GDT: Around the League 2023-2024 "Off Season??!! What off season??!!"

[BlackDogg]

It is for everyone. Nobody has said otherwise.

Nothing is changing except for the players - who have the right not to wear a cause related jersey - and now that choice is moot as the jerseys, available for purchase for those who do choose to do so - aren’t worn by the players during team cause nights.

Players have the same rights as everyone else. To force even 1 to wear something he doesn’t wish to wear is taking away his rights.

The cause is still being celebrated.



Ah ok I thought they had to get awarded over 4.5 in arbitration. Isn’t there a 4.5 minimum buyout limit?

And...it should go without saying that just because a whole team performs the optics of wearing them, that they all actually believe what people think it portrays. The jersey won't stop them from being discriminatory should they be wired that way.

 

[harpoon]

MLB has shown that this sort of thing can be handled in a positive way.

You mean like that Blue Jays player who had to go for re-education? I guess that was ‘positive’ for everyone but him. And probably his family. It’s disingenuous for you to say ‘the players had the right to refrain from participating’ when everyone knows that doing so places the person in the media crosshairs.

It’s definitely better this way. Special jerseys are available for those who want them. The various ‘causes’ will continue to be celebrated on team social media and at the rink. Why do you need every player to wear the jersey on the ice for warmup?

So they are leaving them out of it and if a player voluntarily chooses to do more, then great.

This is an important point too. A blanket policy for everyone to wear the jersey is just corporate box ticking. How meaningful is that really? If individual players feel strongly about some particular issue, what a great opportunity for any one of them to use their platform, step up and do something really meaningful to show their support.

 

[Fourier]

You mean like that Blue Jays player who had to go for re-education? I guess that was ‘positive’ for everyone but him. And probably his family. It’s disingenuous for you to say ‘the players had the right to refrain from participating’ when everyone knows that doing so places the person in the media crosshairs.

It’s definitely better this way. Special jerseys are available for those who want them. The various ‘causes’ will continue to be celebrated on team social media and at the rink. Why do you need every player to wear the jersey on the ice for warmup?


This is an important point too. A blanket policy for everyone to wear the jersey is just corporate box ticking. How meaningful is that really? If individual players feel strongly about some particular issue, what a great opportunity for any one of them to use their platform, step up and do something really meaningful to show their support.

You do realise that the issue that the Blue Jay player had did not come from his refusal to participate in Pride Night but rather from his own use of his platform as a sports celebrity to openly support an an LGBQT+ protest. It is his right to do so, but it is also his responsibility to accept the consequences of that decision.

I don't need every player to wear a jersey. The Oilers chose not to have pride jersey's but rather use tape on sticks. That's fine with me. I have already said that I am fine with teams and players making decisions that differ from one another. I also want the players to have a say in how various causes are embraced. But the NHL has banned this as an option and they did this across all causes simply because they did not want to address the one specific issue head on.

I brought up the number 42 because it is sign of how things can change. Would such a tribute have been acceptable in 1972? It took time for society and the sport to evolve to the point where within the sport of baseball they can now embrace what was a very controversial part of their past. George Springer called the 42 tribute a symbol of opportunity. But it would not have been possible without the huge step take by Ken Griffey to shine a light on what was an extraordinarily challenging time in the history of the sport.

Like it or not sport has a massive influence on how society evolves. The NHL's decision is a blow to those who feel that discrimination against the LGBQT+ is unacceptable.

.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Tolerance is like the absolute bare minimum. Nobody's asking players to attend pride parades or anything like that. I'm sure hockey players are forced to do all sorts of things they'd rather not do. Drawing the line here just seems weird. But as is always the case with the NHL, they don't get it right.

And yeah, it is empty, but it's still better than nothing.

 

[harpoon]

But the NHL has banned this as an option and they did this across all causes simply because they did not want to address the one specific issue head on.

Respectfully, I’m not sure what you want from the league. Of course they didn’t want to address the issue. Why would they? They aren’t competent to do that, and it has very little to do with their product or theit mandate. We live in a day when even judicial nominees are afraid/unable to answer questions on this issue in confirmation hearings. Against that backdrop, what do you expect the league to do? Their best solution is to stick to hockey.

Like it or not sport has a massive influence on how society evolves. The NHL's decision is a blow to those who feel that discrimination against the LGBQT+ is unacceptable.

