Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? " Refusing to wear it and covering it are two different things. Refuse to wear it and not play - fine. I may think less of you, but that’s your right. You probably don’t care about public opinion, and that’s also fine. Covering it and playing is likely a breach of a policy or agreement, and is an overt, visible display. Accept your punishment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The refuseniks in this case probably reflect the vast majority of (certainly male) opinion across the world outside of Europe and the majority white Anglosphere. And certainly the vast majority of opinion in Muslim countries. " Only one refused, and was not punished. 2 covered the emblem and were. I’d say that’s a fair response to two different approaches to the matter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If your employment conditions are clear and you do not comply, then you will be in breach of your terms and subject to sanctions. They are not being made by have gay sex but to promote a corporate policy. They might need to review their choices " Why does a football team believe they that anyone cares what they think about homosexuality, or indeed anything else aside from winning football matches? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If your employment conditions are clear and you do not comply, then you will be in breach of your terms and subject to sanctions. They are not being made by have gay sex but to promote a corporate policy. They might need to review their choices " and what if they have met there conditions but still forced to do something they don't want to is that fair most clubs really don't care either way but they are forced by the fa do it or be sanctioned it's all a gimmick | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? " I see why you would be punished for covering a logo on your shirt. I don’t see someone refusing to play as worthy of punishment but I do think it’s telling that they’d rather not play than support the community. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me they are being forced to support a cause they do not want to support and are being punished for their beliefs. If an employer said we are putting a swastika on our uniforms for one day only should everyone just comply? " They could have refused to wear it, accepted that means not playing, and not received any punishment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. " It echos the free speech debates, some only accept free speech if the subject is something they agree with, if it isn't then it is offensive and should not be considered free speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? " 2 players defaced their uniform and received a punishment 1 refused to wear the uniform and voted with his feet, he recieved no punishment It’s so much simpler when we list the facts. I might not agree with the players motives, but I fail to see how the club did anything wrong It’s no different from refusing to wear a poppy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. " Oh the Venn diagram of those who hate James McClean for not wearing a poppy whilst also loving those guys for covering an LGBTQ logo is definitely just a a circle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. " From what I see James McClean made his stance clear, he was provided a uniform without the poppy and allowed to play. He did not deface the uniform he was required to wear 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you’re in the workplace, and they have an event supporting a cause which you don’t agree with, would you: A) tell your boss that you don’t agree with it, so respectfully won’t get involved. Maybe work on another location or work from home etc.. Or B) go to the location of the event, make a big song and dance about it and tell everyone that you don’t agree? The player who didn’t get punished chose option a. Those who did, chose option b." thing been it's not the club that pushing this it's the football association | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. It echos the free speech debates, some only accept free speech if the subject is something they agree with, if it isn't then it is offensive and should not be considered free speech. " exactly this.it should be voluntary as I've said before push your agenda it pushes people further away from said course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you’re in the workplace, and they have an event supporting a cause which you don’t agree with, would you: A) tell your boss that you don’t agree with it, so respectfully won’t get involved. Maybe work on another location or work from home etc.. Or B) go to the location of the event, make a big song and dance about it and tell everyone that you don’t agree? The player who didn’t get punished chose option a. Those who did, chose option b." You make a very good point. I think the deciding factor is am I gonna loose money. I go to work to feed my family and put a roof over our heads, not to support my bosses political views, regardless of what they are. I think the footballers will be paid either way, but if I choose to take a day off because it’s “protest day” at work and I don’t want to protest, I should be paid still. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you’re in the workplace, and they have an event supporting a cause which you don’t agree with, would you: A) tell your boss that you don’t agree with it, so respectfully won’t get involved. Maybe work on another location or work from home etc.. Or B) go to the location of the event, make a big song and dance about it and tell everyone that you don’t agree? The player who didn’t get punished chose option a. Those who did, chose option b. You make a very good point. I think the deciding factor is am I gonna loose money. I go to work to feed my family and put a roof over our heads, not to support my bosses political views, regardless of what they are. I think the footballers will be paid either way, but if I choose to take a day off because it’s “protest day” at work and I don’t want to protest, I should be paid still. " Many jobs I think would be allowing people who don't agree to show up as normal and