• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Women's Soccer Team Accused Of Snubbing Star Player For Christian Views

ecofarm said:
One signs a contract when joining the team. Like everyone else that skips out on work, she got fired.

Stop apologizing for deadbeats.
Click to expand...

If something changes, such as the uniform did in this case, the employer breeched the contract by going to a jersey that violates her civil rights.
 
mrdeltoid said:
If something changes, such as the uniform did in this case, the employer breeched the contract by going to a jersey that violates her civil rights.
Click to expand...

Nope. Anyone can say at any nbn time then a Jersey violates their beliefs. Unreasonable standard.
 
mrdeltoid said:
If something changes, such as the uniform did in this case, the employer breeched the contract by going to a jersey that violates her civil rights.
Click to expand...

Jersey was approved by team and league this under contract. Three strikes and you're out.
 
ecofarm said:
Jersey was approved by team and league this under contract. Three strikes and you're out.
Click to expand...

Tyranny of the majority. I guess it depends on who's civil rights are violated. In this case a Christian, big surprise...…..
 
mrdeltoid said:
Tyranny of the majority. I guess it depends on who's civil rights are violated. In this case a Christian, big surprise...…..
Click to expand...

She could make demands every game. Better to cut her.

She's a loser
 
mrdeltoid said:
Tyranny of the majority. I guess it depends on who's civil rights are violated. In this case a Christian, big surprise...…..
Click to expand...

It's an employment contract. Like all employment contracts, three strikes and you're out.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
A team needs to be united. With national teams good players who rock the boat sometimes find themselves outside of the national team because they can't work with others. If you have a player who is unable to deal with the gay players, then it's better they're left out. I mean, the US won the competition, so the decision is justified.
Click to expand...

Sounds like reverses discrimination to me. Don't take a christian because it will not mesh well with all the liberals ands lesbians but you must take a lesbian into an organization or else you are violating their rights? Hmmmmm. Meghan Rapinoe said we got , black girls, white girls, straight girls gay girls, she didn't mentioned any christians
 
Integrityrespec said:
Sounds like reverses discrimination to me. Don't take a christian because it will not mesh well with all the liberals ands lesbians but you must take a lesbian into an organization or else you are violating their rights? Hmmmmm. Meghan Rapinoe said we got , black girls, white girls, straight girls gay girls, she didn't mentioned any christians
Click to expand...

Any Christian that would make the cut just needs to suit up and take take the field
 
ecofarm said:
Jersey was approved by team and league this under contract. Three strikes and you're out.
Click to expand...

You stated that she was fired for skipping out on work. Now you claim the Jersey was "approved" under contract. In the interests of accuracy, as I in part noted previously:

Regardless of what one's view on this, the misinformation is getting in the way of a discussion.

1. I've seen no evidence that she was under a contract with or without an option for resignation or termination. I have seen evidence that she quit the team, with the team understanding, rather than wear a gay pride jersey. I have no seen no evidence that her absence was due to involuntary termination. Contrary to your assumption, no one in the news media claims she was fired.

2. I doubt there is an administrative process, i.e. an approval process for jerseys, inside an employment contract; anymore than an employment contract for an employee would embody reference to a "process" for approving computer purchases or purchase orders.

3. The initial issue of whether her civil rights were violated is a question to be determined under the law. The pivotal question being the stated terms and conditions of employment or contract, and more importantly if the team and/or league could have made religious accommodation.

4. The second issue is whether or not she was not invited or cut from tryouts because of the exercise of her religion.
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
You stated that she was fired for skipping out on work. Now you claim the Jersey was "approved" under contract. In the interests of accuracy, as I in part noted previously:

Regardless of what one's view on this, the misinformation is getting in the way of a discussion.

1. I've seen no evidence that she was under a contract with or without an option for resignation or termination. I have seen evidence that she quit to team rather than wear a gay pride jersey. I have no seen no evidence that her absence was due to involuntary termination. Other than you, no one else in the public media makes such a claim.

2. I doubt there is an administrative process, an approval process, inside an employment contract; anymore than an employment contract for an employee would embody reference to a the "process" for approving computer purchases or purchase orders.

3. The initial issue of whether her civil rights were violated or not is a question to be determined under the law. The pivotal question being the stated terms and conditions of employment or contracting, and more importantly could the team and/or league made religious accommodation.

4. The second issue is whether or not she was not invited or cut from tryouts because of the exercise of her religion.
Click to expand...

She quit the team. If she was wronged let her file a suit.