So are you saying that it ‘discrimination’ to NOT have a special jersey used during game warmups? That’s the standard you are using for ‘discrimination’? I find that to be a dubious conclusion.

 

[MoontoScott]

Jackie Robinson, the first player to break the color-barrier. On Jackie Robinson Day, all players on all teams wear game jerseys with #42 on it as that was his number.

Good movie about it too. Its simply called 42 and its on either Netflix or Prime right now.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Good movie about it too. Its simply called 42 and its on either Netflix or Prime right now.

Thx I’ll have to check it out.

 

[Ritchie Valens]

Good movie about it too. Its simply called 42 and its on either Netflix or Prime right now.

It's been on my "Must Watch" list but haven't gotten to it. Have you seen *61? Another really good baseball film about Maris and Mantle slugging it out to break Ruth's record.

 

[MoontoScott]

It's been on my "Must Watch" list but haven't gotten to it. Have you seen *61? Another really good baseball film about Maris and Mantle slugging it out to break Ruth's record.

Yes I have seen 61 and its also a great movie--- about Mantle and Maris and all the politics involved with 2 superstars on the same club. I believe its also on either Netflix or Prime right now (somebody on the thread knows the answer). Both movies are well worth the watch.

 

[Fourier]

Respectfully, I’m not sure what you want from the league. Of course they didn’t want to address the issue. Why would they? They aren’t competent to do that, and it has very little to do with their product or theit mandate. We live in a day when even judicial nominees are afraid/unable to answer questions on this issue in confirmation hearings. Against that backdrop, what do you expect the league to do? Their best solution is to stick to hockey.

So are you saying that it ‘discrimination’ to NOT have a special jersey used during game warmups? That’s the standard you are using for ‘discrimination’? I find that to be a dubious conclusion.

Juist to be clear, I would also have had objections if the NHL had come out and said that every team had to have Pride jerseys and any player refusing to participate would be suspended. But the NHL could simply have allowed teams to decide for themselves how to address the various causes that they want to embrace. As I previously stated, if for example the Leafs wanted to wear jersey's to support Pride activities with full support of all their players why should they not be able to do so. If instead they choose not to do so so be it. If the team wants to do so and has a player who objects then they can deal with that issue head on in a way that they choose.

I am not saying that not having a jersey night is in itself an act of discrimination. I am saying that banning the opportunity of individual teams to do so is a step backwards for those who are fighting discrimination.

Here is the reaction of Luke Prokop to the decisions made following the previous yera's controversies.

In the wake of these events, Prokop released a statement in which he said it was "disheartening" that teams are no longer "fully embracing" Pride Nights. Prokop emphasized the importance of those nights as it pertains to growing inclusivity in the game of hockey.

"I share the disappointment in what feels like a step back for inclusion in the NHL," Prokop wrote. "Pride nights and pride jerseys play an important role in promoting respect and inclusion for the LBTQIA+ community, and it's disheartening to see some teams no longer wearing them or not fully embracing their significance, while the focus of others has become about the players who aren't participating rather than the meaning of the night itself."

Prokop is the only openly gay player under contract to an NHL team. Statistically there should be roughly 40 gay players under contract to NHL teams if the league mirrored society. But the NHL has always been one of the least inclusive sports and the league itself recognized this. Their whole Hockey is for Everyone initiative is evidence of this. This decision puts the league's commitment to that initiative in question.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Juist to be clear, I would also have had objections if the NHL had come out and said that every team had to have Pride jerseys and any player refusing to participate would be suspended. But the NHL could simply have allowed team.

You continue to refuse to recognize the media and public backlash of a player who doesn’t wish to participate in a social or political cause not of their own choosing and outside of the purview of their contract.

These players are represented by a union which has told the NHL they need to address this problem, and the NHL has done so in the only manner possible while still supporting cause related events which allow players to choose to participate as they see fit.

 

[Fourier]

You continue to refuse to recognize the media and public backlash of a player who doesn’t wish to participate in a social or political cause not of their own choosing and outside of the purview of their contract.

These players are represented by a union which has told the NHL they need to address this problem, and the NHL has done so in the only manner possible while still supporting cause related events which allow players to choose to participate as they see fit.

