Hockey Diversity Alliance slams NHL/NHLPA announcement of Player Inclusion Coalition

[Fatass]

One problem for me with these sports "diversity" programs is that they moralise over different populations choosing different sports. Guess what? They do. In general, Indians like cricket, Chinese like ping pong and Japanese like baseball. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no racist conspiracy behind it. Racism is very seldom a valid explanation for differing results between ethnic groups. I have noticed that when people say that there are systemic barriers for ethnic groups to play a particular sport, the number of examples is virtually zero. So ice hockey is less popular among Blacks than, say, basketball is. Who gives a damn? Maybe people should be left alone to follow whatever sport they want.

Yup. The NBA and NFL are mostly black players. The NHL is mostly white players. But it’s not a bad thing that the leagues have programs to give all people a chance to play, especially as kids, without them having to be treated bad.

 

[Hockeysawks]

No mention of any other minority group other then they put in a generic demand that voices of indigenous people should be heard as well. No mention of Muslims, Asians, Indians, latinos, etc.

They even demand a quota for NHL suppliers:

We recognize that it is important that our supplier base reflects the diversity of the communities from which we operate and hereby commit to create an inclusive procurement process that ensures that Black suppliers* are selected to deliver at least 10% of the League procurement expenditure before the start of the 2020-2021 season.

* a Black supplier is a supplier who is either: (i) more than 50% owned, controlled and operated by black individuals; or (ii) whose personnel is comprised of at least 35% black individuals and whose management is comprised of at least 35% black individuals

It’s racist making people buy things from a certain race.

 

[Tripledeke333]

The NHL cares deeply about diversity as long as diversity is a means to increasing revenues. Of course they want to create an organization to focus on selling merchandise, tickets to diverse groups and maximizing TV revenue from diverse groups. The other diversity organization may focus too much on ending racism/sexism and what not, and less on $$$.

 

[Guinnes66]

One problem for me with these sports "diversity" programs is that they moralise over different populations choosing different sports. Guess what? They do. In general, Indians like cricket, Chinese like ping pong and Japanese like baseball. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no racist conspiracy behind it. Racism is very seldom a valid explanation for differing results between ethnic groups. I have noticed that when people say that there are systemic barriers for ethnic groups to play a particular sport, the number of examples is virtually zero. So ice hockey is less popular among Blacks than, say, basketball is. Who gives a damn? Maybe people should be left alone to follow whatever sport they want.

Yep. I think the goal of diversity is fine but there should be zero expectation that any meaningful diversity will ever be achieved given that some cultures may have very little interest and desire in hockey over other sports.

So when someone says that we must increase diversity in hockey or that it's too white what they fail to realize is that even if everyone is given equal access to hockey the demographics may not change much at all. So what they really mean then is they support forced diversity through policies that literally hire people based on skin colour which is a racist idea at its core. And then you get into the neverending problem of people will never be satisfied with the achieved diversity since it does not contain X, Y, Z race or sexual orientation groups. There is no possible diversity criteria that could be met that would make everyone happy. These same people would never by the way be in favour of forced diversity in any other sport that is majority non white which would mean kicking minorities out of their jobs to be replaced by white people.

Thats why in the end all the NHL needs to do is make sure that any kid has access to the game and make sure internally there is no discrimination. Whatever demographics naturally happen when everyone has equal opportunity is organic and should not be confused with dicrimination if the majority just happen to be white.

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

What does 1974 have to do with 2023.

Did you even bother reading the post that this post was responding to?

It was in response to the ultra out of touch denial that racism isn’t a thing in hockey.

 

[todeskultes]

What does 1974 have to do with 2023.

Because if you read the post I was responding to, he said: "We had Metis is the NHL in the 1920's, asian and Native and black players in the super-duper racist 1950's." In reality, there was ONE Black player in the 1950s (O'Ree), and there wasn't another Black player drafted until 1974. Larry Kwong was both the first Asian and first non-white person to play in the NHL (though he only played one shift for some strange reason...). Lying about this stuff and saying "see, the NHL has never been exclusionary they had a couple non-whites!" while glossing over the racial animus directed their way by many NHL executives, players, and fans.

I literally brought up an example from 2023 too, I can't do all the work for you.

