USWNT

Uh, Kaepernick was blackballed as a result and therefore deprived of his ability to play the sport he loved. Going forward, anyone who follows his lead will be fined to the point that they cannot either.

Hinkle, in the other hand, gets to keep playing the sport she loves, just not on the WNT. Interestingly, Rapinoe had the same difficult choice as Hinkle, which is she doesn’t get to play on the WNT either if she continued taking a knee. In response to her choice, you don’t see Rapinoe dropping out and telling Christians how they’re second-class citizens on Easter Sunday. Unlike Hinkle, Rapinoe has some character.

Go ahead and continue the anti-gay agenda folks, but it’s a lost cause. Even the US Supreme Court today couldn’t muster the homophobia necessary to endorse homophobic cake makers refusing to sell wedding cakes to gays. You’re a just gonna have to wait for the apocalypse now.
Nothing I said even hinted at being Anti-Gay. I encourage you to look up the definitions of Bigoet and Intolerant. Your words meet the criteria for both. You seem to have a lot of hate for people that don’t agree with you.
 
So, channeling my inner Martin Luther King, Jr., can I just say that I have a dream that one day girls who like boys and girls who like girls will one day play with balls together on the same team.
 
The problem with this discussion is that it represents everything that is right and wrong with America. Its also steeped in religion, which makes it an argument that is unwinnable. The very existence of this forum is rooted in principals of free speech, which is inextricably intertwined with freedom to practice one's religion. We start to go off the rails with a person's religious practices impact the rights of others.

As a preliminary matter, I believe it would be best if our National Team refrained from engaging in any kind of extraneous advocacy unrelated primarily to soccer. Abide by the law, don't discriminate and play.

As I understand the player's decision, she chose not to wear a jersey that the National Team elected to wear to honor LGBTQ month. This jersey deviated from the typical red, white and blue by incorporating rainbow numbers and would be later auctioned off to raise money for LGBTQ charities.

The player refused to wear the jersey based on her religious beliefs. She did not state that her motivation was to not play with gay teammates, rather, she refused to support the extraneous advocacy of the National Team as contrary to her religious beliefs. The player has every right to make a personal choice to refuse to support the national team because the national team has chosen to openly advocate for a non-soccer related issue.

Sports are entertainment and from a national and international perspective we should endeavor to be an inclusive as possible. We should also refrain from attempting to use sports for political/social/religious advocacy beyond adhering to a policy of being intolerant against intolerance.

Sports or another other platform that gains notice is a great place for social advocacy. Religious or political advocacy not do much. Teams participate in breast cancer awareness month, Black History month l, etcetera. The first shots of the Civil Rights movement were fired by the white teammates of Jackie Robinson and the O’Malley family that refused to have their guy (a sports icon even then) be treated as less than equal.

You are right about much of what you said but I adamantly disagree with sports not being a platform for trying to bring about change.
 
This is awesome. It is nice to know that you agree with her decision not to wear a jersey that promotes social change. It is good to see you being inclusive.
 
This is awesome. It is nice to know that you agree with her decision not to wear a jersey that promotes social change. It is good to see you being inclusive.

If only Hinkle the homophobe, you or the 700 Club were inclusive. Publicly opposing equal rights for LGBT individuls is exactly the opposite of inclusive. It’s not inclusive to oppose gay marriage or someone’s right to adopt because they’re gay. It’s not inclusive to refuse service to someone because they’re gay. It isn’t inclusive to lament that being gay isn’t a mental illness, which is what you do and also what your bigoted, racist buddy Pat Robertson did when he aired the soccer homophobe’s video on his 700 Club. It’s not inclusive to pray a hurricane hits Disney world because it supports gay rights, as Robertson also did on the 700 Club. (Ironically, the next hurricane to hit the U.S. took a divine turn away from Florida and hit the home of the 700 Club. True story).

No, Hinkle does not get to publicly proclaim she supports the exclusion of gays and continuing violation of their civil rights without getting called out by US Soccer or anyone else who understands religion doesn’t give you a free pass to be a horrible person. I know it’s almost impossible now for people like you and her to support the oppression of minority groups using religion as an excuse. But, hey, if you don’t like it here, you can go back to where Jesus came from.
 
Sports or another other platform that gains notice is a great place for social advocacy. Religious or political advocacy not do much. Teams participate in breast cancer awareness month, Black History month l, etcetera. The first shots of the Civil Rights movement were fired by the white teammates of Jackie Robinson and the O’Malley family that refused to have their guy (a sports icon even then) be treated as less than equal.

You are right about much of what you said but I adamantly disagree with sports not being a platform for trying to bring about change.

