• 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

Baloney. All that matters is what happens between the lines. The 1972-74 Oakland A's were dysfunctional and won 3 straight World Series. This is all about punishing someone for her beliefs and assuaging the lesbians on the team. The US having won the World Cup doesn't justify leaving Hinkle off. In fact, they may have won it more handily with her playing.

Sorry, what? Baseball? Come on, baseball is almost an individual sport. For the batters it's basically individual, all it requires is a little team effort when trying to catch the damn thing. Soccer is much different.

But saying that, a dysfunctional team might be able to win. But it won't be as good as a functional team. The Men's Dutch national team are examples of that, whenever there's been a race issue, they've done badly.

Is it punishing her? She was the one who decided to pull out of the team in the first place. No person has an automatic spot on the team. You get it because someone thinks you'd be the best, and that person is the boss, and the boss's decision is final. Don't like it? Well go home and cry.
 
What about gay players who cannot deal with christians? I played on lots of teams where everyone was not "friends" but played extremely well together because it was about the game and not the politics.

Well, it's up to whoever's in charge. The US women's national team has lots of good players to choose from. If it's between one good player and another good player who's going to cause problems and has already refused to play for the team, which one are you going to choose? Not a hard choice, is it?
 
What makes you think she is unable to deal with gay players? She obviously already has. She just didn't want to wear a gay pride jersey, which is something entirely different than "not being able to deal with gay players". But you did accidentally touch on the reality of it...it is the rabid and narrow-minded orthodoxy of the leftists that wouldn't have been able to deal with it and it possibly could've cause some strife.


She refused to play when they wore shirts with a rainbow on. What tells your teammates "**** you" more than that?

Can you imagine a player who would refuse to wear a shirt with a part of it celebrating black people? You think they'd get away with that citing their religious beliefs "god hates black people, let me in the team please".
 
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.

In another era one could easily have used the same excuse for exclusion of Jews or Blacks - its the minority persons fault for "rocking the boat" and "can't work with others" in the majority, not those of us who hold the hegemony.

Wasn't convincing then, isn't convincing now.
 
You would be squawking bigotry if the situation and argument were reversed.

Would I? No, I wouldn't.

She refused to play for the team. If it were simply a case of she was religious and they went "haha, you're religious, we won't have you on the team", I might do. But she's gone "I'm religious and **** all you gay people". That's something rather different. She's attacked people on the team. She's refused to play. She's made her point and she can suffer for it. Also no one has proven she'd even be on the team even if she hadn't decided to anger the best player on the team.
 
In another era one could easily have used the same excuse for exclusion of Jews or Blacks - its the minority persons fault for "rocking the boat" and "can't work with others" in the majority, not those of us who hold the hegemony.

Wasn't convincing then, isn't convincing now.

No, you're twisting this.

Had a Jewish person decided to say "I hate Christians, they shouldn't be allowed to be first class citizens in my country", and got dropped, you think that wouldn't have been a valid reason for kicking them off the team?

Or how about a black person saying "Whitey aught to go home, we don't want whitey in this country" and got dropped, you think that wouldn't have been a valid reason for kicking them off the team?


Let's stop pretending she didn't do anything and this is only about her being a Christian. Also, let's stop pretending Christians can be total bigots and then hide behind their religion.

In all the posts so far, no one has responded to the point I made about how traditional marriage is being married in a church. That people who marry only under the government don't have "traditional marriages" and the Christian zealots don't attack such people. They only attack gay people when they want to get married. They also don't attack adulterers. They damn well VOTED A TRIPLE ADULTERER into the White House.

Please, save your fake tears for someone else. I'm not buying this "it's my religious belief" nonsense. Of "traditional marriage" is the religious belief, then start attacking ALL PEOPLE WITH NO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. But they don't.

It's all about religious people wanting to subvert the US Constitution to get what they want. They do exactly the same thing with the 2A.
 
I find it interesting that the only really thoughtful argument against this young woman was made by...

(wait for it)

...a conservative. (VanceMack)

While I don't agree with his position, all in all, this looks like a win for US Conservative Team all around.

No twerking, please.
 
I find it interesting that the only really thoughtful argument against this young woman was made by...

(wait for it)

...a conservative. (VanceMack)

While I don't agree with his position, all in all, this looks like a win for US Conservative Team all around.

No twerking, please.

I declare a win for the progressives!!!!!


Yay we wn
 
Oh, requiring a player to wear the soccer jersey of the team is against people's civil rights? Wait, how about kneeling during the national anthem, is forcing them to stand against their civil rights?

Was it against Kaepernick's religion to stand for the national anthem? No. Is there a spot in Title VII reserved for jerks? No. So legally he, um, didn't have a leg to stand on. :lol:
 
Was it against Kaepernick's religion to stand for the national anthem? No. Is there a spot in Title VII reserved for jerks? No. So legally he, um, didn't have a leg to stand on. :lol:

Oranges and lemons. :doh
 
No, you're twisting this.

Had a Jewish person decided to say "I hate Christians, they shouldn't be allowed to be first class citizens in my country", and got dropped, you think that wouldn't have been a valid reason for kicking them off the team?

Or how about a black person saying "Whitey aught to go home, we don't want whitey in this country" and got dropped, you think that wouldn't have been a valid reason for kicking them off the team?

Speaking of "twisting" did she say "I hate gays, they shouldn't be allowed to be first class citizens" or that "we don't want lezz'ies in this country" ?
Of course she didn't. Therefore your why are you "twisting this"?

Let's stop pretending she didn't do anything and this is only about her being a Christian. Also, let's stop pretending Christians can be total bigots and then hide behind their religion.
To the contrary, why are you pretending that she did something other than being a Christian? You think "being Muslim, or Gay, or Jewish, or Black is "doing something"?

