League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) - 2022-23 season, Vol. 4, Off-season Edition

[usiel]

Well done moneypuck

Screw quiet quitting..welcome quiet trolling.

 

[trick9]

Sabres throwing in the towel.

Once again.

 

[Calicaps]

The other piece of this is that religious freedom doesn't exempt people from the obligations of their jobs in a private enterprise. I can take PTO to observe Shabbat or Yom Kippur, but I cannot show up to work and then say, I'm going to sit here and refuse to do the job because my religion says I can't work those days. This is nonsense and the league should be ashamed to allow players to treat their own fans and potentially teammates in this manner. How "welcome" could a gay player possibly feel in a locker room with JR or Provorov after this behavior?

I bet the NHL wouldn't be so tolerant if a player refused to wear a warmup jersey for black history month. Or imagine if after the Pittsburgh synogogue massacre a few years back, one of the Penguins had said "I won't wear the Star of David patch on my shoulder because honoring another faith is against my religion." ?? The hypocrisy here is palpable... the notion that LGBTQ people are fully people worthy of respect is obviously still a matter of opinion in professional hockey.

 

[Hivemind]

Well done moneypuck

Can you imagine a worse hockey market to take the stance that Reimer took than in than the Bay Area?

 

[Calicaps]

Can you imagine a worse hockey market to take the stance that Reimer took than in than the Bay Area?

Right?

 

[RedRocking]

Can you imagine a worse hockey market to take the stance that Reimer took than in than the Bay Area?

This was my first thought as well. Does dude not know anything about this area, and the people that help pay his salary?

On the one hand, it’s good to out these regressive putzes on Team “Not Willing to Help the NHL’s Diversity Problem.”

OTOH, I kinda wish the media hadn’t jumped all over this story after Provorov started the boycotts. It’s a small group of players, and it may have been better if they had just quietly abstained without so much fanfare, and these word salad PR releases.

As a result, every team’s Pride Night has come under a microscope, and it just looks bad for the NHL. Which once again, just can’t seem to get onboard with diversity like the other major NA sports leagues.

And now people in that community may think twice the next time they consider paying to see a NHL game, which is a shame.

 

[HTFN]

The other piece of this is that religious freedom doesn't exempt people from the obligations of their jobs in a private enterprise. I can take PTO to observe Shabbat or Yom Kippur, but I cannot show up to work and then say, I'm going to sit here and refuse to do the job because my religion says I can't work those days. This is nonsense and the league should be ashamed to allow players to treat their own fans and potentially teammates in this manner. How "welcome" could a gay player possibly feel in a locker room with JR or Provorov after this behavior?

I bet the NHL wouldn't be so tolerant if a player refused to wear a warmup jersey for black history month. Or imagine if after the Pittsburgh synogogue massacre a few years back, one of the Penguins had said "I won't wear the Star of David patch on my shoulder because honoring another faith is against my religion." ?? The hypocrisy here is palpable... the notion that LGBTQ people are fully people worthy of respect is obviously still a matter of opinion in professional hockey.

ding ding ding

any other cause and this is a way bigger deal with much "bigger" questions but somehow here as long as you can say "religious freedom" and still show up you've got it made.

It's a rough look as a league

This was my first thought as well. Does dude not know anything about this area, and the people that help pay his salary?

On the one hand, it’s good to out these regressive putzes on Team “Not Willing to Help the NHL’s Diversity Problem.”

OTOH, I kinda wish the media hadn’t jumped all over this story after Provorov started the boycotts. It’s a small group of players, and it may have been better if they had just quietly abstained without so much fanfare, and these word salad PR releases.

As a result, every team’s Pride Night has come under a microscope, and it just looks bad for the NHL. Which once again, just can’t seem to get onboard with diversity like the other major NA sports leagues.

And now people in that community may think twice the next time they consider paying to see a NHL game, which is a shame.

glad it wasn't swept under the rug, glad it got caught. The NHL will have to make a stronger stand at some point or risk stone cold alienating a lot of people they intended to win. If they want to be the last bastion of douchebag values in pro sports that's my ticket out, sorry to say, but people need to/deserve to know this stuff about the players they'd support.