Its a separate topic but IMO that had more to do with players opting out of wearing said jerseys. That apparently pissed off certain people who made it a bigger issue than it actually was. In some cases the outrage/complaints overshadowed everything else.

Yeah I was aware of Provorov and Reimer (I think it was them) refusing to wear them. Regardless, the NHL's decision looks pretty horrendous IMO. Even if they say they are worried that the discourse surrounding it (players who don't like LGBTQ+ people) would overshadow the whole aim, which I thought was to show solidarity and support for LGBTQ+ people. Google told me that seven NHL players refused to wear the jersey. So the NHL decides that because seven players refuse to wear the jersey they should just get rid of it altogether? I just don't see that it shook out the way you said, because it just makes the NHL's response all the more bewildering. If it was people getting so pissed off at any/all of those seven players for REFUSING to wear the jersey, why would the NHL then respond by doing away with the jersey altogether (and during Pride Month of all times)?

The reality is that, as others with the lived experience have mentioned in this thread, there are many people who hate and dehumanize LGBTQ+ people. You are always going to get backlash from certain people for supporting the right for LGBTQ+ people to exist. True solidarity and support needs to be consistent, the NHL should have reaffirmed their support for the LGBTQ+ community and denounced the bigoted views of those players. Instead, the second the NHL got any pushback whatsoever they do away with the whole thing. Just absolutely spineless and irresponsible given the current political climate.

It's for all these reasons that I think the NHL actually would be useless for a player inclusion coalition given that they can't even commit to symbolic gestures of inclusion.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You stated that:

"the NHL hires damn near zero people of color for any role higher than custodian."

And said that you support HDAs mission which includes hiring quotas.

You keep characterizing HDA’s stance as a “demand” for “quotas”, but here is what they actually said:

“Our ask of the NHL​

08/29/2020

PRESS RELEASE

1. We will accelerate our efforts to ensure that no barriers exist to prevent Black individuals from getting hired by, and advancing within, the NHL and each of our member franchises (individually and collectively, the “League”) and hereby commit to increase:
   1. the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season;
   2. the employment of Black hockey-related personnel to 5% before the end of the 2020/2021 season; and 8% before the end of the 2022-2023 season;
   3. the employment of Black non hockey-related personnel to 10% before the end of the 2020-2021 season; and 12.5% before the end of the 2022-2023 season.

We recognize that it is important that our supplier base reflects the diversity of the communities from which we operate and hereby commit to create an inclusive procurement process that ensures that Black suppliers* are selected to deliver at least 10% of the League procurement expenditure before the start of the 2020-2021 season.”



Those are neither demands nor quotas. It’s a proposal that the league commit to setting benchmarks for success in its efforts.

If the distinction isn’t clear, keep reading to the next paragraph:

“We will ensure that the voices of our Black, Indigenous and racialized players are heard and that they have an opportunity to help change the culture of the League by imposing a requirement that at least 50% of the Executive Inclusion Committee (or any successor thereof) shall be comprised of members selected by the HDA.”


See the difference? The last item is a mandatory requirement for representation. Everything before that is metric goal-setting.

This is how every business works. If you want to improve, you set goals and commit to hitting them. Only a very foolish business would treat those goals as a “quota” and recklessly take the least-thoughtful approach to hitting them (e.g. hiring Black employees regardless of qualification). The purpose of setting the goals is to improve overall performance, to induce change in how the work is done. That’s obvious in this proposal from the language about “ensur[ing] no barriers exist” and “creat[ing] an inclusive procurement process” — that’s systemic change language, not mindless quota language.

So no, support for a quota system does not follow from this proposal.

These statements logically lend itself to the belief that there is some predetermined number of non white people that should be hired or that having a certain percentage of white people is evidence of discrimination. What other possible explaination do you have for these statements? I will freely correct my post if I am misunderstading your argument here.

No, a binary dynamic like what you’re describing does not logically follow. That’s an extremely uncharitable description of what’s going on here.

If the league sets a goal of having 10% Black employees, and they end up at 9%, do you really think that anyone would characterize that result as “evidence of discrimination”? No, it would be characterized as progress toward a goal. The goal itself is somewhat arbitrary and everyone realizes that — the purpose of the goal is not to account for precisely 162 individuals out of 1,620 employees, no more and no less. The purpose of the goal is to ensure that the league moves toward a reasonably representative population, that you don’t have 2% when it would really be closer to 10%.

Your prior description of this concept sounds like something that a Soviet komissiya would come up with, and is neither an accurate nor a fair portrayal of the mainstream thinking that actually exists on this topic.

HDAs demands are aligned with equality of outcome and it seemed to me from your statement that you agree with their mission. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Their proposal was aligned with equality of representation, not outcome. I’m not sure why there would be confusion on this point. It’s right there in the press release.

A company can have a racially-representative workforce without guaranteeing anyone success (or failure) out of hand.

Well what should I call it when you state that representation is just a marketing tactic? So you do feel that representation is meaningful and thus more then a marketing tactic?

Here’s what I said:

“Highlighting people from diverse backgrounds is essentially a marketing tactic. It might make customers more comfortable engaging with the NHL, but it has little-to-no impact on the accessibility of playing the sport. It’s something the NHL ought to have been doing all along, just as a matter of common sense social awareness. “


Of course it’s meaningful to portray a variety of people in marketing materials. But these are, by definition, still part of a marketing effort. The purpose of NHL marketing is to get people to buy tickets, wear jerseys, interact online. It doesn’t have absolute-zero impact on accessibility (in theory, someone who’s convinced to buy a ticket or interact on Twitter might someday have a kid who then plays hockey) but we’re talking an extremely marginal and molasses-slow method of change. Maybe after a couple of decades you notice a tiny fractional difference, but that’s not a meaningful change.

HDA is talking about — and taking action on — getting into the community and putting sticks in minority kids’ hands, skates on their feet. The NHL wants to tweak their marketing and add a bullet point to a couple of execs’ job descriptions. The difference in approach is very apparent, and very impactful, so it’s obvious why HDA is loudly pushing back on the NHL’s tone-deaf approach.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Yeah I was aware of Provorov and Reimer (I think it was them) refusing to wear them. Regardless, the NHL's decision looks pretty horrendous IMO. Even if they say they are worried that the discourse surrounding it (players who don't like LGBTQ+ people) would overshadow the whole aim, which I thought was to show solidarity and support for LGBTQ+ people. Google told me that seven NHL players refused to wear the jersey. So the NHL decides that because seven players refuse to wear the jersey they should just get rid of it altogether? I just don't see that it shook out the way you said, because it just makes the NHL's response all the more bewildering. If it was people getting so pissed off at any/all of those seven players for REFUSING to wear the jersey, why would the NHL then respond by doing away with the jersey altogether (and during Pride Month of all times)?

I don't think support of any group should be mandated by an employer. Charities, political parties, religious groups, etc. By forcing players to wear a jersey that supported a cause they did not believe in (right or wrong) the employer is essentialy "outing" a player for beliefs that would have normally remained private.

For example, no one would have known that James Reimer did not support the LGBTQ lifestyle until he was forced to wear a jersey that said he did support it. None of the players that refused to wear the jerseys were speaking out against the lgbtq community, protesting parades, etc. But now everyone knows they don't support them.

So what good does that do? The jerseys became a huge distraction and took away from the original intent - which was not, or should have not been, to "out" non like minded individuals.

 

[rynryn]

I don't think support of any group should be mandated by an employer. Charities, political parties, religious groups, etc. By forcing players to wear a jersey that supported a cause they did not believe in (right or wrong) the employer is essentialy "outing" a player for beliefs that would have normally remained private.

For example, no one would have known that James Reimer did not support the LGBTQ lifestyle until he was forced to wear a jersey that said he did support it. None of the players that refused to wear the jerseys were speaking out against the lgbtq community, protesting parades, etc. But now everyone knows they don't support them.

So what good does that do? The jerseys became a huge distraction and took away from the original intent - which was not, or should have not been, to "out" non like minded individuals.

was there any "force" involved? do you mean their choice outed them?

 

[Frank Drebin]

was there any "force" involved? do you mean their choice outed them?

Yes, their choice outed them.