So far your line of argument is indistinguishable from bigotry and hate speech. Do you have an actual argument?

In all the posts so far, no one has responded to the point I made about how traditional marriage is being married in a church. That people who marry only under the government don't have "traditional marriages" and the Christian zealots don't attack such people. They only attack gay people when they want to get married. They also don't attack adulterers. They damn well VOTED A TRIPLE ADULTERER into the White House.

Now your ranting a non-sequitur. What do the actions of others, in other circumstances, have to do with her? Once again, you could be ranting about the cultural or social opinions (or actions) of members of any group - Muslim, Orthodox Jewish, Christian, Catholics, Blacks, or Gay...(etc), and once more you advanced an argument based on your personal bigotry.

Please, save your fake tears for someone else. I'm not buying this "t's my religious belief" nonsense. Of "traditional marriage" is the religious belief, then start attacking ALL PEOPLE WITH NO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. But they don't.

It's all about religious people wanting to subvert the US Constitution to get what they want. They do exactly the same thing with the 2A.

So, in other words, the reason she should have been excluded from the National Team is that she is a religious person, and they hold views you don't approve of.

How persuasive. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Was it against Kaepernick's religion to stand for the national anthem? No. Is there a spot in Title VII reserved for jerks? No. So legally he, um, didn't have a leg to stand on. :lol:

So, if someone says "it's against my religion" then it's okay, otherwise it's not?

Come on, that's ridiculous.

I could literally say "it's against my religion to come in contact with black people" Wham, you've just made black people 3rd class citizens again.

However there is a place in the US Constitution for freedom of speech.

This soccer player has the right to say she doesn't like gay people. She does not have any rights whatsoever to be a member of the US national soccer team. That is only a privilege.
 
Speaking of "twisting" did she say "I hate gays, they shouldn't be allowed to be first class citizens" or that "we don't want lezz'ies in this country" ?
Of course she didn't. Therefore your why are you "twisting this"?

To the contrary, why are you pretending that she did something other than being a Christian? You think "being Muslim, or Gay, or Jewish, or Black is "doing something"?

So far your line of argument is indistinguishable from bigotry and hate speech. Do you have an actual argument?



Now your ranting a non-sequitur. What do the actions of others, in other circumstances, have to do with her? Once again, you could be ranting about the cultural or social opinions (or actions) of members of any group - Muslim, Orthodox Jewish, Christian, Catholics, Blacks, or Gay...(etc), and once more you advanced an argument based on your personal bigotry.



So, in other words, the reason she should have been excluded from the National Team is that she is a religious person, and they hold views you don't approve of.

How persuasive. :roll:

There are may ways to communicate. Her actions said "I hate gay people". Simple as.

Oh right, yeah, she didn't do anything but be Christian, considering that the zealot Christians seem to pick and choose what they hate, don't follow the Bible, ignore parts of the Bible, like the good ol' adultery part.....

Ah, so pointing out that Christian zealots are so full of nonsense and using their religion to hide their bigotry behind is now something you don't want to discuss. OH WHAT A FREAKING SURPRISE>
 
Taking a knee against oppression is not the same as refusing to wear the team shirt.

No, but in this thread it's still a red herring. Nonetheless, I chose to address it because it gave me a chance to point out the legal difference between Kaep's protest and Hinkle's. Notice as well that NFL players now either stand for the anthem or they disappear. They can protest oppression on their own time, which for Kaepernick is now most of the time.
 
There are may ways to communicate. Her actions said "I hate gay people". Simple as.

Sort of like Rapnioe's actions said, "I hate America!"? She could have just come out and said it. :lol:
 
*NFL teams don't sign Kaepernick because he won't toe the line*

Conservatives: HAHA LOSER! LIBTARD! BETTER STAND FOR MY FLAG!

*Women's soccer team doesn't carry on with a team member who doesn't toe the line*

Conservatives: THEY HATE GOD AND WE'RE ALL SO PERSECUTED
 
There are may ways to communicate. Her actions said "I hate gay people". Simple as.

Oh right, yeah, she didn't do anything but be Christian, considering that the zealot Christians seem to pick and choose what they hate, don't follow the Bible, ignore parts of the Bible, like the good ol' adultery part.....

Ah, so pointing out that Christian zealots are so full of nonsense and using their religion to hide their bigotry behind is now something you don't want to discuss. OH WHAT A FREAKING SURPRISE>

You mean her unwillingness to be a billboard for someone's else's cause makes her guilty of what, other not wishing to advertise gay pride and politics? I am sure there are those on the national team who would not wear T-shirts touting an identity pride of being straight, white, Muslim, American, Catholic, or southern either, does that mean "I hate people that are one of those"?

If you are now revealing that this isn't about Hinkle, but really want rant about Christians, fine by me. But demonizing and expressing bigotry towards Christians is a different subject...not relevant to the OP.
 
*NFL teams don't sign Kaepernick because he won't toe the line*

Conservatives: HAHA LOSER! LIBTARD! BETTER STAND FOR MY FLAG!

*Women's soccer team doesn't carry on with a team member who doesn't toe the line*

Conservatives: THEY HATE GOD AND WE'RE ALL SO PERSECUTED

Here's a difference, though: Kaep, while he was in the league, was never forced to stand. He didn't have to choose between his job or his conscience. Jaelene Hinkle did.
 
Taking a knee against oppression is not the same as refusing to wear the team shirt.

Correct.

Taking a knee is an affirmative action to send a political message to an audience, just as the coach (or whoever) had all the women players forgo their standard uniform in order to send a political message to the audience.

Hinkle, on the other hand, declined to participate in the required political messaging. And since then has been discriminated against because she didn't "take a knee".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom