Of course this one is a little different. It was discovered that this lady chose not to play for the Women's National Soccer team because they were wearing kits honoring the LGBTQ community.
Quote:It’s the kind of headline that can lead to more ugliness than understanding.
“Women’s Soccer Star Turns Down USWNT Invite Over Pride Month Jersey.”
The decision by Jaelene Hinkle last year didn’t come with an explanation at the time. The 25-year-old defender for the North Carolina Courage told Christian talk show The 700 Club this week that she turned down a 2017 call-up to the U.S. national team because of the jersey the team wore for two friendlies to honor the LGBTQ community. Hinkle said she “felt so convicted in my spirit that it wasn’t my job to wear this jersey.”
News travels fast: She received some boos on Wednesday in Portland when her Courage beat the Thorns. Some in the crowd waved rainbow flags. One fan brought a banner saying “Personal Reasons” in rainbow colors, a clap back to the original given reason for Hinkle’s choice. Hinkle didn’t do any interviews after the match.
Of course this one is a little different. It was discovered that this lady chose not to play for the Women's National Soccer team because they were wearing kits honoring the LGBTQ community.
Curious as to folks views on this.
Player gets booed for upholding bigoted personal convictions.
(06-01-2018, 09:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Player gets booed for upholding bigoted personal convictions.
Says the tolerant and enlightened liberal, lol.
She can stand up for what she believes and decided not to participate. At least she didn't join the team and then demand everyone should believe how she does like the LGBQT's.
(06-01-2018, 10:00 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Says the tolerant and enlightened liberal, lol.
She can stand up for what she believes and decided not to participate. At least she didn't join the team and then demand everyone should believe how she does like the LGBQT's.
She can, sure. And others can boo her. The reason they boo her is that the whole LGBTQ's agenda that they "demand everyone believes in" consists of one main thing: They do not want to face discrimination. That's it. That's also all the jersey wanted to achieve in the first place.
And protesting that, well, I for one find that quite unlikeable too.
(06-01-2018, 10:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: She can, sure. And others can boo her. The reason they boo her is that the whole LGBTQ's agenda that they "demand everyone believes in" consists of one main thing: They do not want to face discrimination. That's it. That's also all the jersey wanted to achieve in the first place.
And protesting that, well, I for one find that quite unlikeable too.
Here's the thing. The lady in question didn't organize any sort of protest, she simply declined an invitation.
How does declining to participate = staging a protest??
Acceptance /=/ must embrace whole heartedly
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
It really falls on the player. She didn't have to make her reasoning public. She did, and thus made it subject to public opinion. It sounds like the response was reasonably tame and civil.
(06-01-2018, 10:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Here's the thing. The lady in question didn't organize any sort of protest, she simply declined an invitation.
How does declining to participate = staging a protest??
That's fair.
I guess I chose that word because she did make her reasons public, so there's some form of willingness to bring that topic to attention. Which is somewhat in a grey area tending towards protest. She could have kept her reasons to herself.
But sure, not quite the Kaep kind of protest, bad choice of words. I still find it's a strange decision.
(06-01-2018, 10:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Acceptance /=/ must embrace whole heartedly
I don't know if wearing the jerseys of your teammates in a soccer game is akin to a whole-hearted embrace of the things printed on it. It's a soccer jersey. And in a career, you were quite a lot of those with all kinds of topics on them. Usually you don't exactly embrace those.
Other things aside, this seems to me a bit like saying I can't play for a team that is sponsored by Burger King because I'm a vegetarian.
(06-01-2018, 10:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: She can, sure. And others can boo her. The reason they boo her is that the whole LGBTQ's agenda that they "demand everyone believes in" consists of one main thing: They do not want to face discrimination. That's it. That's also all the jersey wanted to achieve in the first place.
And protesting that, well, I for one find that quite unlikeable too.
But the jersey didn't say equal or do not discriminate; it said pride. That message is a little different than what you are implying here.
(06-01-2018, 11:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the jersey didn't say equal or do not discriminate; it said pride. That message is a little different than what you are implying here.
I don't think it's that different. Pride - to me - means not being ashamed, not hiding, demanding equality. I understand it that way. I'm not sure I find it plausible that someone could read something fundamentally different into it.
(06-01-2018, 11:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think it's that different. Pride - to me - means not being ashamed, not hiding, demanding equality. I understand it that way. I'm not sure I find it plausible that someone could read something fundamentally different into it.
Just because you think it's no different doesn't mean someone doesn't view it differently. The definition of pride is not what you suggest.
(06-01-2018, 10:00 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Says the tolerant and enlightened liberal, lol.
She can stand up for what she believes and decided not to participate. At least she didn't join the team and then demand everyone should believe how she does like the LGBQT's.
Er, I'm a tolerant and enlightened leftist. Beyond equality, I am not sure that LGBQTs demand anything. Women who demand equality don't seem to be demanding everyone must be a woman; but they are demanding everyone treat them equally. Enforcing their beliefs on others, then?
When most agreed with Hinkle, teams DID demand that everyone should believe like her. LGBQTs couldn't both "stand up for what they believe" and "decide to participate."
I doubt anyone in the crowd was thinking "Boooooo I hate it when people stand up for what they believe. Should NEVER be allowed!" As Bfine's thread title suggests.
More likely they were thinking "Boooo. A bigot who supports discrimination against gays!"
I'll give you this: Liberals accuse bigots of intolerance, and all the while they don't tolerate bigotry. Liberal hypocrisy!
(06-01-2018, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because you think it's no different doesn't mean someone doesn't view it differently. The definition of pride is not what you suggest.
Yeah but that someone could make an effort to get what it's about. Views can adapt, adapt to a reasonable understanding of words used in a certain context. If she was unsure, she could have asked soneone. At some point, saying "I view it like that and I don't care if those who's it about had something else in mind" is just stubborn.
(06-01-2018, 11:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah but that someone could make an effort to get what it's about. Views can adapt, adapt to a reasonable understanding of words used in a certain context. If she was unsure, she could have asked soneone. At some point, saying "I view it like that and I don't care if those who's it about had something else in mind" is just stubborn.
- How could she possibly have viewed it?
Because there are Christians that feel homosexuality is a sin (as it is written) and there are Christians that consider pride as one of the 7 deadly sins. So she could have viewed it much differently that you and I do not think she felt the need to ask someone of their interpretation.
(06-01-2018, 11:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think it's that different. Pride - to me - means not being ashamed, not hiding, demanding equality. I understand it that way. I'm not sure I find it plausible that someone could read something fundamentally different into it.
Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. The phrase "gay pride" clearly means proud of sin. And in a double sense, since homosexuality is a sin too.
The gay agenda is now in the open.
NB Yow, I was writing this--as a joke--while Bfine was posting #13. We are on the same wave length, with a different sense of humor.
(06-02-2018, 12:15 AM)Dill Wrote: Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. The phrase "gay pride" clearly means proud of sin. And in a double sense, since homosexuality is a sin too.
The gay agenda is now in the open.
NB Yow, I was writing this--as a joke--while Bfine was posting #13.
Dude just asked how someone could view it differently and I provided a response. I can only assume your joke was funny to you
(06-02-2018, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because there are Christians that feel homosexuality is a sin (as it is written) and there are Christians that consider pride as one of the 7 deadly sins. So she could have viewed it much differently that you and I do not think she felt the need to ask someone of their interpretation.
OK, there's still a clear intention behind using those jerseys in the first place, why they were used, and it was not to promote sin, but to ask for equality for gays (etc.) and an end to discrimination. Because of course it is about that. And not about being so proud of one's gayness that it amounts to a deadly sin. That sounds a bit absurd.
Now if she views it differently, ok. I'd still think that's a bit self-centered and ignorant to only think one own's interpretation is relevant, and that the intentions of the people behind it can't alter that; and for sure many people will view her actions as being against tolerance and pro discrimination. Which is not an outlandish interpretation of her refusal to play in such jerseys. And then people boo. I wouldn't, but I don't take issue with that.
Since you asked how folks view the story, that's probably it. No scandal, one strange motivation, and a piece of unnecessary Christian stubbornness. She can't have possibly believed she can't go to heaven if wearing that jersey. If she had thought that, well, I'd consider that extreme.
-
If the jerseys had just said "no discrimination!" instead of "pride", would her actions be less understandable to you?
The only thing different were the rainbow numbers. It's her choice to decline working for an organization that encourages equality on the field. The jerseys were a partnership with the You Can Play organization whose mission statement is
Quote:You Can Play is dedicated to ensuring equality, respect and safety for all athletes, without regard to sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
You Can Play works to guarantee that athletes are given a fair opportunity to compete, judged by other athletes and fans alike, only by what they contribute to the sport or their team’s success.
You Can Play seeks to challenge the culture of locker rooms and spectator areas by focusing only on an athlete’s skills, work ethic and competitive spirit.
Not really the message some are suggesting, but everyone is entitled to their view of the world so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others.
When the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, she posted an image that was the marriage equality symbol rearranged to be a cross and wrote a message about Jesus saving people and the world becoming corrupt, so Christians need to try to save people now instead of being upset about gay marriage. Her beliefs are consistent.
(06-02-2018, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Dude just asked how someone could view it differently and I provided a response. I can only assume your joke was funny to you
We both provided a response. Now Hollo understands there is a religious community out there that interprets political signs and gestures through fundamentalist prism. More than one, so Hinkle's interpretation is not really "private" or simply her own. Though it is way off from the sense intended or understood by most Americans.
It is always a safe bet to assume that a person who makes a joke thinks it is funny.
A bit off topic, but if I was an athlete, pro or amateur, I would not want to wear those jerseys or any jersey trying to promote a social cause, regardless of what that cause is.
(06-02-2018, 01:13 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, there's still a clear intention behind using those jerseys in the first place, why they were used, and it was not to promote sin, but to ask for equality for gays (etc.) and an end to discrimination. Because of course it is about that. And not about being so proud of one's gayness that it amounts to a deadly sin. That sounds a bit absurd.
Now if she views it differently, ok. I'd still think that's a bit self-centered and ignorant to only think one own's interpretation is relevant, and that the intentions of the people behind it can't alter that; and for sure many people will view her actions as being against tolerance and pro discrimination. Which is not an outlandish interpretation of her refusal to play in such jerseys. And then people boo. I wouldn't, but I don't take issue with that.
I don't think it's that a little pride in one's gayness is ok but a LOT is bad because too much pride is a sin. I think Hinkle and others would say that being gay is already a sin, and having any degree of pride in sin is terrible. Pride is sinful, but in this case it is compounded as PUBLIC pride in/endorsement of sin. Flaunting it with rainbow numerals. Way over the top for that group.
You and I don't walk around imagining that God is recording our actions and someday we'll be facing him or an angel who will ask "What about the day they asked you to don a sin jersey for your team and you did it because you were afraid to stand for God's truth?" People like Hinkle do walking around imagining how God will judge this or that action.
S0 I doubt Hinkle and friends would have much interest in discerning an intended meaning. You explaining that very public meaning, correctly, would not change a thing. Equality in sin does not trump God's law; that's all she needs to know.Hinkle would see her interpretation as not personal but as following God's interpretation/law. Her church/prayer group would likely agree.
For those of us outside her group, it is of course not outlandish to see her interpretation as discriminatory, since we think equality trumps bigotry.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