I appreciate what you are saying and agree that there is significant power in sports to challenge biases. Where we diverge is the limits of that power and how its best use. The short answer (without getting into a thesis on implicit bias, tribal wiring, religion, etc.) is that sport is an excellent vehicle to address internal overt discrimination, which helps break down external implicit bias barriers and a lousy vehicle to actively advocate for/against controversial subjects.

I'm glad you bring up Jackie Robinson, which is the perfect example of how sports should be used. When the O'Malley family approached Jackie Robinson to wear a Dodger uniform, O'Malley did so knowing that the subversive effect could only work if Robinson "played ball" so to speak by not fighting back. Just play the game and don't get baited into a fight on or off the field despite what teammates, opponents, fans, umpires, writers, broadcasters and hotel managers said or did. O'Malley understood that he could only use the Dodgers and baseball to make a subversive statement and force bigots to question core tenants of their beliefs.

Sports can only do so much (which I think is what you are saying by differentiating "social" from "political and religious" reform). Real political and social change comes from the populace challenging the institutions. In the context of race discrimination, the real fight would be by the likes of Rosa Parks, the Greensboro Four, Linda Brown, Ruby Bridges, Dr. Martin Luther King, the millions of marchers and the attorneys that fought in the courts. Sports must set the example of inclusiveness, but shouldn't be the tip of the spear because it would lose its impact (as O'Malley and Robinson knew).

Over the years, our Nation and other Nations have attempted to use sports to drive political change and its failed. The US/International boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic games because the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan did nothing (Soviet's did not leave until 1988/89). The 1984 "retaliatory" boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympic games by the Soviets ... just petty tit-for-tat.

In fact, prior to the 1936 Olympic games, there were calls to boycott the Berlin games. On the one side, Avery Brundage argued politics had no place in sport and on the other, Jeremiah Mahoney and Ernst Lee Jancke arguing for a boycott. Brundage won by a close vote and gave the world an opportunity to see the great Jessie Owens destroy the Olympic's racial hierarchy, humiliated Hitler and challenged stereotypes in one fell swoop. Arguably, it was Owens (not O'Malley and Robinson) that represented the first shot in destroying theories of racial superiority, even here in the U.S. and it almost didn't happen.

Religious fundamentalism presents a bigger and longer term problem. Whether its fundamentalist/political Christianity, Judaism or Islam, we have billions of folks in this world that hold beliefs that are antithetical to basic human rights. Entertainment (music, movies, sports, etc.) can and will play a subversive role by changing perspective of the members, but real change will only come when doctrinal adjustments to these various religions are made by the theocrats at the urging of the members or these religions are abandoned altogether.

History has taught us that when entertainment devices step over the line, those devices get shut off and loose their effectiveness. We see it today in various theocracies, such as, the Vatican, Iran (Shia) and Sunni political Islamic states. Ultimately, this is my concern and I don't want to see soccer or other sports engage in direct advocacy of polarizing subjects because it risks having its real power muted.

Sports is an opportunity to put everybody, regardless of race, religion, politics, creed, sexual preference, etc., on a field with everybody playing by the same rules. Its optimizes how society "should be" through the ultimate example of fair play and challenges bias, bigotry and prejudices. In sum, I don't believe we should risk muting the tremendous subversive power of sports on social issues by using it for direct advocacy.
 
If only Hinkle the homophobe, you or the 700 Club were inclusive. Publicly opposing equal rights for LGBT individuls is exactly the opposite of inclusive. It’s not inclusive to oppose gay marriage or someone’s right to adopt because they’re gay. It’s not inclusive to refuse service to someone because they’re gay. It isn’t inclusive to lament that being gay isn’t a mental illness, which is what you do and also what your bigoted, racist buddy Pat Robertson did when he aired the soccer homophobe’s video on his 700 Club. It’s not inclusive to pray a hurricane hits Disney world because it supports gay rights, as Robertson also did on the 700 Club. (Ironically, the next hurricane to hit the U.S. took a divine turn away from Florida and hit the home of the 700 Club. True story).

No, Hinkle does not get to publicly proclaim she supports the exclusion of gays and continuing violation of their civil rights without getting called out by US Soccer or anyone else who understands religion doesn’t give you a free pass to be a horrible person. I know it’s almost impossible now for people like you and her to support the oppression of minority groups using religion as an excuse. But, hey, if you don’t like it here, you can go back to where Jesus came from.
What is ironic is that you don't see your own bigotry. Now you can just reread it. Thanks for taking the bait.
 
What is ironic is that you don't see your own bigotry. Now you can just reread it. Thanks for taking the bait.

