Jump to content

Sabres are having their Pride Night on Monday

Eleven

By Eleven
in The Aud Club

 Share

Recommended Posts

Eleven Hall of Famer

Eleven

Posted
  • Author
Posted
55 minutes ago, Cascade Youth said:

I have zero idea what is, and is not, fair game in this conversation.  Concerned it depends on the viewpoint / popularity as a poster.

I think you're right.  It may have been a bad idea to start this thread, which was intended merely to convey news and express a hope that everything goes without incident, i.e., that the Sabres aren't making news because of Pride Night and distracting from the slimmest of hopes of playoffs.  

I'm going to close it now.  I guess if there IS an incident, someone can start a thread to discuss that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Eleven locked this topic
  • Eleven unlocked this topic
Marvin First Liner

Marvin

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

You don’t get the underlying point of the lyrics?

I am a fan of Tears for Fears, so yes, I do.  I was just commenting on the cheesiness of 1980's videos as I remember them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archie Lee Fourth Liner

Archie Lee

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, LTS said:

Choosing to support something or choosing not to support something is the right of each individual. The issue is when one person takes action that would diminish the quality of life of another because of what they believe or how they choose to act.

We should all be afforded the freedom to believe what ever we want, however misguided or ignorant someone else may see it. We should all also be afforded the opportunity to live our lives how we want when those actions do not harm others.

We need to be thicker in our own skins and learn to ignore those who may speak against what we believe; at least if those people speaking are not interested in intelligent discourse.

To wear a jersey or not it not going to harm a person on this Earth despite what people may infer. If someone who supports the LGBTQ+ lifestyle takes offense then so be it. If someone who does not support the community takes offense that the Sabres organization chooses to have Pride Night, then so be it. Taking offense at something is the action of the one offended. They have chosen to lend validity to the actions or words of another that have not caused them harm. The "so called" mental harm people feel is nothing more than their distress at someone not acting in accordance with the way they believe life should play out.

No one HAS to be any particular way in life so long as they are not going to harm or impede others. Let's move on such petty trash where we spend so much time looking for what's wrong in the world we forget to look at what's right.

 

Again, what do people mean when they reference the LGBTQ+ lifestyle?  I have close family and friends who are part of the LGBTQ+ community and their lifestyle is the same as mine.  They get up, go to work or school, love and respect their friends and family, play sports, go to movies, share intimate moments with their partners, raise their children best they can, watch the Sabres, volunteer when they can, look out for neighbors, have regrets and hopes, sometimes make mistakes.  What is it about their "lifestyle" that is different?  

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PerreaultForever All Star

PerreaultForever

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TheAud said:

Is it a political statement or an ethics statement? To the best of my knowledge, LGBTQ is not a political party nor even associated with one, rather it's a collection of folks with a particular sexual/gender identity, who hold a wide range of political views themselves. 

Some people feel that the 'lifestyle' (for lack of a better term) of the LGBTQ group(s) is at odds with their ethical beliefs.  For them, I think it's more a question of living in alignment with their beliefs than a political statement.  For example, looking at the statement made by the Staal brothers they tried to make it quite clear that 'politically' they support people's right to live their life as they see fit and they welcome everyone to the game of hockey. Whereas 'personally' their belief system is at odds with what they believe the jerseys' are representing. 

I may not agree with the Staal brothers code of ethics, or even their interpretation that wearing the jerseys is at odds with their code of ethics, but I want to live in a country where they are free to follow their beliefs so long as they don't harm others in the process. I think it's a stretch to say that not wearing the warm-up jerseys represents a harm to anyone.

The ethical statement becomes a political statement when it's public. 

If you're a celebrity/athlete/etc. what you do publicly gets noticed, and as such is a political statement. 

My own view is that the league should have it in the CBA that players must participate in team events such as pride nights and if they don't, fine, but no game cheque for that night. It's not asking that much really and fits in with code of conduct issues. I know some people will disagree with that, but it's hardly an issue of freedom or any sort of "I want to live in a country where they are free to follow their beliefs" type thing. There are lots of jobs - most jobs, for most people - where you have a dress code or at least have to dress a certain way or not wear certain other things and you get no choice in the matter or you get sent home without pay or fired. It's still a free country all the same. These people are privileged individuals who get a lot more freedom than the average person does and I have zero problem with their organization telling them to wear a jersey for the team's image and marketing on any given occasion. They'll still be free. That's not going away over this and you know it. 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sidc3000 Third Liner

Sidc3000

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

The ethical statement becomes a political statement when it's public. 

If you're a celebrity/athlete/etc. what you do publicly gets noticed, and as such is a political statement. 

My own view is that the league should have it in the CBA that players must participate in team events such as pride nights and if they don't, fine, but no game cheque for that night. It's not asking that much really and fits in with code of conduct issues. I know some people will disagree with that, but it's hardly an issue of freedom or any sort of "I want to live in a country where they are free to follow their beliefs" type thing. There are lots of jobs - most jobs, for most people - where you have a dress code or at least have to dress a certain way or not wear certain other things and you get no choice in the matter or you get sent home without pay or fired. It's still a free country all the same. These people are privileged individuals who get a lot more freedom than the average person does and I have zero problem with their organization telling them to wear a jersey for the team's image and marketing on any given occasion. They'll still be free. That's not going away over this and you know it. 