Their employer should not have put them in a position where they had to publicly make that choice. People should be allowed to quietly and privately believe whatever they want. I mean, what business is it of ours to know how James Reimer feels about gays, or trans, or whatever it is under that umbrella that he took issue with?

 

[rynryn]

Yes, their choice outed them.

Their employer should not have put them in a position where they had to publicly make that choice. People should be allowed to quietly and privately believe whatever they want. I mean, what business is it of ours to know how James Reimer feels about gays, or trans, or whatever it is under that umbrella that he took issue with?

the only consequence they face is backlash from society or peers that do not agree with their stance and no one is entitled to protection from that as far as I know. they can't be fired for these beliefs or the action of not wearing the jersey. public figures of all varieties are routinely scrutinized by the media and interested public and while you may not be interested some people definitely are curious as to whether a person is worthy (to them) of following and a team is definitely allowed to make future decision s about a player based on how the public views them. Fandom isn't always just about effectiveness at the job--it's how you feel you relate to the public figure. Don't ask, don't tell is certainly less distracting but when the NHL is pursuing a wider audience some of those demographics are going to want to know how the league treats their people.

 

[Frank Drebin]

the only consequence they face is backlash from society or peers that do not agree with their stance and no one is entitled to protection from that as far as I know. they can't be fired for these beliefs or the action of not wearing the jersey. public figures of all varieties are routinely scrutinized by the media and interested public and while you may not be interested some people definitely are curious as to whether a person is worthy (to them) of following and a team is definitely allowed to make future decision s about a player based on how the public views them. Fandom isn't always just about effectiveness at the job--it's how you feel you relate to the public figure. Don't ask, don't tell is certainly less distracting but when the NHL is pursuing a wider audience some of those demographics are going to want to know how the league treats their people.

Does wearing the mandated jersey really mean anything though? How do we know if players truly support the cause, or simply don't want to deal with the backlash of not wearing one?

I wonder if we should highlight the true advocates rather than the virtue signaling forced by the league? Who is the last nhler who volunteered on his own time to walk in a pride parade? Used rainbow tape all year round to show their support rather than on a night or during a month?

Do we want real advocates or just the illusion of it?

 

[rynryn]

Does wearing the mandated jersey really mean anything though? How do we know if players truly support the cause, or simply don't want to deal with the backlash of not wearing one?

I wonder if we should highlight the true advocates rather than the virtue signaling forced by the league? Who is the last nhler who volunteered on his own time to walk in a pride parade? Used rainbow tape all year round to show their support rather than on a night or during a month?

Do we want real advocates or just the illusion of it?

of course the more real advocates the better but the "illusion" (big assumption it is an illusion) of support is an important early step in gaining traction toward inclusion as it normalizes the idea. i realize there are differences but i'm sure it took a while to swing the pubilic opinion from "women can't participate" to "what the f*** is wrong with you that you think women can't participate" in government. there are still people who think a woman's place is in the kitchen or making babies but as time goes on they're just looked at as fringe idiots because norms have slowly shifted. the guys who dislike the LGBTQ thing but are participating just to avoid the controversy are actually helping the cause. not as much as "real" advocates but they do help normalize.

 

[Guinnes66]

Yeah I was aware of Provorov and Reimer (I think it was them) refusing to wear them. Regardless, the NHL's decision looks pretty horrendous IMO. Even if they say they are worried that the discourse surrounding it (players who don't like LGBTQ+ people) would overshadow the whole aim, which I thought was to show solidarity and support for LGBTQ+ people. Google told me that seven NHL players refused to wear the jersey. So the NHL decides that because seven players refuse to wear the jersey they should just get rid of it altogether? I just don't see that it shook out the way you said, because it just makes the NHL's response all the more bewildering. If it was people getting so pissed off at any/all of those seven players for REFUSING to wear the jersey, why would the NHL then respond by doing away with the jersey altogether (and during Pride Month of all times)?

The reality is that, as others with the lived experience have mentioned in this thread, there are many people who hate and dehumanize LGBTQ+ people. You are always going to get backlash from certain people for supporting the right for LGBTQ+ people to exist. True solidarity and support needs to be consistent, the NHL should have reaffirmed their support for the LGBTQ+ community and denounced the bigoted views of those players. Instead, the second the NHL got any pushback whatsoever they do away with the whole thing. Just absolutely spineless and irresponsible given the current political climate.

Ridiculous to suggest that the NHL should denounce the players that refuse to wear jerseys as bigoted. You do not get to say that not wearing a symbol is equivalent to not supporting peoples right to exist. That is a completely flawed argument that i see over and over again. Just as someone refusing to support the military is not against the right of veterans to exist or someone refusing to wear a religious symbol is not against all religious people from existing. I have no idea how people cannot recognize a flawed logical fallacy.

Your argument would have some merit if said players directly indicated that they do not believe in certain people right to exist but unfortnutely for you the players all basically indicate that they respect everyone, including everyones right to decide what they want to do and thats it. There is no evidence to support your flawed view of wearing a symbol. It is even enshrined in law that you cannot compel someone to do something they dont agree with. There are bigots in the world and you are doing yourself a disserivce by using the word so loosely against people that wish no harm on anyone. As a soceity you minimize bigotry by simply setting up laws around hate speech, around discrimination, etc. Forcing someone to wear symbols, religious symbols, political symbols is not a morally right thing to do no matter how noble your intention may be.

 

[Sol]

Quite honestly I might not agree with not standing or partaking in the anthem but not everyone who lives in America has got to love America. The same goes for ideas. I think infringing on beliefs of players is wrong and they shouldn’t have been doing that to begin with.

There shouldn’t be so much mind numbing military propaganda in hockey and players shouldn’t have to wear jerseys. It’d be good to eliminate it all.


I think the only reason why the military crap is in the NHL is because they pay the league well. But yeah I have no issue if the organization wants to sell the jerseys at the rink and online for people who want the special types. No one should be forced to partake in anything so it’s good to eliminate it as a whole.

 

[Guinnes66]

You keep characterizing HDA’s stance as a “demand” for “quotas”, but here is what they actually said:

“Our ask of the NHL​

08/29/2020

PRESS RELEASE

1. We will accelerate our efforts to ensure that no barriers exist to prevent Black individuals from getting hired by, and advancing within, the NHL and each of our member franchises (individually and collectively, the “League”) and hereby commit to increase:
   1. the number of Black executives in the NHL to 3.5% before the end of the 2024/2025 season;
   2. the employment of Black hockey-related personnel to 5% before the end of the 2020/2021 season; and 8% before the end of the 2022-2023 season;
   3. the employment of Black non hockey-related personnel to 10% before the end of the 2020-2021 season; and 12.5% before the end of the 2022-2023 season.

We recognize that it is important that our supplier base reflects the diversity of the communities from which we operate and hereby commit to create an inclusive procurement process that ensures that Black suppliers* are selected to deliver at least 10% of the League procurement expenditure before the start of the 2020-2021 season.”



Those are neither demands nor quotas. It’s a proposal that the league commit to setting benchmarks for success in its efforts.

If the distinction isn’t clear, keep reading to the next paragraph:

“We will ensure that the voices of our Black, Indigenous and racialized players are heard and that they have an opportunity to help change the culture of the League by imposing a requirement that at least 50% of the Executive Inclusion Committee (or any successor thereof) shall be comprised of members selected by the HDA.”



See the difference? The last item is a mandatory requirement for representation. Everything before that is metric goal-setting.

This is how every business works. If you want to improve, you set goals and commit to hitting them. Only a very foolish business would treat those goals as a “quota” and recklessly take the least-thoughtful approach to hitting them (e.g. hiring Black employees regardless of qualification). The purpose of setting the goals is to improve overall performance, to induce change in how the work is done. That’s obvious in this proposal from the language about “ensur[ing] no barriers exist” and “creat[ing] an inclusive procurement process” — that’s systemic change language, not mindless quota language.

So no, support for a quota system does not follow from this proposal.

Your playing a game of semantics here. Whether you call it a request or a demand it is still a quota system based on skin colour. It doesnt matter if you call it a benchmark target number or set in stone number, the message is the same which is that there has to be a mandate to make sure you hire some people based purely off of skin colour. That is a discriminatory policy no matter how you want to dance around it. Even many DEI training material will acknowledge that so no idea why you want to pretend this is a good solution. There are far better solutions. Companies simply need to have a better system in making sure all applicants have equal opportunity. This can be done with something as simple as blind hiring where the name, gender, and race of the applicant is concelled entirely. There are many other ways ive seen.

No, a binary dynamic like what you’re describing does not logically follow. That’s an extremely uncharitable description of what’s going on here.

If the league sets a goal of having 10% Black employees, and they end up at 9%, do you really think that anyone would characterize that result as “evidence of discrimination”? No, it would be characterized as progress toward a goal. The goal itself is somewhat arbitrary and everyone realizes that — the purpose of the goal is not to account for precisely 162 individuals out of 1,620 employees, no more and no less. The purpose of the goal is to ensure that the league moves toward a reasonably representative population, that you don’t have 2% when it would really be closer to 10%.

Your prior description of this concept sounds like something that a Soviet komissiya would come up with, and is neither an accurate nor a fair portrayal of the mainstream thinking that actually exists on this topic.

Their proposal was aligned with equality of representation, not outcome. I’m not sure why there would be confusion on this point. It’s right there in the press release.

A company can have a racially-representative workforce without guaranteeing anyone success (or failure) out of hand.

What are you talking about? HDA's request (i will refrain from calling it a demand if you feel better) was specifically to target an outcome which is the same as representation in this case. Pretty much all of your statements are in reference to the outcome of the hiring process. You state that the NHL needs more diversity. That statement alone is referring to an outcome. Thus my response to you was not a strawman as you tried to imply. There is no need for the NHL to be more diverse by default. There is simply a need to ensure that the current demographics are not due to discrimination, to help setup a system that supports equal opportuinity for all races, and to promote the sport to different demographics in the hope that it results in the outcome of more diversity. That is it.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

This is everyone's six hour warning because we're all once again going in circles.

Get it out of your system, because this is closing in six hours.

Go Mariners.

 

[Mike C]

Kill 'em all and let God sort it out!

 

[Guinnes66]

Quite honestly I might not agree with not standing or partaking in the anthem but not everyone who lives in America has got to love America. The same goes for ideas. I think infringing on beliefs of players is wrong and they shouldn’t have been doing that to begin with.

There shouldn’t be so much mind numbing military propaganda in hockey and players shouldn’t have to wear jerseys. It’d be good to eliminate it all.


I think the only reason why the military crap is in the NHL is because they pay the league well. But yeah I have no issue if the organization wants to sell the jerseys at the rink and online for people who want the special types. No one should be forced to partake in anything so it’s good to eliminate it as a whole.

The anthems and military stuff is purely based on tradition and at one time were ways of having a cohesive society by having people unite for a single cause. It made sense at one time but in todays society where there are people living here that were on the wrong end of military policies obviously wont agree with this cause, as is their right. Still think anthems are good to have but i dont feel strongly about it one way or the other.

 

[Mike C]

I don't think support of any group should be mandated by an employer. Charities, political parties, religious groups, etc. By forcing players to wear a jersey that supported a cause they did not believe in (right or wrong) the employer is essentialy "outing" a player for beliefs that would have normally remained private.

For example, no one would have known that James Reimer did not support the LGBTQ lifestyle until he was forced to wear a jersey that said he did support it. None of the players that refused to wear the jerseys were speaking out against the lgbtq community, protesting parades, etc. But now everyone knows they don't support them.

So what good does that do? The jerseys became a huge distraction and took away from the original intent - which was not, or should have not been, to "out" non like minded individuals.

Not only that, how many players put on the happy face for the cause, wear the shirt, take the photos then revert back to their true selves when the lights go down and the doors close


Having worked in media, i experienced more than a few athletes who were only nice when the cameras were on and were class A dbags the rest of the time

“Give us money that we can use improperly and for ourselves!”

My grandparents took me out of the will when I campaigned that philosophy to them!

 

[Mike C]

“Give us money that we can use improperly and for ourselves!”

My grandparents took me out of the will when I campaigned that philosophy to them!

The purity wars of intersectionality.

I'm sure a sticking point is that nothing is ever good enough for activists whose job is dependent on nothing ever being good enough. Does anyone think the HDA gives one flying who knows what about the NHL or hockey as a whole?