I see no evidence she has
 
maxparrish said:
You stated that she was fired for skipping out on work. Now you claim the Jersey was "approved" under contract.
Click to expand...

Correct. I don't apologize for deadbeats.
 
maxparrish said:
You stated that she was fired for skipping out on work. Now you claim the Jersey was "approved" under contract. In the interests of accuracy, as I in part noted previously:

Regardless of what one's view on this, the misinformation is getting in the way of a discussion.

1. I've seen no evidence that she was under a contract with or without an option for resignation or termination. I have seen evidence that she quit the team, with the team understanding, rather than wear a gay pride jersey. I have no seen no evidence that her absence was due to involuntary termination. Other than you, no one else in the public media makes such a claim.

2. I doubt there is an administrative process, i.e. an approval process for jerseys, inside an employment contract; anymore than an employment contract for an employee would embody reference to a "process" for approving computer purchases or purchase orders.

3. The initial issue of whether her civil rights were violated is a question to be determined under the law. The pivotal question being the stated terms and conditions of employment or contract, and more importantly if the team and/or league could have made religious accommodation.

4. The second issue is whether or not she was not invited or cut from tryouts because of the exercise of her religion.
Click to expand...

She was supposed to wear the American team uniform. The gay pride jersey is not the official team uniform.
 
jaeger19 said:
She never demanded because the nature of soccer is that there are team colors. She chose to not play.

You guys seem to take the position... we are Christians.. so you must do everything we want.. and accept our bigotry and accept our discrimination and if you actual hold us responsible for our actions.. we whine and cry.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. You might have some semblance of a point if Hinkle, or anyone, were demanding that Rapinoe or someone else be removed from the team. Not only did nobody make that demand, they didn't even demand that the rainbow jersey not be worn. All Hinkle did was decide not to wear it herself. As such, your statement is nothing but a diversion.
 
mrdeltoid said:
The article said there was a decision to wear the rainbow jerseys in celebration of gay pride month, or week, not sure what the time frame. Celebration of anything that goes against Christianity, is by definition, going against ones religion. That's a civil rights violation. And no, I never considered cheerleaders as a celebration of any sexual preference. And I wasn't hinting that I have gay friends, I was saying my friends, don't care about your sexuality. Since you brought it up, my daughter is lesbian, and 2 of my friends happen to be gay. It has nothing to do with this anyway. I wouldn't force anybody to wear anything that celebrates my religion, and I shouldn't have to wear something that violates it either.
Click to expand...

Celebration of what exactly goes against Christianity? Consenting adults making their own choices? Consenting adults living their lives without fear of being beaten up or being arrested?

Remember.. you don't care about peoples sexuality.. remember? So whats going against their religion?

And no.. its not a civil rights violation to go against someones religion...

I require my nurses to be able to take blood draws and give blood transfusion.. .. If they say " I can't because my religion doesn't allow blood transfusions"... that's fine..they can choose not to work for me.. but.. I do not have to keep them on.. when they are not willing to do their job.

The same in this situation.. wearing a jersey.. the same jersey is a requirement of the job.. and it was marketing that is definitely part of the job. In no way did this violate her civil rights. She had the right to refuse to work.. she did..and they do not have to hire her back or ask her to return.

Its that simple. No violation of civil rights.

If I owned a bar. and one of my employees decides to become muslim and informs me that serving alcohol is against his religion.. I do not have to continue to employ him when he refuses to do his job.
 
jaeger19 said:
So your marriage is meaningless because gay people get married? It would seem that you have a pretty weak marriage then.. just saying.

and marriage has been all sorts of things in history. Heck. people married their younger children to keep power in the family.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about my marriage or any individual marriage, just marriage in general. If everyone has a "right" under the Constitution to get married then any two or more people cannot be denied it. That makes marriage virtually meaningless except as a tax strategy.
 
mrdeltoid said:
If something changes, such as the uniform did in this case, the employer breeched the contract by going to a jersey that violates her civil rights.
Click to expand...

No.. because changing jerseys is part of the job description. I would almost guarantee you that any professional sports contract has the right to use the players image, decide their uniform etc. for marketing purposes as part of the contract.
 
jaeger19 said:
And there shouldn't be anything controversial about being gay. Its who these people are.. they aren't hurting anyone.. and they are not forcing their choices onto you.

Your logic is like saying we should not have martin luther king day at the ball park because well.. or celebrate cinco de mayo.. at the football stadium.. because racists might get offended.
Click to expand...