It’s not in the CBA (and I doubt it will) so they all the right to choose. If I was a deeply religious player, and that was in the CBA, I would then fight to have all religions be promoted by the NHL/teams. 

If that isn’t acceptable then you would have many players who are religious (or required by their counties laws) to not play in the NHL  If that’s the case then we wouldn’t have Ovechkin in the league  

 

Edited by Sidc3000
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sidc3000 Third Liner

Sidc3000

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 3/25/2023 at 1:15 PM, pi2000 said:

Traditionally hockey has been one of the more macho sports because of violence and fighting being part of the game.   

I played growing up in the 80s and the 3 letter F word was thrown around between every whistle every game like it was nothing.

Today there is zero tolerance for it which should've been policy years ago. 

IMO pride night is a way for the league to acknowledge past transgressions, and to get the message out to young boys and girls that the sport is open to everyone. 

 

Absolutely nothing wrong with having pride night or any other special night.  Teams can celebrate these special games without having warm up jerseys. The issue is these “special” warm up jerseys put players in a very precarious position just so the team can make a few extra bucks.  
 

 

Edited by Sidc3000
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheAud Third Liner

TheAud

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

The ethical statement becomes a political statement when it's public. 

If you're a celebrity/athlete/etc. what you do publicly gets noticed, and as such is a political statement. 

My own view is that the league should have it in the CBA that players must participate in team events such as pride nights and if they don't, fine, but no game cheque for that night. It's not asking that much really and fits in with code of conduct issues. I know some people will disagree with that, but it's hardly an issue of freedom or any sort of "I want to live in a country where they are free to follow their beliefs" type thing. There are lots of jobs - most jobs, for most people - where you have a dress code or at least have to dress a certain way or not wear certain other things and you get no choice in the matter or you get sent home without pay or fired. It's still a free country all the same. These people are privileged individuals who get a lot more freedom than the average person does and I have zero problem with their organization telling them to wear a jersey for the team's image and marketing on any given occasion. They'll still be free. That's not going away over this and you know it. 

The relationship between the team and athlete vis-a-vis contract, collective bargaining, or historical precedent is no different than any other employee-employer relationship. To your point, if the NHL or a team wants to remove this sort of distraction, or at least have a clear playbook on how to handle it, they can take steps to address it in the offseason or when contracts are signed or when the next union agreement is negotiated. It seems very ad hoc at the moment. It may not be worth negotiating for something like this for most NHL teams. 

I guess I don't agree with the public nature of a statement making it political. But perhaps the differentiation is irrelevant these days. I don't see how anyone could reasonably give a rat's ass what the Staal's (for example) personal ethical beliefs are so long as they aren't impinging on anyone else's freedoms. In fact, they went out of their way to make that exact point of not denying anyone else's rights. I put it in the same category as finding out their opinions on the Fed's interest rate hikes or US trade policy in Asia. They're just hockey players, so who cares?  Now, their opinion on 3-on-3 OT? That's relevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cascade Youth Fourth Liner

Cascade Youth

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

Again, what do people mean when they reference the LGBTQ+ lifestyle? 

It is code.  I mean, do folks know that until the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967, 16 states still made it illegal for (in essence) blacks and whites to marry each other?  Under the standard being applied until that case, such laws were upheld because the states were deemed to have a “rational basis” to want to limit the mixing of races on religious grounds.  Code words like “lifestyle” were used back then by proponents of anti-miscegenation laws.

Is this post out of bounds?  Again, it’s really not clear what is considered “political” here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K-9 First Liner

K-9

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Cascade Youth said:

It is code.  I mean, do folks know that until the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967, 16 states still made it illegal for (in essence) blacks and whites to marry each other?  Under the standard being applied until that case, such laws were upheld because the states were deemed to have a “rational basis” to want to limit the mixing of races on religious grounds.  Code words like “lifestyle” were used back then by proponents of anti-miscegenation laws.

Is this post out of bounds?  Again, it’s really not clear what is considered “political” here.

 

That’s always been a great irony around these parts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnC First Liner

JohnC

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, K-9 said:

That’s always been a great irony around these parts. 

I earned penalty points on that issue. Some people with the authority do the judging and others get judged. In life, some people hold the whip while others get whipped. You don't have to like it so you just go with the flow.🍷

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cascade Youth Fourth Liner

Cascade Youth

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I earned penalty points on that issue. Some people with the authority do the judging and others get judged. In life, some people hold the whip while others get whipped. You don't have to like it so you just go with the flow.🍷

I am fine going with the flow.  It’s just unclear what direction it’s going and where the shore is.  If it’s ok to talk about someone’s sexual orientation as a “lifestyle choice” like they’re deciding what kind of car to drive, to me that seems pretty darned “political.”  But maybe the mods don’t see it that way?  It’s rather confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...