.

 

Either you are a devout Christian who cannot countenance wearing anything that would endorse sinful behavior, or you are a hypocrite and a homophobe because you're OK with gambling but somehow not OK with endorsing the idea that gay people should be allowed to play sport without being bullied or threatened.

Not all christians are zealots . Not all are Bible literalists . 

The bible like any other screed can be selectively quoted to represent any number of views including ones that are pro or anti gay .

Maybe dont judge christians as a monolithic bloc 

[Chris_R]

4 hours ago, DiddyLevine said:

So we should police what people think ? 

How would you do that ? 

 

4 hours ago, Pablo123 said:

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

 

Well, yes. If he believes an entirely fictitious magic sky man from an ancient fairytale has told him to deny actual, real human beings their fundamental rights then yes, he can and absolutely should be judged on this.

 

In my opinion it reflects poorly on him as a human being on several levels, and whilst he's free to have his opinions, I'm equally free to judge him on them.

 

In return, of course you're all free to judge me on that.

 

Edit: I've just read he didn't refuse to wear the armband, just wrote something secular on it. So maybe he doesn't want to deny anyone any rights at all, I don't know. But my point stands that everyone has the right to judge the actions of everyone else, that's the consequence of using your right to free speech to say it do something negative.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 17:04 by Chris_R

[DiddyLevine]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

 

 

Well, yes. If he believes an entirely fictitious magic sky man from an ancient fairytale has told him to deny actual, real human beings their fundamental rights then yes, he can and absolutely should be judged on this.

 

In my opinion it reflects poorly on him as a human being on several levels, and whilst he's free to have his opinions, I'm equally free to judge him on them.

 

In return, of course you're all free to judge me on that.

Judge not lest ye be judged 😎

[mouldy_uk]

13 minutes ago, JEToon said:

the internet is great sometimes. 

This is all a bit serious for this forum, back to Gregg Wallace memes for me