 

[PlushMinus]

Interestingly, there were a few on here who said the Rangers had gone all in on Kane and Tarasenko and it hadn't paid off. I won't name names (okay it was Twabby), but it now appears the chemistry is happening and they are looking very strong. Boston also appear to have really benefited from their acquisitions.

You hate to see it. Two of the teams I hate the most are now looking like real contenders.

Disclaimer: twabby, all said in fun. You weren't the only one suggesting the Rags had blown it.

 

[g00n]

This was my first thought as well. Does dude not know anything about this area, and the people that help pay his salary?

On the one hand, it’s good to out these regressive putzes on Team “Not Willing to Help the NHL’s Diversity Problem.”

OTOH, I kinda wish the media hadn’t jumped all over this story after Provorov started the boycotts. It’s a small group of players, and it may have been better if they had just quietly abstained without so much fanfare, and these word salad PR releases.

As a result, every team’s Pride Night has come under a microscope, and it just looks bad for the NHL. Which once again, just can’t seem to get onboard with diversity like the other major NA sports leagues.

And now people in that community may think twice the next time they consider paying to see a NHL game, which is a shame.

NOT allowing issues like this to be quietly swept under the rug is precisely the point of a public show of support.

So I'm glad the NHL is being forced to deal with it.

"I have money and might buy something so don't question my bigotry because religion" shouldn't be used as a gun to our heads in a hostage situation where civil rights are the sacrifice.

 

[Ridley Simon]

NOT allowing issues like this to be quietly swept under the rug is precisely the point of a public show of support.

So I'm glad the NHL is being forced to deal with it.

"I have money and might buy something so don't question my bigotry because religion" shouldn't be used as a gun to our heads in a hostage situation where civil rights are the sacrifice.

You lost me w money. Why is that a correlation here?

To me, this is all shades of gray. No one (anyone at all) can force people to do things that they don’t want to do. That’s our freedom. That’s why we live here. Many forget, but that’s it.

Reimer cannot be forced into wearing anything. Nor should he. If he doesn’t believe in someone’s rights, that’s his prerogative. However, it also probably means people will think he’s a fool, and his opinion will get diluted by the masses (save those that agree w him).

However, that’s all ok too. Not “ok” like I a welcome it and think it’s a valid opinion, as I don’t. I think it’s a stupid opinion and shows a closed minded person.

But that’s ok too.

now I am certain that there WILL BE some offended people — from many communities, not just LGQBTR — and they have every right to feel offended. However one would hope that those offended people will understand who to take offense with. A handful of players, versus thinking that the entirety of the NHL isn’t “inclusive”.

So discussion is perfect. It will illuminate some of the shades of gray here.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Interestingly, there were a few on here who said the Rangers had gone all in on Kane and Tarasenko and it hadn't paid off. I won't name names (okay it was Twabby), but it now appears the chemistry is happening and they are looking very strong. Boston also appear to have really benefited from their acquisitions.

You hate to see it. Two of the teams I hate the most are now looking like real contenders.

Disclaimer: twabby, all said in fun. You weren't the only one suggesting the Rags had blown it.

Let them peak early….can’t win Cups in March.

 

[g00n]

You lost me w money. Why is that a correlation here?

To me, this is all shades of gray. No one (anyone at all) can force people to do things that they don’t want to do. That’s our freedom. That’s why we live here. Many forget, but that’s it.

Reimer cannot be forced into wearing anything. Nor should he. If he doesn’t believe in someone’s rights, that’s his prerogative. However, it also probably means people will think he’s a fool, and his opinion will get diluted by the masses (save those that agree w him).

However, that’s all ok too. Not “ok” like I a welcome it and think it’s a valid opinion, as I don’t. I think it’s a stupid opinion and shows a closed minded person.