I'd like to see evidence that this decision was driven by demands from the NHLPA. And no I am not ignoring the fact that there was a backlash. But that backlash is something that could be handled in may ways including have teams and players take a proactive stand to ask for tolerance for players who do not participate. In particular, they could speak to the pressure that Russina players are under due to circumstances outside of their control.

The NHL already has a 0 tolerance policy with respect to overt racisim. What we are looking at is another form of discrimination that is far less mature in terms of how society deals with it. It will take time to adjust to new societal norms and during that period there will be difficult discussions.

I find it hard to believe that banning all activities was the only option. It certainly puts a massive dent in how seriously one can take the league's commitment to Hockey is for Everyone.

 

[harpoon]

Prokop is the only openly gay player under contract to an NHL team. Statistically there should be roughly 40 gay players under contract to NHL teams if the league mirrored society. But the NHL has always been one of the least inclusive sports and the league itself recognized this. Their whole Hockey is for Everyone initiative is evidence of this. This decision puts the league's commitment to that initiative in question.

I understand. You seem to believe that the wearing of a jersey in warmup (to the exclusion of the myriad other supportive actions taken by the league) will result in fewer LGBTQ people taking up the game. That seems like another dubious conclusion, and one I certainly don’t agree with, but at least now I understand why you are so insistent.

These players are represented by a union which has told the NHL they need to address this problem, and the NHL has done so in the only manner possible while still supporting cause related events which allow players to choose to participate as they see fit.

Exactly. Which is also why you can’t (shouldn’t) ‘leave it up to the individual teams’. That creates a situation where employees represented by the same union are subject to different expectations based on which branch they work at.

 

[Fourier]

I understand. You seem to believe that the wearing of a jersey in warmup (to the exclusion of the myriad other supportive actions taken by the league) will result in fewer LGBTQ people taking up the game. That seems like another dubious conclusion, and one I certainly don’t agree with, but at least now I understand why you are so insistent.


Exactly. Which is also why you can’t (shouldn’t) ‘leave it up to the individual teams’. That creates a situation where employees represented by the same union are subject to different expectations based on which branch they work at.

As to your first statement, I am sure you don't actually think that this is what I believe. The decision was imply another example of the NHL's terrible management when it comes to dealing with the public.

As to your second statement, for ten years teams acted individually with no backlash. They have done so for longer than that with many different causes. And I will also ask you for evidence that this decision was driven by the union. I would claim that it is either disingenuous or very naive to believe that this was the reason for the decision.

 

[harpoon]

As to your first statement, I am sure you don't actually think that this is what I believe. The decision was imply another example of the NHL's terrible management when it comes to dealing with the public.

OK. I keep quoting what you say and then you keep telling me that you’re not saying that. We should probably just agree to disagree.

As to your second statement, for ten years teams acted individually with no backlash. They have done so for longer than that with many different causes

Things change. It must be what you call ‘progress’.

And I will also ask you for evidence that this decision was driven by the union. I would claim that it is either disingenuous or very naive to believe that this was the reason for the decision.

I have no such evidence because that information wouldn’t be available to the public. It stands to reason however that the guys who didn’t want to wear the jersey were not happy about the way their teams set them up to get roasted in the media. I guess NHL players probably have good lawyers, some of whom may have had a quiet word with Gary about how their clients didn’t want to see the same situation repeated next year. Can’t see why Gary would go against the grain like this, and raise the ire of some fans such as yourself, if there weren’t a legal reason for it.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

I'd like to see evidence that this decision was driven by demands from the NHLPA. And no I am not ignoring the fact that there was a backlash. But that backlash is something that could be handled in may ways including have teams and players take a proactive stand to ask for tolerance for players who do not participate. In particular, they could speak to the pressure that Russina players are under due to circumstances outside of their control.

The NHL already has a 0 tolerance policy with respect to overt racisim. What we are looking at is another form of discrimination that is far less mature in terms of how society deals with it. It will take time to adjust to new societal norms and during that period there will be difficult discussions.

I find it hard to believe that banning all activities was the only option. It certainly puts a massive dent in how seriously one can take the league's commitment to Hockey is for Everyone.

I never said the decision was driven by it but there is no question that union pressure was part of it. Players have contracts and wearing cause related jerseys is not covered in said contracts. The union represents all players, including those who refused to wear it.

Regarding teams asking for tolerance for those choosing not to participate, that’s a complete red herring and you are an intelligent enough poster to realize that. The media and the anonymous masses on social will be ruthless as always, subjecting the players to their brand of social justice and wanting the player cancelled out of the league.