just do their job without engaging in it. I know I skip out on most of my workplace's celebrations and drives for this or activity for whatever's, and just crack on as normal in my quiet office with headphones on. It's never been an issue and when people ask I just tell them I had work to do. Unless it's something that I actually align with, which is real rare with my rather conservative company. I don't have a customer facing role or any public view though. If a significant part of my job role was to be in the public eye representing the company and what they stand for, I'd probably have had to find another job long ago 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? " None of them should be punished. Freedom of speech means more than just having the freedom to say the "right" things. They haven't done anything inflammatory, they're being paid to be professional athletes not political campaigners. If they don't want to display a badge/logo/poppy etc they shouldn't be punished for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. Oh the Venn diagram of those who hate James McClean for not wearing a poppy whilst also loving those guys for covering an LGBTQ logo is definitely just a a circle." James McCleans case is different. He is quite vocal about his support for Nationalism in Derry. It's how he grew up, Brits Out, United Ireland etc. Yet he chooses to ply his trade and pocket the dollar, within the very country that his views are based upon. He is seen as a bit two faced, if your views are that strong regarding a particular country and its history, the last thing most people would do is up sticks and go move there, because the wages are higher. As an analogy, its the equivalent of Sam Morsey or Marc Guehi (who refused to wear Rainbow Armbands 6 months ago) taking up a job organising Pride Festivals once they finish kicking a football. Most people have beliefs and are happy to stand by their convictions, McClean didn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? None of them should be punished. Freedom of speech means more than just having the freedom to say the "right" things. They haven't done anything inflammatory, they're being paid to be professional athletes not political campaigners. If they don't want to display a badge/logo/poppy etc they shouldn't be punished for it." Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? None of them should be punished. Freedom of speech means more than just having the freedom to say the "right" things. They haven't done anything inflammatory, they're being paid to be professional athletes not political campaigners. If they don't want to display a badge/logo/poppy etc they shouldn't be punished for it. Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. " How so? The problem today is that people are too obsessed with appearances and virtue signalling- mob mentality now dictates that unless you take the knee (for BLM) or wear a badge you are automatically painted as a bigot. The players decision not to participate should not be taken as an anti LGBTQ stance and hence punishment is unnecessary and unwarranted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. How so? The problem today is that people are too obsessed with appearances and virtue signalling- mob mentality now dictates that unless you take the knee (for BLM) or wear a badge you are automatically painted as a bigot. The players decision not to participate should not be taken as an anti LGBTQ stance and hence punishment is unnecessary and unwarranted. " Defacing a uniform provided for a job is not acceptable anywhere. You can ask for accomodations and if they won't provide an acceptable alternative then you can deal with it or sue. But altering the uniforms without consent isn't an acceptable alternative 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two footballers in France have received a two match ban for covering an LGBT+ logo with tape. Both on seemingly religious grounds. One is Greek Orthodox the other is Muslim. Another player, also Muslim, who refused to play in a shirt with this logo has received no punishment. Your thoughts? None of them should be punished. Freedom of speech means more than just having the freedom to say the "right" things. They haven't done anything inflammatory, they're being paid to be professional athletes not political campaigners. If they don't want to display a badge/logo/poppy etc they shouldn't be punished for it. Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. How so? The problem today is that people are too obsessed with appearances and virtue signalling- mob mentality now dictates that unless you take the knee (for BLM) or wear a badge you are automatically painted as a bigot. The players decision not to participate should not be taken as an anti LGBTQ stance and hence punishment is unnecessary and unwarranted. " The player who chose not to wear the shirt (and therefor didn’t play) wasn’t punished. That’s the correct decision. Those who made a display of covering it up, are making a public statement about their views on LGBTQ+ (a protected characteristic). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. Oh the Venn diagram of those who hate James McClean for not wearing a poppy whilst also loving those guys for covering an LGBTQ logo is definitely just a a circle. James McCleans case is different. He is quite vocal about his support for Nationalism in Derry. It's how he grew up, Brits Out, United Ireland etc. Yet he chooses to ply his trade and pocket the dollar, within the very country that his views are based upon. He is seen as a bit two faced, if your views are that strong regarding a particular country and its history, the last thing most people would do is up sticks and go move there, because the wages are higher. As an analogy, its the equivalent of Sam Morsey or Marc Guehi (who refused to wear Rainbow Armbands 6 months ago) taking up a job organising Pride Festivals once they finish kicking a football. Most people have beliefs and are happy to stand by their convictions, McClean didn't." You do know that they have sterling in Derry and England? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. Oh the Venn diagram of those who hate James McClean for not wearing a poppy whilst also loving those guys for covering an LGBTQ logo is definitely just a a circle. James McCleans case is different. He is quite vocal about his support for Nationalism in Derry. It's how he grew up, Brits Out, United Ireland etc. Yet he chooses to ply his trade and pocket the dollar, within the very country that his views are based upon. He is seen as a bit two faced, if your views are that strong regarding a particular country and its history, the last thing most people would do is up sticks and go move there, because the wages are higher. As an analogy, its the equivalent of Sam Morsey or Marc Guehi (who refused to wear Rainbow Armbands 6 months ago) taking up a job organising Pride Festivals once they finish kicking a football. Most people have beliefs and are happy to stand by their convictions, McClean didn't. You do know that they have sterling in Derry and England?" I think the point of the poster is that he could avoid playing in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but instead wants to earn his crust in the UK while exercising his anti Brit credentials. I think that the post implied by default that he could play elsewhere if his principles were not trumped by his income. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think the point of the poster is that he could avoid playing in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but instead wants to earn his crust in the UK while exercising his anti Brit credentials. I think that the post implied by default that he could play elsewhere if his principles were not trumped by his income." McLean did it the right way. He made his view clearly and respectfully and wore a shirt without the poppy. He didn’t cover it up with gaffer tape and take to the field in some kind of display of protest. Had he done so I expect he’d have been fined or received a suspension. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. How so? The problem today is that people are too obsessed with appearances and virtue signalling- mob mentality now dictates that unless you take the knee (for BLM) or wear a badge you are automatically painted as a bigot. The players decision not to participate should not be taken as an anti LGBTQ stance and hence punishment is unnecessary and unwarranted. Defacing a uniform provided for a job is not acceptable anywhere. You can ask for accomodations and if they won't provide an acceptable alternative then you can deal with it or sue. But altering the uniforms without consent isn't an acceptable alternative 💜" Yes indeed - the correct thing to do would be ask not to participate ,maybe they did ask to wear their regular shirt? If this was refused then I don't see a problem with covering up the logo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What would happen if a pro Christian group or a group focussing of fighting Antisemitism has secured the sponsorship? I think that when you force people to wear logos that are linked to values and beliefs, that is deeply unfair. What if I chose to start putting up pro-Israeli posters on the office notice board or Pro-Palestine posters, is that acceptable or sensitive to employees… which is what those players are. I want to support my gay and lesbian friends but I also don’t want to force messages that may contradict anyone’s values and beliefs. What would have happened if the two who had religious objections replaced the logo with “pray the gay away” … they may be praying for the souls of their LGBT community, why is that done with any less care or concern… Sport should stay away for these topics. I am also against the sports-washing and attempted legitimisation of the Saudi government too. The sad thing is money matters more than a true passion for the game." What about your bi, trans and non binary friends? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. How so? The problem today is that people are too obsessed with appearances and virtue signalling- mob mentality now dictates that unless you take the knee (for BLM) or wear a badge you are automatically painted as a bigot. The players decision not to participate should not be taken as an anti LGBTQ stance and hence punishment is unnecessary and unwarranted. Defacing a uniform provided for a job is not acceptable anywhere. You can ask for accomodations and if they won't provide an acceptable alternative then you can deal with it or sue. But altering the uniforms without consent isn't an acceptable alternative 💜 Yes indeed - the correct thing to do would be ask not to participate ,maybe they did ask to wear their regular shirt? If this was refused then I don't see a problem with covering up the logo. " It's still defacing the uniform. In a public facing role where you're expected to be an ambassador for the company there are conditions to that. If the company does not consider the requested accomodations reasonable then you cannot act as their ambassador while blatantly not upholding the company standpoint. If you don't want to be a part of that, take a job that isn't public facing and doesn't have such requirements 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covering it up is not the same as not displaying it. How so? The problem today is that people are too obsessed with appearances and virtue signalling- mob mentality now dictates that unless you take the knee (for BLM) or wear a badge you are automatically painted as a bigot. The players decision not to participate should not be taken as an anti LGBTQ stance and hence punishment is unnecessary and unwarranted. Defacing a uniform provided for a job is not acceptable anywhere. You can ask for accomodations and if they won't provide an acceptable alternative then you can deal with it or sue. But altering the uniforms without consent isn't an acceptable alternative 💜 Yes indeed - the correct thing to do would be ask not to participate ,maybe they did ask to wear their regular shirt? If this was refused then I don't see a problem with covering up the logo. It's still defacing the uniform. In a public facing role where you're expected to be an ambassador for the company there are conditions to that. If the company does not consider the requested accomodations reasonable then you cannot act as their ambassador while blatantly not upholding the company standpoint. If you don't want to be a part of that, take a job that isn't public facing and doesn't have such requirements 💜" How do you feel when you go into Greggs and the staff have their Greggs provided shirt hanging out? It isn’t a very good advertisement for the company. Would you advocate their dismissal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How do you feel when you go into Greggs and the staff have their Greggs provided shirt hanging out? It isn’t a very good advertisement for the company. Would you advocate their dismissal?" Choosing not to confirm to uniform standards at a minimum wage job at a chain with thousands of employees is likely to be overlooked by the people paid an extra 15p an hour who are supposed to manage them in the tiny local area they service. Being one of eleven(? or however many are on a team) that represent the brand on a global stage for however many thousand per appearance are held to a higher standard for some reason 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Religion is an excuse, especially when their religious leaders could be gay or partaken in gay activities. All a bit hypocritical. When they don't like be discriminated themselves. What if they weren't allowed to play just for being religious, or growing a beard or wearing a jockstrap on their heads while playing. Seems more like homophonic not religious belief. However if they genuinely dislike wearing it they should stick to their guns and take the flak. " Quick question from your post. Is being against homosexuality on religious grounds not being homophobic? Is there a difference? Do some religions get a free pass? I’m genuinely curious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. Oh the Venn diagram of those who hate James McClean for not wearing a poppy whilst also loving those guys for covering an LGBTQ logo is definitely just a a circle. James McCleans case is different. He is quite vocal about his support for Nationalism in Derry. It's how he grew up, Brits Out, United Ireland etc. Yet he chooses to ply his trade and pocket the dollar, within the very country that his views are based upon. He is seen as a bit two faced, if your views are that strong regarding a particular country and its history, the last thing most people would do is up sticks and go move there, because the wages are higher. As an analogy, its the equivalent of Sam Morsey or Marc Guehi (who refused to wear Rainbow Armbands 6 months ago) taking up a job organising Pride Festivals once they finish kicking a football. Most people have beliefs and are happy to stand by their convictions, McClean didn't. You do know that they have sterling in Derry and England?" Not if McClean had his way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How do you feel when you go into Greggs and the staff have their Greggs provided shirt hanging out? It isn’t a very good advertisement for the company. Would you advocate their dismissal? Choosing not to confirm to uniform standards at a minimum wage job at a chain with thousands of employees is likely to be overlooked by the people paid an extra 15p an hour who are supposed to manage them in the tiny local area they service. Being one of eleven(? or however many are on a team) that represent the brand on a global stage for however many thousand per appearance are held to a higher standard for some reason 💜" So when you sign a contract to provide a professional service you waive your right to freedom of speech/expression and the right to abstain? I do find this a little worrying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So when you sign a contract to provide a professional service you waive your right to freedom of speech/expression and the right to abstain? I do find this a little worrying " It is almost certain that the contacts that they sign for their millions-per-year jobs are massive and filled with legalese that specify all sorts of nonsense, including sponsorship, uniform and being an ambassador for whatever the club feels like on any given day. They have the freedom to refuse and suffer whatever penalties they signed up for, when expressed their freedom to choose to sign that contract. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me they are being forced to support a cause they do not want to support and are being punished for their beliefs. If an employer said we are putting a swastika on our uniforms for one day only should everyone just comply? " Cultural Significance: Historically, the Swastika has been used in various cultures, including Hinduism and Buddhism, as a symbol of prosperity, life, and good luck. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you’re in the workplace, and they have an event supporting a cause which you don’t agree with, would you: A) tell your boss that you don’t agree with it, so respectfully won’t get involved. Maybe work on another location or work from home etc.. Or B) go to the location of the event, make a big song and dance about it and tell everyone that you don’t agree? The player who didn’t get punished chose option a. Those who did, chose option b.thing been it's not the club that pushing this it's the football association " This might have something to do with it. In 2006 journalist Simon Barnes wrote that homophobia in football was entrenched and would never change, and in 2009 journalist Matt Williams wrote that being a gay professional player in football was still a taboo, Football magazine When Saturday Comes described homosexuality as a "continuing taboo" in the sport in 2013. One male player who came out after retiring said that there are at least as many closeted gay male players as there are openly LGBT+ female players. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How do you feel when you go into Greggs and the staff have their Greggs provided shirt hanging out? It isn’t a very good advertisement for the company. Would you advocate their dismissal? Choosing not to confirm to uniform standards at a minimum wage job at a chain with thousands of employees is likely to be overlooked by the people paid an extra 15p an hour who are supposed to manage them in the tiny local area they service. Being one of eleven(? or however many are on a team) that represent the brand on a global stage for however many thousand per appearance are held to a higher standard for some reason 💜 So when you sign a contract to provide a professional service you waive your right to freedom of speech/expression and the right to abstain? I do find this a little worrying " People have been sacked for slagging a company off on social media, regardless of freedom of speech, there are repercussions to what you do, or what you say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Strange that people change their opinion on a player refusing to wear a poppy then when it’s a rainbow they say the opposite. Oh the Venn diagram of those who hate James McClean for not wearing a poppy whilst also loving those guys for covering an LGBTQ logo is definitely just a a circle. James McCleans case is different. He is quite vocal about his support for Nationalism in Derry. It's how he grew up, Brits Out, United Ireland etc. Yet he chooses to ply his trade and pocket the dollar, within the very country that his views are based upon. He is seen as a bit two faced, if your views are that strong regarding a particular country and its history, the last thing most people would do is up sticks and go move there, because the wages are higher. As an analogy, its the equivalent of Sam Morsey or Marc Guehi (who refused to wear Rainbow Armbands 6 months ago) taking up a job organising Pride Festivals once they finish kicking a football. Most people have beliefs and are happy to stand by their convictions, McClean didn't. You do know that they have sterling in Derry and England? Not if McClean had his way. " The players who refuse to wear rainbow accessories came to the league and accepted the financial payments the club in that league provided knowing that it supports pride month, so there isn't any difference at all really. If you are against people being vilified for refusing to wear political or ideological emblems on their work uniforms then that stance should be consistent regardless of the actual ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems to me they are being forced to support a cause they do not want to support and are being punished for their beliefs. If an employer said we are putting a swastika on our uniforms for one day only should everyone just comply?" "Cultural Significance: Historically, the Swastika has been used in various cultures, including Hinduism and Buddhism, as a symbol of prosperity, life, and good luck." Technically, the symbol the Nazis used is a swavastica, which is a reversed swastica. The swavastica does not have a history of benevolent use. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If your employment conditions are clear and you do not comply, then you will be in breach of your terms and subject to sanctions. They are not being made by have gay sex but to promote a corporate policy. They might need to review their choices Why does a football team believe they that anyone cares what they think about homosexuality, or indeed anything else aside from winning football matches? " I know of at least one person that does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when you sign a contract to provide a professional service you waive your right to freedom of speech/expression and the right to abstain? I do find this a little worrying " If that's the contract you sign, that's the contract you sign. You can choose not to sign it and go work a different job role without so much public presence or corporate say in how you may present yourself to perform your role 💜 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So when you sign a contract to provide a professional service you waive your right to freedom of speech/expression and the right to abstain? I do find this a little worrying If that's the contract you sign, that's the contract you sign. You can choose not to sign it and go work a different job role without so much public presence or corporate say in how you may present yourself to perform your role 💜" It seems that the footballers in question didn't have much choice given that participation in Pride Month seems to be virtually compulsory! They sign a contract to provide services as a professional athlete and as such their personal views should be respected. Would a retail worker be expected to display a badge on their uniform? Finally, I don't see why it's so triggering to a small number people when somebody refuses to participate in something like this (Remembrance, Pride etc). Their decision not to participate should not be taken as an expression of bigotry or rejection, it's simply a personal choice and I feel that it's an overreach for a contract to forbid this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems that the footballers in question didn't have much choice given that participation in Pride Month seems to be virtually compulsory! They sign a contract to provide services as a professional athlete and as such their personal views should be respected. Would a retail worker be expected to display a badge on their uniform? Finally, I don't see why it's so triggering to a small number people when somebody refuses to participate in something like this (Remembrance, Pride etc). Their decision not to participate should not be taken as an expression of bigotry or rejection, it's simply a personal choice and I feel that it's an overreach for a contract to forbid this. " They could have expressed to their superiors why they were not willing to display such. They could have requested to play in an approved version of the uniform without the offending symbol, or opted not to play at all. Actively defacing the uniform isn't an acceptable option pretty much anywhere. Never mind on the global stage. And many retail and hospitality workers are expected to display badges and symbols for whatever the company wants to support. And if they choose not to, they'll be replaced by someone else on minimum wage who doesn't demonstrate as much spine when it comes to their own beliefs. At least the footballers are marginally harder to replace and less likely to be close to homelessness if they lose a couple of shifts. Should it be a thing? No. Is it? Yes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