But that’s ok too.

now I am certain that there WILL BE some offended people — from many communities, not just LGQBTR — and they have every right to feel offended. However one would hope that those offended people will understand who to take offense with. A handful of players, versus thinking that the entirety of the NHL isn’t “inclusive”.

So discussion is perfect. It will illuminate some of the shades of gray here.

Money is part of the discussion since the post I was responding to was talking about the NHL as a business turning off homophobic bigots.

I say "good". f*** their money. They don't get to use it to buy their way out of civil rights.

That's the simpler version.

You're correct nobody can force any player to do this, but we're in the FO stage of FAFO per your "people will think he's a fool" progression.

His asinine, contradictory, half-assed comments definitely confirm that.

 

[twabby]

Interestingly, there were a few on here who said the Rangers had gone all in on Kane and Tarasenko and it hadn't paid off. I won't name names (okay it was Twabby), but it now appears the chemistry is happening and they are looking very strong. Boston also appear to have really benefited from their acquisitions.

You hate to see it. Two of the teams I hate the most are now looking like real contenders.

Disclaimer: twabby, all said in fun. You weren't the only one suggesting the Rags had blown it.

I don't think I said they blew it, though I guess I implied it!

I don't really think that Kane and Tarasenko add much to what they need. Their top 6 already consisted of Zibanejad, Panarin, Trocheck, and Kreider. With the exception of Kreider none of these guys really brings any real two-way impact. And Tarasenko and Kane are two of the weakest defensive players in the NHL. So I think there will be a lot to exploit there, especially since their bottom 3 defenders will be Trouba, Schneider, and Mikkola? Not great, though I guess it helps to have Shesterkin if he can return to Vezina form.

I think they would have been better served to go after a guy like Niederreiter or even a guy like Ryan O'Reilly at forward, and then try to upgrade their defense. Jensen would have been a much more significant addition than either Kane or Tarasenko IMO. I assume that Washington would have traded Jensen if they were offered a first round pick for him, and that's absolutely something the Rangers should have done instead of getting a few superfluous one-way forwards.

I still don't trust Vanecek of course, but I think as constructed the Rangers are going to have a very tough time with New Jersey in the first round. I actually think the Rangers should prefer Carolina in the first round over NJ because Carolina is a much less skilled team than NJ and isn't nearly as good on the rush as NJ. The Rangers will be better served if they can take more risks offensively and against Carolina they should be able to do that without regretting it too much, while the Devils seem primed to make the Rangers pay for some floaty offensive plays from the likes of Kane, Tarasenko, Zibanejad, and Panarin.

 

[Calicaps]

You lost me w money. Why is that a correlation here?

To me, this is all shades of gray. No one (anyone at all) can force people to do things that they don’t want to do. That’s our freedom. That’s why we live here. Many forget, but that’s it.

Reimer cannot be forced into wearing anything. Nor should he. If he doesn’t believe in someone’s rights, that’s his prerogative. However, it also probably means people will think he’s a fool, and his opinion will get diluted by the masses (save those that agree w him).

However, that’s all ok too. Not “ok” like I a welcome it and think it’s a valid opinion, as I don’t. I think it’s a stupid opinion and shows a closed minded person.

But that’s ok too.

now I am certain that there WILL BE some offended people — from many communities, not just LGQBTR — and they have every right to feel offended. However one would hope that those offended people will understand who to take offense with. A handful of players, versus thinking that the entirety of the NHL isn’t “inclusive”.

So discussion is perfect. It will illuminate some of the shades of gray here.

Nonsense, he absolutely can be forced to do things that his employer requires. This isn't a constitutional rights argument. For most folks, the option--if you don't want to fulfill the requirements of the job--is to quit. He's an employee. His employer has a thing that employees are supposed to be required to do. That his employer is too damned cowardly to stand for it's own purported priorities is disgraceful. He should be required to do it or face consequences if he doesn't.