Either way the league has obligations to protect its players whom are represented by a union, and they must do so according to the labor laws of the lands. A company cannot force employees to engage in its social and political initiatives period.

The NHL did the best thing it can do while still upholding cause related initiatives teams and players voluntarily choose to participate it.

When people are forced to participate in social and political initiatives is when we become Russia.

Either way we can agree to disagree on this issue. I respect your opinion and viewpoint, I hope you respect mine as we both agree tolerance and equality in society is paramount. Education can do that over time.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

I never said the decision was driven by it but there is no question that union pressure was part of it. Players have contracts and wearing cause related jerseys is not covered in said contracts. The union represents all players, including those who refused to wear it.

Regarding teams asking for tolerance for those choosing not to participate, that’s a complete red herring and you are an intelligent enough poster to realize that. The media and the anonymous masses on social will be ruthless as always, subjecting the players to their brand of social justice and wanting the player cancelled out of the league.

Either way the league has obligations to protect its players whom are represented by a union, and they must do so according to the labor laws of the lands. A company cannot force employees to engage in its social and political initiatives period.

The NHL did the best thing it can do while still upholding cause related initiatives teams and players voluntarily choose to participate it.

When people are forced to participate in social and political initiatives is when we become Russia.

Lmao the NHL took the cowards way out because it refuses to stand for anything other than being a money making business. Hockey isn't for everyone. I'm not even sure who it's for at this point, because the NHL meanders through these issues without a hard stance, always taking the easy way out. They're more scared of being called "woke" than the actual scandals that go on behind the scenes. I mean shit they've reacted harder to this than the Hawks covering up rape for a decade and Tim Peel outing "game management" for everyone to hear.

It's so sad how even the bare minimum is too much for this League. No wonder the ratings are shit, these dinosaurs don't even have a clue.

 

[K1984]

Lmao the NHL took the cowards way out because it refuses to stand for anything other than being a money making business. Hockey isn't for everyone. I'm not even sure who it's for at this point, because the NHL meanders through these issues without a hard stance, always taking the easy way out. They're more scared of being called "woke" than the actual scandals that go on behind the scenes. I mean shit they've reacted harder to this than the Hawks covering up rape for a decade and Tim Peel outing "game management" for everyone to hear.

It's so sad how even the bare minimum is too much for this League. No wonder the ratings are shit, these dinosaurs don't even have a clue.

Maybe, just maybe the NHL realizes that taking a “stand” on something in today’s day and age is now more of a headache than it’s worth. The NHL’s mandate isn’t to run an activist organization, it’s to run a hockey league.

If society at large had the maturity to shrug their shoulders at the non-participants and say “don’t agree, their choice I guess,” then we wouldn’t be here. The NHL doesn’t want to fight the PR battles on a perpetual basis and I don’t blame them. This way they have to take the bad PR cycle once and move on.

Again, the NHL is a hockey league, not a pro-whatever the cause activist organization. These “theme” nights are great to have until they cross the lexicon of sucking all the air out of the room and then nobody wants to do it anymore.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Maybe, just maybe the NHL realizes that taking a “stand” on something in today’s day and age is now more of a headache than it’s worth. The NHL’s mandate isn’t to run an activist organization, it’s to run a hockey league.

If society at large had the maturity to shrug their shoulders at the non-participants and say “don’t agree, their choice I guess,” then we wouldn’t be here. The NHL doesn’t want to fight the PR battles on a perpetual basis and I don’t blame them. This way they have to take the bad PR cycle once and move on.

Again, the NHL is a hockey league, not a pro-whatever the cause activist organization. These “theme” nights are great to have until they cross the lexicon of sucking all the air out of the room and then nobody wants to do it anymore.

Again, the league has faced far worse crises over the past year and a bit than this but managed to shrug them off. The NHL has been a PR nightmare for a very long time. Anytime the NHL gets mentioned at large it's never, ever for a good reason.

And if the NHL is a "hockey league" then strip away the anthems. Strip away all special nights: cancer, military, etc. Strip away anything that might be perceived as "political". Get those gambling ads out of here. Any charity stuff, gone.

If the NHL is a hockey league then fix the damn game so it's not a chore to watch.

 

[K1984]

Again, the league has faced far worse crises over the past year and a bit than this but managed to shrug them off. The NHL has been a PR nightmare for a very long time. Anytime the NHL gets mentioned at large it's never, ever for a good reason.

And if the NHL is a "hockey league" then strip away the anthems. Strip away all special nights: cancer, military, etc. Strip away anything that might be perceived as "political". Get those gambling ads out of here. Any charity stuff, gone.

If the NHL is a hockey league then fix the damn game so it's not a chore to watch.

And those "PR nightmares" happen once and they move on. This one is only going to get worse and on a perpetual basis, no sane organization would want this whether we agree as armchair QB's or not.

I agree, dump all the theme nights.

 

[5 Mins 4 Ftg]

Lmao the NHL took the cowards way out because it refuses to stand for anything other than being a money making business. Hockey isn't for everyone. I'm not even sure who it's for at this point, because the NHL meanders through these issues without a hard stance, always taking the easy way out. They're more scared of being called "woke" than the actual scandals that go on behind the scenes. I mean shit they've reacted harder to this than the Hawks covering up rape for a decade and Tim Peel outing "game management" for everyone to hear.

It's so sad how even the bare minimum is too much for this League. No wonder the ratings are shit, these dinosaurs don't even have a clue.

The NHL is a business, not a public service and as we know they will do what they will do. If you dont like it you can watch another hockey or sports league. It may be the cowards way out but laws are laws. You cannot force employees to engage in your social and political initiatives. It is that simple.

If I tried to force my employees to publicly wear pro-Ukraine shirts at work for 20 minutes I would be breaking labor laws. If that employee was then subject to mass abuse on the internet by the media and anonymous masses I would have unhappy employees including the ones who chose to wear it and if that employee was unionized I would be hearing from the union rep in about 10 seconds.

The NHL choose to still support causes and allow teams and players, the vast majority of which probably will, but now it is voluntarily, which I am not sure those who are upset actually understand?

It seems that subjecting a small handful of players to online harassment and abuse by the media and on social is ok, but voluntarily allowing teams and players to support social and political initiatives is not.

If I am forced to go to a Pride Parade or to support Freedom Convoy rally, then I no longer live in a free country.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

And those "PR nightmares" happen once and they move on. This one is only going to get worse and on a perpetual basis, no sane organization would want this whether we agree as armchair QB's or not.

I agree, dump all the theme nights.

They happen "once and they move on" is because the NHL sweeps them under the rug. The Tim Peel fiasco should've launched a large scale investigation into the league but f*** me if those goofs aren't the safest thing in the planet. Hell they could've put the NHL refs in that tub that went to the Titanic and they would've came back alive.

It's so weird because this wasn't an issue at all until this year and the instant it becomes an issue the NHL just sidesteps it because it's the easy thing to do. The NHL never does anything right. It's a shit league with shit owners and a shit commissioner all with knees of gelatin.

The NHL is a business, not a public service and as we know they will do what they will do. If you dont like it you can watch another hockey or sports league. It may be the cowards way out but laws are laws. You cannot force employees to engage in your social and political initiatives. It is that simple.

If I tried to force my employees to publicly wear pro-Ukraine shirts at work for 20 minutes I would be breaking labor laws. If that employee was then subject to mass abuse on the internet by the media and anonymous masses I would have unhappy employees including the ones who chose to wear it and if that employee was unionized I would be hearing from the union rep in about 10 seconds.

The NHL choose to still support causes and allow teams and players, the vast majority of which probably will, but now it is voluntarily, which I am not sure those who are upset actually understand?

It seems that subjecting a small handful of players to online harassment and abuse by the media and on social is ok, but voluntarily allowing teams and players to support social and political initiatives is not.

If I am forced to go to a Pride Parade or to support Freedom Convoy rally, then I no longer live in a free country.

To the bolded specifically, you're not. And there is an absolutely zero chance of that happening.

Do you honestly think every thing the players do on and off the ice is by choice? Sitting in a mall signing autographs for hours on end sounds like a lovely time, doesn't it? Or half the charity work they do? Nah, but they do it anyway.

And if the players are worried about online harassment then jeez I hope none of them have internet connections. You go to certain corners of the internet and the things they say about the players will make you reconsider how good the human race actually is.