Coming from a pedophile that is pretty ironic. Do you have to disclose that you are a sexual predator to the teams that you play against?
 
If only Hinkle the homophobe, you or the 700 Club were inclusive. Publicly opposing equal rights for LGBT individuls is exactly the opposite of inclusive. It’s not inclusive to oppose gay marriage or someone’s right to adopt because they’re gay. It’s not inclusive to refuse service to someone because they’re gay. It isn’t inclusive to lament that being gay isn’t a mental illness, which is what you do and also what your bigoted, racist buddy Pat Robertson did when he aired the soccer homophobe’s video on his 700 Club. It’s not inclusive to pray a hurricane hits Disney world because it supports gay rights, as Robertson also did on the 700 Club. (Ironically, the next hurricane to hit the U.S. took a divine turn away from Florida and hit the home of the 700 Club. True story).

No, Hinkle does not get to publicly proclaim she supports the exclusion of gays and continuing violation of their civil rights without getting called out by US Soccer or anyone else who understands religion doesn’t give you a free pass to be a horrible person. I know it’s almost impossible now for people like you and her to support the oppression of minority groups using religion as an excuse. But, hey, if you don’t like it here, you can go back to where Jesus came from.

Actually, where Jesus came from, they are more accepting. You may want to take a look at this research. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-homosexuality/

Are you are proposing some type of "don't ask, don't tell" policy for anyone who holds certain religious beliefs if they want to be on the US National team? Irony aside, the US National team asked her when it changed the uniform, so that would not work.

That leaves us simply with a "don't tell" policy. If you hold certain religious views, and stay in the closet, can you participate? Or do you propose we take it one step further, and make sure anyone holding those views, even if they do not make them public, be banned, for the sake of greater tolerance and inclusion?

I disagree with her opinions and her choice, understand her right to them and our right to oppose them, but demonizing her for them is not the way to effect change. A person can be wrong without necessarily being horrible.
 
Are you are proposing some type of "don't ask, don't tell" policy for anyone who holds certain religious beliefs if they want to be on the US National team?.

Yes, exactly. In fact, that’s how we already handle the klan, nazis, racists, homophobes and anti-Semites. It’s no problem if you keep it to yourself or among friends, but anyone who publicly proclaims their hate and actively opposes equal rights for a significant portion of their workforce and customer base does it at their own risk. If you don’t believe me, tell HR you’re taking June off to protest it’s handling of Pride month and go on a twitter rant about it. Or ask the folks who lost their jobs for attending that white supremacy rally in Charlottesville.

How, exactly, do you think USSF should react if Bob Jones U’s star striker says on Twitter that her professors and the Westboro Baptists make a lot of sense; god says you can definitely treat Jews, gays, blacks, veterans and even Catholics as second class citizens. Should USSF exclude her for all the comments besides the anti-gay stuff because, you know, gays are the one group your own pastor says is still ok to oppress?

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether Hinkle learned her brand of hate in bible study, from her parents or friends, from Mein Kampf, from a bad college experience, or from freakin’ space aliens. USSF is treating her the same as anyone who refuses to do their job and actively protests equal and civil rights for a significant number of their coworkers and customers. It doesn’t care why. It doesn’t matter why. Religion isn’t an excuse to say or do whatever derogatory thing you want about whomever you want without facing consequences. We can thank god for that, at least.
 
Yes, exactly. In fact, that’s how we already handle the klan, nazis, racists, homophobes and anti-Semites. It’s no problem if you keep it to yourself or among friends, but anyone who publicly proclaims their hate and actively opposes equal rights for a significant portion of their workforce and customer base does it at their own risk. If you don’t believe me, tell HR you’re taking June off to protest it’s handling of Pride month and go on a twitter rant about it. Or ask the folks who lost their jobs for attending that white supremacy rally in Charlottesville.

How, exactly, do you think USSF should react if Bob Jones U’s star striker says on Twitter that her professors and the Westboro Baptists make a lot of sense; god says you can definitely treat Jews, gays, blacks, veterans and even Catholics as second class citizens. Should USSF exclude her for all the comments besides the anti-gay stuff because, you know, gays are the one group your own pastor says is still ok to oppress?

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether Hinkle learned her brand of hate in bible study, from her parents or friends, from Mein Kampf, from a bad college experience, or from freakin’ space aliens. USSF is treating her the same as anyone who refuses to do their job and actively protests equal and civil rights for a significant number of their coworkers and customers. It doesn’t care why. It doesn’t matter why. Religion isn’t an excuse to say or do whatever derogatory thing you want about whomever you want without facing consequences. We can thank god for that, at least.