 

[kicksavedave]

Nonsense, he absolutely can be forced to do things that his employer requires. This isn't a constitutional rights argument. For most folks, the option--if you don't want to fulfill the requirements of the job--is to quit. He's an employee. His employer has a thing that employees are supposed to be required to do. That his employer is too damned cowardly to stand for it's own purported priorities is disgraceful. He should be required to do it or face consequences if he doesn't.

This: The fine line between "forcing someone to do something against their will" and establishing reasonable job requirements that include wearing a "uniform" that matches other employees (even in non sports jobs) is not in any way an unreasonable work requirement.

We also pay taxes, insure and license our cars, and a whole host of other things we don't want to do, but are required to by law, so there is that.

 

[g00n]

Nonsense, he absolutely can be forced to do things that his employer requires. This isn't a constitutional rights argument. For most folks, the option--if you don't want to fulfill the requirements of the job--is to quit. He's an employee. His employer has a thing that employees are supposed to be required to do. That his employer is too damned cowardly to stand for it's own purported priorities is disgraceful. He should be required to do it or face consequences if he doesn't.

I think this is correct clarification in this specific case. They can't technically "force" him to wear it (hold him down and put the jersey on him) but they can fire him for non-compliance if it's not an illegal request.

NHL players have to wear certain garb and use specific equipment as it is. This should be no different. If he has no problem with the message then why refuse to wear the jersey?

He's being an idiot.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Nonsense, he absolutely can be forced to do things that his employer requires. This isn't a constitutional rights argument. For most folks, the option--if you don't want to fulfill the requirements of the job--is to quit. He's an employee. His employer has a thing that employees are supposed to be required to do. That his employer is too damned cowardly to stand for it's own purported priorities is disgraceful. He should be required to do it or face consequences if he doesn't.

There is a collective bargaining issue at play I bet…..The league won’t force it, or they already would have probably.

Forcing players to create valuable memorabilia for others to sell, for a cause some won’t support would probably generate a ton of grievances and the NHLPA pushing back. It’s a fight nobody wants to see, so the league won’t mandate it I wager.

 

[Calicaps]

They’re a collective bargaining issue at play I bet…..The league won’t force it, or they already would have probably.

You may be right. In that case I'd like to see 3 things happen: 1. these jerks not be allowed to make public appeals to their faith and instead simply be reported by the team as refusing to participate in a Hockey is for Everyone activity. 2. These players be denied the right to participate in any Hockey is for Everyone, Hockey Fights Cancer, etc activities--that is, make it all or nothing, and 3. Some player refuse to wear a sponsor patch because they don't believe in the product/company--that is, test the resolve

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

You may be right. In that case I'd like to see 3 things happen: 1. these jerks not be allowed to make public appeals to their faith and instead simply be reported by the team as refusing to participate in a Hockey is for Everyone activity. 2. These players be denied the right to participate in any Hockey is for Everyone, Hockey Fights Cancer, etc activities--that is, make it all or nothing, and 3. Some player refuse to wear a sponsor patch because they don't believe in the product/company--that is, test the resolve

Well…..this is Merica, so none of those things will happen lol….

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I assume most would be disappointed if you found out the Caps haven’t done it because they took an informal poll among the players the majority didn’t want to…..so they did stick tape….

that would be wild….and it makes me wonder.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Nonsense, he absolutely can be forced to do things that his employer requires. This isn't a constitutional rights argument. For most folks, the option--if you don't want to fulfill the requirements of the job--is to quit. He's an employee. His employer has a thing that employees are supposed to be required to do. That his employer is too damned cowardly to stand for it's own purported priorities is disgraceful. He should be required to do it or face consequences if he doesn't.

Ok, let me clarify. Of course his employer could force him. Yes.

But I’m glad they don’t. Hear me out.

I’d far rather have communities see that people are actually *FOR* doing things, and representing because they want to, then simply doing it because they have to. It’s more powerful, to my simple mind.

Dissenters will always exist. Let them. Them doing so…. It opens up more dialogue AND truly allows those that really BELIEVE in it, to show it.

Ok, you don’t believe it? Then don’t pretend and do it because you have to. That helps nothing, IMO.

I think it’s being done exactly as it should be.

 

[Calicaps]

Ok, let me clarify. Of course his employer could force him. Yes.

But I’m glad they don’t. Hear me out.

I’d far rather have communities see that people are actually *FOR* doing things, and representing because they want to, then simply doing it because they have to. It’s more powerful, to my simple mind.

Dissenters will always exist. Let them. Them doing so…. It opens up more dialogue AND truly allows those that really BELIEVE in it, to show it.

Ok, you don’t believe it? Then don’t pretend and do it because you have to. That helps nothing, IMO.

I think it’s being done exactly as it should, IMO.

I take your point, but if the NHL actually wants to welcome LGBTQ people into its ranks on and off the ice and in the stands, then I have to disagree. The NHL's not a public forum for discussion. It's a sports league that claims to believe "Hockey is for Everyone". This conduct, and the refusal to address it, belies that claim.

 

[RedRocking]

Well…..this is Merica, so none of those things will happen lol….

Just to clarify the legal aspects of this issue, if anyone is curious.

TL;DR - Reimer is likely well within his rights to refuse to participate, based on his sincerely held religious beliefs, as covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

First, the First Amendment generally doesn’t apply to private organizations. So you can certainly make employees due all manner of things as conditions of employment.

In this instance, the CBA likely has provisions regarding player compliance in these various “cause” events, that likely gives them some latitude to opt out. I’m just inferring here, didn’t look it up.

Most on point, I think, is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents private organizations from discriminating against individuals based on “sincerely held religious beliefs”. (unless it would cause an undue hardship to the business).

This is where someone like Reimer would likely win any kind of legal fight, since the courts are very generous when it comes to recognizing any semblance of religious beliefs. And not requiring a player to wear a warmup jersey for one game is almost certainly a reasonable religious accommodation. Further, such an accommodation is most likely not more than a “de minimus” hardship to the business.

Maybe one could argue that, in the aggregate, the players’ refusal to participate in these events is creating an undue hardship to the business of the NHL. Probably difficult to show or win, but it’s not a unreasonable argument.

So, there’s the legal analysis that no one asked for - thanks for reading if you made it this far.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I take your point, but if the NHL actually wants to welcome LGBTQ people into its ranks on and off the ice and in the stands, then I have to disagree. The NHL's not a public forum for discussion. It's a sports league that claims to believe "Hockey is for Everyone". This conduct, and the refusal to address it, belies that claim.

Fair enough. That’s where we split. Nothing in life is 100%. So a couple of pickleweeds want to take a stand? 99% of the group is in.

It’s too small a sample size to be making absolutes. There is no need for it.

Anyway, I get it.

 

[Calicaps]

Just to clarify the legal aspects of this issue, if anyone is curious.

TL;DR - Reimer is likely well within his rights to refuse to participate, based on his sincerely held religious beliefs, as covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

First, the First Amendment generally doesn’t apply to private organizations. So you can certainly make employees due all manner of things as conditions of employment.

In this instance, the CBA likely has provisions regarding player compliance in these various “cause” events, that likely gives them some latitude to opt out. I’m just inferring here, didn’t look it up.

Most on point, I think, is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents private organizations from discriminating against individuals based on “sincerely held religious beliefs”. (unless it would cause an undue hardship to the business).

This is where someone like Reimer would likely win any kind of legal fight, since the courts are very generous when it comes to recognizing any semblance of religious beliefs. And not requiring a player to wear a warmup jersey for one game is almost certainly a reasonable religious accommodation. Further, such an accommodation is most likely not more than a “de minimus” hardship to the business.

Maybe one could argue that, in the aggregate, the players’ refusal to participate in these events is creating an undue hardship to the business of the NHL. Probably difficult to show or win, but it’s a reasonable argument.

So, there’s the legal analysis that no one asked for - thanks for reading if you made it this far.

Useful, thanks. I find it interesting that including him in--rather than excluding him from--something qualifies as discriminatory, but it's just a curiosity at this point.