No

 

[todeskultes]

I don't think support of any group should be mandated by an employer. Charities, political parties, religious groups, etc. By forcing players to wear a jersey that supported a cause they did not believe in (right or wrong) the employer is essentialy "outing" a player for beliefs that would have normally remained private.

For example, no one would have known that James Reimer did not support the LGBTQ lifestyle until he was forced to wear a jersey that said he did support it. None of the players that refused to wear the jerseys were speaking out against the lgbtq community, protesting parades, etc. But now everyone knows they don't support them.

So what good does that do? The jerseys became a huge distraction and took away from the original intent - which was not, or should have not been, to "out" non like minded individuals.

I’ll admit that I’m at a point where I have no sympathy for religious defences of homophobia, transphobia, etc. What does it mean to say “I don’t agree with the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?” Why is this vague language always used?

The fact is, as you have pointed out, these players in question think that LGBTQ+ people are inherently perverse or degenerate. I know my post will now probably get deleted for being “political” but this topic is inherently political. The personal IS political.

That’s why I said the NHL should have reaffirmed their support for the LGBTQ+ community. Because the fact is that the very existence of LGBTQ+ is actively being questioned. To bow to the pressures of seven goddamn hockey players is tantamount to saying that the “right” to religious bigotry trumps the right to one’s existence as an LGBTQ+ person. That is completely unacceptable to me, and to many other people.

To be clear, I never called for the NHL to force those players to wear the jerseys. Let them not wear them and people can make their own judgements about the type of people they are (I know I have). They can choose not to wear the jersey if the LGBTQ+ “lifestyle” makes them unable to function. But why should the NHL then go “ok, we’ll just get rid of it all?” They’re just a spineless institution that will abandon causes the second they get one iota of reactionary backlash.

Hopefully I touched on all your points, let me know if there’s something I missed.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I’ll admit that I’m at a point where I have no sympathy for religious defences of homophobia. What does it mean to say “I don’t agree with the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?” Why is this vague language always used?

The fact is, as you have pointed out, these things players in question think that LGBTQ+ people are inherently perverse or degenerate. I know my post will now probably get deleted for being “political” but this topic is inherently political. The personal IS political.

That’s why I said the NHL should have reaffirmed their support for the LGBTQ+ community. Because the fact is that the very existence of LGBTQ+ is actively being questioned. To bow to the pressures of seven goddamn hockey players is tantamount to saying that the “right” to religious bigotry trumps the right to one’s existence as an LGBTQ+ person. That is completely unacceptable to me, and to many other people.

To be clear, I never called for the NHL to force those players to wear the jerseys. Let them not wear them and people can make their own judgements about the type of people they are (I know I have). They can choose not to wear the jersey if the LGBTQ+ “lifestyle” makes them unable to function. But why should the NHL then go “ok, we’ll just get rid of it all?” They’re just a spineless institution that will abandon causes the second they get one iota of reactionary backlash.

Hopefully I touched on all your points, let me know if there’s something I missed.

The players shouldn't be put in a situation where they are forced to expose their views by their employer, no matter how important these issues may seem. (It's none of our business) They should have the right to say "no comment" for example if asked about religious or political viewpoints.

 

[Viqsi]

For example, no one would have known that James Reimer did not support the LGBTQ lifestyle

Point of order: please stop calling it a "lifestyle". One doesn't get to choose to be LGBTQ+. There are some folks who build their entire identity around such, to be sure; frankly, they freak me the f*** out too. (I've walked out of support groups that seemed exclusively composed of such individuals - yes, okay, you're Special And Different, but beyond that who the hell are you as a person?) But they're a minority of a minority, and acting like those are the only people affected by this nonsense is at best naive and at worst kind of a dick move.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Point of order: please stop calling it a "lifestyle". One doesn't get to choose to be LGBTQ+. There are some folks who build their entire identity around such, to be sure; frankly, they freak me the f*** out too. (I've walked out of support groups that seemed exclusively composed of such individuals - yes, okay, you're Special And Different, but beyond that who the hell are you as a person?) But they're a minority of a minority, and acting like those are the only people affected by this nonsense is at best naive and at worst kind of a dick move.

I don't mean to offend, it's a very broad umbrella and I'm not sure the best adjective to use.