USSF did nothing yet to thank God for, she declined their invitation. Perhaps take a look at the data, as you are comparing almost 50% of the religious world Nazis, and taking a pretty huge leap with your analogies. Then look in a mirror, and perhaps you will see who exactly is the hater.
 
USSF did nothing yet to thank God for, she declined their invitation. Perhaps take a look at the data, as you are comparing almost 50% of the religious world Nazis, and taking a pretty huge leap with your analogies. Then look in a mirror, and perhaps you will see who exactly is the hater.

Even the dumbest kindergartner on the playground understands the “nuh uh, you are” argument is a loser. There’s a huge difference between those who oppose civil rights, as Hinkle does, and those who don’t put up with that nonsense. Are people haters because they oppose persecution of Jews? Blacks? Women? Catholics? Or do they only become haters when they oppose persecution of gays? What makes opposing equal rights for gays a legitimate position to have, if opposing equal rights for other groups is not? Are you saying I’m a hater for opposing the Westboro Baptists and their sincerely held religious bigotry? Or just yours?

You don’t like my analogies and refuse to answer my questions because they’re directly on point and the reality is too bitter a pill to swallow. I don’t expect you to accept the inescapable truth that the only thing differentiating Hinkle and people like her from most of today’s nazis and klan members is that she hates and opposes equality for a smaller group of people. Another difference, I guess, is that at least most klan members understand the importance of keeping their hoods on in public.

Feel free to get back to me when Christians aren’t allowed to marry, adopt children, don’t receive the same tax benefits as non-Christians, are denied service at businesses without legal recourse, and are publicly reviled to even remotely the same degree as what the LGBT community has had to deal with. When gay people start claiming that diabetes is god’s way of punishing all those dumb fat religious homophobes for their unhealthy lifestyles. That hurricanes only hit the religious south for a reason. If that ever happens, I’ll stick up for them too.
 
Even the dumbest kindergartner on the playground understands the “nuh uh, you are” argument is a loser. There’s a huge difference between those who oppose civil rights, as Hinkle does, and those who don’t put up with that nonsense. Are people haters because they oppose persecution of Jews? Blacks? Women? Catholics? Or do they only become haters when they oppose persecution of gays? What makes opposing equal rights for gays a legitimate position to have, if opposing equal rights for other groups is not? Are you saying I’m a hater for opposing the Westboro Baptists and their sincerely held religious bigotry? Or just yours?

You don’t like my analogies and refuse to answer my questions because they’re directly on point and the reality is too bitter a pill to swallow. I don’t expect you to accept the inescapable truth that the only thing differentiating Hinkle and people like her from most of today’s nazis and klan members is that she hates and opposes equality for a smaller group of people. Another difference, I guess, is that at least most klan members understand the importance of keeping their hoods on in public.

Feel free to get back to me when Christians aren’t allowed to marry, adopt children, don’t receive the same tax benefits as non-Christians, are denied service at businesses without legal recourse, and are publicly reviled to even remotely the same degree as what the LGBT community has had to deal with. When gay people start claiming that diabetes is god’s way of punishing all those dumb fat religious homophobes for their unhealthy lifestyles. That hurricanes only hit the religious south for a reason. If that ever happens, I’ll stick up for them too.

Your justification of abnormal and immorality is amusing.
 
Your justification of abnormal and immorality is amusing.

I preferred your original post before you pussed out and deleted most of it. For a brief moment, you were the first person on this thread to actually come out and say how much you hate gay people and those who support them, rather than tip-toeing around and letting Hinkle and the 700 Club do the heavy lifting. No matter how much I might have tried, I could not possibly have driven people away from your hateful point of view more successfully than if they’d had the opportunity to read what actually lurks behind Hinkle’s softer approach. The gay slurs and pure, unadulterated vile and seething hatred were perfect.

Instead, I’ll just have to live knowing that even the most hardened, hateful homophobe here thought twice about expressing their candid opinion and decided it was best to delete it. I guess that’s something.
 
I preferred your original post before you pussed out and deleted most of it. For a brief moment, you were the first person on this thread to actually come out and say how much you hate gay people and those who support them, rather than tip-toeing around and letting Hinkle and the 700 Club do the heavy lifting. No matter how much I might have tried, I could not possibly have driven people away from your hateful point of view more successfully than if they’d had the opportunity to read what actually lurks behind Hinkle’s softer approach. The gay slurs and pure, unadulterated vile and seething hatred were perfect.

Instead, I’ll just have to live knowing that even the most hardened, hateful homophobe here thought twice about expressing their candid opinion and decided it was best to delete it. I guess that’s something.

He is a coward like most of the anonymous muckrakers on this forum. Complete douchebag cowards.
 
Back
Top