See, the thing here is that the players are still free to have their opinions, so long as they understand that people may not like those opinions. If they're that scared of backlash from the fans then maybe sports just aren't for them. It would honestly be refreshing for some of them to have a moment of introspection rather than just hide behind whatever BS religion they support.

Players are subject to scrutiny by the media and online communities constantly. When Hyman spoke up this year about his support for Pride Nights a lot of people applauded him but there were certainly a handful that cried foul because he hurt their feelings or whatever.

Let me put it this way, the NHL is more scared of losing fans due to the "woke mind virus" than they are for actual crimes and corruption that go on behind the scenes. That to me is the sign of a league that should never be taken seriously.

 

[Soundwave]

The NHL is a business, not a public service and as we know they will do what they will do. If you dont like it you can watch another hockey or sports league. It may be the cowards way out but laws are laws. You cannot force employees to engage in your social and political initiatives. It is that simple.

If I tried to force my employees to publicly wear pro-Ukraine shirts at work for 20 minutes I would be breaking labor laws. If that employee was then subject to mass abuse on the internet by the media and anonymous masses I would have unhappy employees including the ones who chose to wear it and if that employee was unionized I would be hearing from the union rep in about 10 seconds.

The NHL choose to still support causes and allow teams and players, the vast majority of which probably will, but now it is voluntarily, which I am not sure those who are upset actually understand?

It seems that subjecting a small handful of players to online harassment and abuse by the media and on social is ok, but voluntarily allowing teams and players to support social and political initiatives is not.

If I am forced to go to a Pride Parade or to support Freedom Convoy rally, then I no longer live in a free country.

Except you're not being forced to march in any kind of parade or convoy or even wear the jersey if you don't want to do. Some players opted not to, did they lose their job because of it?

It's not the NHL's "job" to police internet comments either, if someone wants to say you're a jerk off for not wearing Everyone can Play jersey or something, why is it the NHL's job to step in. I thought it was just about "business is business".

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Except you're not being forced to march in any kind of parade or convoy or even wear the jersey if you don't want to do. Some players opted not to, did they lose their job because of it?

No they were subjected to "online harassment". Oh no the horror.

 

[K1984]

They happen "once and they move on" is because the NHL sweeps them under the rug. The Tim Peel fiasco should've launched a large scale investigation into the league but f*** me if those goofs aren't the safest thing in the planet. Hell they could've put the NHL refs in that tub that went to the Titanic and they would've came back alive.

It's so weird because this wasn't an issue at all until this year and the instant it becomes an issue the NHL just sidesteps it because it's the easy thing to do. The NHL never does anything right. It's a shit league with shit owners and a shit commissioner all with knees of gelatin.


To the bolded specifically, you're not. And there is an absolutely zero chance of that happening.

Do you honestly think every thing the players do on and off the ice is by choice? Sitting in a mall signing autographs for hours on end sounds like a lovely time, doesn't it? Or half the charity work they do? Nah, but they do it anyway.

And if the players are worried about online harassment then jeez I hope none of them have internet connections. You go to certain corners of the internet and the things they say about the players will make you reconsider how good the human race actually is.

See, the thing here is that the players are still free to have their opinions, so long as they understand that people may not like those opinions. If they're that scared of backlash from the fans then maybe sports just aren't for them. It would honestly be refreshing for some of them to have a moment of introspection rather than just hide behind whatever BS religion they support.

Players are subject to scrutiny by the media and online communities constantly. When Hyman spoke up this year about his support for Pride Nights a lot of people applauded him but there were certainly a handful that cried foul because he hurt their feelings or whatever.

Let me put it this way, the NHL is more scared of losing fans due to the "woke mind virus" than they are for actual crimes and corruption that go on behind the scenes. That to me is the sign of a league that should never be taken seriously.

Many of those obligations are contractual, and if not they are volunteering to do it, not being forced to with the consequence of public shaming.

You're continually drawing up false equivalencies and trying to move the goalposts. We're talking about theme nights, not refereeing or autograph signings. And I agree, it would be nice if hockey media chased down the Tim Peel story with the vigor it did for not wearing a Pride jersey, but it was it is.

I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if your employer said "wear this Freedom convoy shirt or else." The second bold speaks to the crux of the entire issue - the complete inability for people to understand that others might have different opinions that you, even if you think they are wrong. It isn't your place to wish for a form of re-education for those that have different beliefs.