No, it's not like saying that at all. You group people with Christian moral beliefs in with racists and bigots. That makes any conclusion you then reach, an inaccurate one. Nobody is saying people aren't gay or can't be gay. What they are saying is that they shouldn't be forced to celebrate it at the threat of public shaming if they do not. You guys have taken the complaint you've always exercised against religious conservatives and started using it yourselves. (ie. ostracizing and shaming) But, of course, it's OK now because you're on the "right" side of the issue.
 
Integrityrespec said:
She was supposed to wear the American team uniform. The gay pride jersey is not the official team uniform.
Click to expand...

From a legal standpoint, whether or not the uniform was standard or special is not relevant UNLESS there was some assurance that she would not be asked to change uniforms (and I doubt she it was even contemplated or discussed). Unless the uniform was a violation of league rules, or unapproved by the league, that particular promissory issue would seem moot.

However, if under the law the team and/or league should have made religious accommodation (e.g. by permitting her to wear the standard uniform) and IF she was denied that opportunity after she requested it, then there is an issue.

Whether or not she would prevail, if she had filed a suit, is unknown. Aside from any failure to follow procedural requirements, the factors that would be considered:

- Is political or social identity messaging a significant deliverable or purpose of the team or league (e.g. is it in the mission statement or NGO application)?
- Can she perform almost all of her job duties if religious accommodation is not granted?
- Would accommodation adversely impact the workload of her co-workers?

If the answer is that accommodation could have been made, and the reason she is not selected for the team because the team/coach does not wish to accommodate, then they are guilty of discrimination.

On the three factors I mentioned, I think she would win.
 
jaeger19 said:
Celebration of what exactly goes against Christianity? Consenting adults making their own choices? Consenting adults living their lives without fear of being beaten up or being arrested?

Remember.. you don't care about peoples sexuality.. remember? So whats going against their religion?

And no.. its not a civil rights violation to go against someones religion...

I require my nurses to be able to take blood draws and give blood transfusion.. .. If they say " I can't because my religion doesn't allow blood transfusions"... that's fine..they can choose not to work for me.. but.. I do not have to keep them on.. when they are not willing to do their job.

The same in this situation.. wearing a jersey.. the same jersey is a requirement of the job.. and it was marketing that is definitely part of the job. In no way did this violate her civil rights. She had the right to refuse to work.. she did..and they do not have to hire her back or ask her to return.

Its that simple. No violation of civil rights.

If I owned a bar. and one of my employees decides to become muslim and informs me that serving alcohol is against his religion.. I do not have to continue to employ him when he refuses to do his job.
Click to expand...

But knealing for the National Anthem and the US flag is ok.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope.. not conflating anything..

Yes its dollars... and the dollars are that gay people make up a good portion of the population.. and the racists.. that won't watch a soccer match because there is a rainbow on the number.. are much fewer than gay people.

Sports have come to grip with the fact that they have gay athletes and gay customers.. and there is money to be made here... while being a racist.. misogynistic company.. tends to not be that productive.

And that's because society has changed.. the racists and the bigots.. well they don't have the sway that they once did. A gay person can come out of the closet.,, and have less fear of being beat up, losing their job.. being arrested or even being killed.. than they did just a few decades ago.

and that's what irks you guys. You liked the time when you didn't have to see gay people.. and they knew their place to be quiet.. and now.. your bigotry and discrimination is not acceptable anyone and that makes you upset.

Its hard when you have been the bully.. and now you aren't.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Keeping someone off the team because they are gay would be discriminatory. Refusing to celebrate their gayness, is not. I don't care if there are gay players on the team. I watch a sport for the sport, not the BS PC crap the left has foisted upon it. Your last three paragraphs are simply hyperbolic nonsense unrelated to the actual discussion revolving around Hinkle.
 
veritas1 said:
No, it's not like saying that at all. You group people with Christian moral beliefs in with racists and bigots. That makes any conclusion you then reach, an inaccurate one. Nobody is saying people aren't gay or can't be gay. What they are saying is that they shouldn't be forced to celebrate it at the threat of public shaming if they do not. You guys have taken the complaint you've always exercised against religious conservatives and started using it yourselves. (ie. ostracizing and shaming) But, of course, it's OK now because you're on the "right" side of the issue.
Click to expand...

Because I don't agree with your choices, your sexual preferences doesn't make me a hater. Because I don't support your choices doesn't mean I hate you or that I'm depriving you of anything. I just disagree. That I don't want to wear the gay pride jersey showing may support for that lifestyle just means I disagree. You know like you guys might not stand for the national anthem.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nah.. that's just you. Its really a statement of acceptance. Wearing a rainbow and going to the gay pride festival did not make me gay. Nor did it make gay hundreds of my employees that also went, many in support of other coworkers who are gay.

And sure you believe that wearing the jersey makes you gay.. that's your worry. At the very least it means you "approve"... approve of what? Consenting adults making their own choices?

Oh my.. how terrible.

Hinkle didn't have courage.. bigots aren't showing courage.

Courage is standing up for people and the right thing to do.. when everyone else is disparaging them.

I am reminded of a story of true courage. When a fellow stood up for a woman who was about to be stoned by a crowd for adultery. He stood up and protected that woman against the religious anger and hatred that they had. And pointed out to them.. that they had their own sins to worry about.. ..

That's was true courage.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. I never said or remotely suggested that wearing some jersey makes you gay. You simply want to make the discussion about me instead of the real topic. That's the typical BS that goes on in here when leftists can't defend their ham fisted tactics.

It's also rich seeing you try to use scripture as some lesson. You seem to forget that Jesus told her to "go and sin no more." Apparently, only the supposed sins of Christians not approving the gay lifestyle need be pointed out here (which, of course, are NOT sins) rather than the actual sins which scripture points out.
 
veritas1 said:
Stop lying. I never said or remotely suggested that wearing some jersey makes you gay. You simply want to make the discussion about me instead of the real topic. That's the typical BS that goes on in here when leftists can't defend their ham fisted tactics.

It's also rich seeing you try to use scripture as some lesson. You seem to forget that Jesus told her to "go and sin no more." Apparently, only the supposed sins of Christians not approving the gay lifestyle need be pointed out here (which, of course, are NOT sins) rather than the actual sins which scripture points out.
Click to expand...

Naw… its not lying..

Sorry man.. but why then are you getting so upset about wearing a rainbow? Think about it.

I have more than pointed out the realities here.

A marketing decisions was made.. a player refused to play because of it.. so she was not asked back. That's the deal.

Yes.. its is rich that I used scripture.. because it proves the point.. that you aren't following it. Yep.. Jesus said sin no more. JESUS said that. Are you Jesus? If not.. I would suggest that you look to your OWN sins.. before pointing out others sins. AS JESUS HAS TOLD US.

But you will do what makes you feel better about being your hatred and bigotry.
 
jaeger19 said:
Naw… its not lying..

Sorry man.. but why then are you getting so upset about wearing a rainbow? Think about it.

I have more than pointed out the realities here.

A marketing decisions was made.. a player refused to play because of it.. so she was not asked back. That's the deal.

Yes.. its is rich that I used scripture.. because it proves the point.. that you aren't following it. Yep.. Jesus said sin no more. JESUS said that. Are you Jesus? If not.. I would suggest that you look to your OWN sins.. before pointing out others sins. AS JESUS HAS TOLD US.

But you will do what makes you feel better about being your hatred and bigotry.
Click to expand...

You celebrate the sin of homosexuality. You send your employees out to celebrate it. You approve the US soccer team celebrating it. If you think that would be approved by Jesus then you simply have no understanding of scripture whatever. Hinkle took a biblical and moral position, which was not to promote what scripture calls sin. It's no different than being asked to support some other sin and refusing to do so. End of story.
 
maxparrish said:
From a legal standpoint, whether or not the uniform was standard or special is not relevant UNLESS there was some assurance that she would not be asked to change uniforms (and I doubt she it was even contemplated or discussed). Unless the uniform was a violation of league rules, or unapproved by the league, that particular promissory issue would seem moot.

However, if under the law the team and/or league should have made religious accommodation (e.g. by permitting her to wear the standard uniform) and IF she was denied that opportunity after she requested it, then there is an issue.

Whether or not she would prevail, if she had filed a suit, is unknown. Aside from any failure to follow procedural requirements, the factors that would be considered:

- Is political or social identity messaging a significant deliverable or purpose of the team or league (e.g. is it in the mission statement or NGO application)?
- Can she perform almost all of her job duties if religious accommodation is not granted?
- Would accommodation adversely impact the workload of her co-workers?

If the answer is that accommodation could have been made, and the reason she is not selected for the team because the team/coach does not wish to accommodate, then they are guilty of discrimination.

On the three factors I mentioned, I think she would win.
Click to expand...

Good questions you've identified.

I'm trying to think of other workplace scenarios in which I was required to for a day to wear a political/social statement shirt/hat/whatever. What if this special uniform shirt had had the rainbow team logo with a line through it? What if it had indicated support for Second Amendment restrictions or were pro-life or pro-choice? Someone should lose her job for this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom