Gay footballers | Czech Republic international Jakub Jankto comes out as gay

[VanDeBank]

Take issue with it all you like, I was asking a question off someone else.

It's been pointed out that he had no issue wearing gambling and alcohol sponsors.





I have since found out he's probably just another religious hypocrite that picks and chooses what applies to his faith.

I'll be more blunt. You have a really shitty view on religion if you think a man has to be anti gay in order to not be a hypocrite in your eyes.
Gueye is a twat for being anti gay, not because he didn't tick another box in what you or others think belongs to his religion.
Picking and choosing what belongs to your religion is a good thing.

 

[Jippy]

Good luck to him. Brave coming out 17, was certainly expecting someone much older.

 

[Oranges038]

I'll be more blunt. You have a really shitty view on religion if you think a man has to be anti gay in order to not be a hypocrite in your eyes.
Gueye is a twat for being anti gay, not because he didn't tick another box in what you or others think belongs to his religion.
To me, if you do ramadan but skip out on the hatred you're pretty badass.
Picking and choosing what belongs to your religion is a good thing.

Never said that did I? Believe what I said was.

Why should he be punished for not wanting to support something that might conflict with his own belief system?

As was pointed out he had no issue wearing a shirt with alcohol and gambling sponsors, which are also prohibited by his faith. So if it was a decision based on his beliefs, well then that just makes him a hypocrite.

To me, a religious hypocrite is someone who decides to pick and choose which parts of the faith they want to apply to themselves. Why have no problems with some things your faith denounces but take serious issue with others?

I don't subscribe to any belief system, I don't think there is anything like a god out there. I think it's all a giant waste of time, but I won't force my point of view on anyone. I don't see the point in living my life according to a text that is 1000s of years old, or praying to some invisible being in the sky or wherever it is supposed to be. But if you or anyone else wants to then that's your decision and I am ok with that. I treat everybody the same, I've been in college, work and played football with people from all over the world, many different religions and sexual orientations never once held anything about their own personal choices, sexual orientation or beliefs against them.

People are people. I don't see why anyone should allow a book, or anything or anyone else form their beliefs and opinions about whether or not how other people choose to live is right or wrong.

 

[VanDeBank]

Never said that did I? Believe what I said was.

Why should he be punished for not wanting to support something that might conflict with his own belief system?

As was pointed out he had no issue wearing a shirt with alcohol and gambling sponsors, which are also prohibited by his faith. So if it was a decision based on his beliefs, well then that just makes him a hypocrite.

To me, a religious hypocrite is someone who decides to pick and choose which parts of the faith they want to apply to themselves. Why have no problems with some things your faith denounces but take serious issue with others?

I don't subscribe to any belief system, I don't think there is anything like a god out there. I think it's all a giant waste of time, but I won't force my point of view on anyone. I don't see the point in living my life according to a text that is 1000s of years old, or praying to some invisible being in the sky or wherever it is supposed to be. But if you or anyone else wants to then that's your decision and I am ok with that. I treat everybody the same, I've been in college, work and played football with people from all over the world, many different religions and sexual orientations never once held anything about their own personal choices, sexual orientation or beliefs against them.

People are people. I don't see why anyone should allow a book, or anything or anyone else form their beliefs and opinions about whether or not how other people choose to live is right or wrong.

It's implied when you say he has to follow all the things (you think) his religion prescribes in order to not be a hypocrite.
If there was Muslim that wouldn't promote drinking or gambling on his top but would wear the top with rainbow colours, by your reasoning, he'd still be a "hypocrite".

If you're not religious, why does it bother you so much that a person picks A but not B from his religion? You're aware literally everyone on the planet does this and the world is a better place for it too. Fundamentalism sucks, and you're placing it on some sort of pedestal

He's not being punished for not wearing company clothing. He's choosing to not show up for work. Your question has been answered numerous times in this thread.
He's lucky, most other lines of work he'd be fired.

 

[Fletchageddon]

Good man! Hope he opens the door for others too. Gueye can get in the bin.

 

[Oranges038]

It's implied when you say he has to follow all the things (you think) his religion prescribes in order to not be a hypocrite.
If there was Muslim that wouldn't promote drinking or gambling on his top but would wear the top with rainbow colours, by your reasoning, he'd still be a "hypocrite".

If you're not religious, why does it bother you so much that a person picks A but not B from his religion? You're aware literally everyone on the planet does this and the world is a better place for it too. Fundamentalism sucks, and you're placing it on some sort of pedestal

He's not being punished for not wearing company clothing. He's choosing to not show up for work. Your question has been answered numerous times in this thread.
He's lucky, most other lines of work he'd be fired.

Yes he would. I know devout catholics who are very racist and homophobic, but still fund and attend an organisation that fostered the systematic abuse of women and the stealing, sale, abuse and murder of children in our country. They are all massive hypocrites too.

I don't see how you can say the world is a better place for it or that everyone does it. We have seen and continue to see so much hatred, bigotry, war, slavery and genocide stemming from religion and religious beliefs. I find that very hard to believe. If there were absolutely no religion at all ever and people just respected and treated each other as humans then the world would be a much better place.

As for the fundamentalism piece, you are taking one hell of a leap there and it is not what I am implying at all. Good day to you.

 

[Semper Fudge]

I've identified 2010 as the year when it stopped being OK for self-aware heterosexuals to say homophobic things. Maybe even a couple of years later tbh.

And about 50% of the zingers and put-downs on the Caf were homophobic in nature for the first ten years I was here.

Can't imagine what it was like for gay people reading it. No surprise that we never had a gay poster who was willing to come out until things changed.

I used to lurk on here way back then. It wasn't the best experience, no. Pretty childish and wildly uncreative, I'm thankful things have moved on.

 

[cyberman]

Simon Jordan just had a mare on TalkSport. Had Amal Fashanu on and accused her of agenda chasing after celebrating this, sorry having her on to celebrate this! Poor woman didnt even realise she was in a row until the end of the segment when she simply said she didn't understand Simons point who then basically called her thick.
In case anybody isn't aware, that's the niece of Justin. How that can be equated to agenda chasing is simply disgusting.
Thats Simon for you, why not be contrary all the time? why not take 5 minutes to make a 1 minute point?

 

[Kentonio]

Good on the lad. Hope this helps the many players currently feeling they have to hide feel like they can finally be themselves publicly.

 

[Topgun1]

He's lucky, most other lines of work he'd be fired.

But the flip side of that, is that most other lines of work wouldn't demand employees wear badges or symbols promoting one social cause or another.

That's something which you can't really ignore. It's pretty unique for symbols of outside social causes/organizations to be mandated as a condition of employment. That kind of thing doesn't usually exist.

Even when all the black lives matter protests were happening and my workplace created a badge to show support for the idea that black lives matter, it's INCONCEIVABLE that it would be mandated as part of the work itself. They never did that, because they can't. How can you force someone to wear promotion for a social cause? That has nothing to do with work. It's a social cause.

The company can produce/sell merchandise with symbols of social causes, but to be forced to WEAR it, it just doesn't happen realistically. It's pretty unique in the world of sport.

And to me, it really makes no sense, because there are many symbols that could be worn even in sport, we both know this. There's no end to social causes. Right? So once you understand that, then how does it make sense to force players to wear promotion for one particular social cause over another?

In our country for example - the UK - if ANY SOCIAL SYMBOL AT ALL - ought to be mandated as part of employment, wouldn't it be wearing the Poppy? To remember the World Wars? I mean, I seriously can't think of anything that's more important than remembering victims of the worst wars ever to have occurred and which affected the UK in the worst way, and yet 99.9% of companies do not have wearing the poppy as a mandatory company policy. That pretty much tells the whole story.

 

[Pirlo'sBeard]

Fair play to him.

 

[Topgun1]

He wasn't punished.

He didn't seem to have an issue advertising gambling when he was an Everton player.

If he's fine with gambling but not gay people then that's his choice but he can't use his religion as an excuse because he obviously doesn't actually give that much of a shit.

You may have a great point yeah.

But I would like to respectfully point out one thing. You're not making a like-for-like comparison.

When he was an Everton player, he wasn't "advertising gambling", he was advertising a gambling COMPANY. It's a commercial contract with the club he plays for, to promote a BUSINESS.

That's not the same as promoting a CAUSE. It's not a promotion of gambling as a social cause where Everton voluntarily decided that players need to wear a symbol of gambling as a charitable righteous cause for society.

Obviously I don't know what goes through the head of any football player but I HIGHLY doubt that he would wear a symbol of gambling as a social cause - it just doesn't seem likely to me.

Social causes and businesses are not at all the same thing.

The difference is as pronounced as wearing the logo of a Palestinian business and wearing a symbol showing support for freedom for Palestinians.

E.g. A Zionist football player would be far more likely to object to wearing the latter, than the former.

 

[VanDeBank]

Yes he would. I know devout catholics who are very racist and homophobic, but still fund and attend an organisation that fostered the systematic abuse of women and the stealing, sale, abuse and murder of children in our country. They are all massive hypocrites too.

I don't see how you can say the world is a better place for it or that everyone does it. We have seen and continue to see so much hatred, bigotry, war, slavery and genocide stemming from religion and religious beliefs. I find that very hard to believe. If there were absolutely no religion at all ever and people just respected and treated each other as humans then the world would be a much better place.

As for the fundamentalism piece, you are taking one hell of a leap there and it is not what I am implying at all. Good day to you.

People that choose not to fall in line with (your interpretation) one of their religion's stances shouldn't be criticized "just because".
There's obvious cases where it's the moral right choice,

Gueye is a twat for not wanting to wear a symbol that promotes acceptance and tolerance, not because he's not a correct Muslim in your view.

You're view indirectly supports fundamentalism, but this seems lost on you. Good day.

 

[Jippy]

Oops.

Blackpool captain deleted homophobic tweets on the day teammate Jake Daniels revealed he was gay

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18601325/blackpool-fc-captain-deletes-homophobic-tweets-jake-daniels/

 

[Pexbo]

Its incredibly brave, especially at 17.

My Brother in law who is 15, came out as gay last year. Unfortunately he gets bullied for it at school. The support he has gotten from the school has been poor. He hasn't bothered going for awhile now and just home schooled.

That’s really sad to hear, is this in the UK?

 

[Real Name]

Good on the lad. He'll get abuse unfortunately but the good thing is he'll get support from the club and general football public. Although situation regarding this is much better than 20, 30 years ago and longer the fact footballers are still afraid to come out as gays means there's still a long road ahead, despite the fact we're living in a 21st century.

 

[Boavista]

Oops.

Blackpool captain deleted homophobic tweets on the day teammate Jake Daniels revealed he was gay

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18601325/blackpool-fc-captain-deletes-homophobic-tweets-jake-daniels/

It's ridiculous that someone would be outraged enough to tweet their disgust over a soap opera like Hollyoaks having gay characters..

and their support for the fact that Nigeria felt the need to pass a gay marriage prohibition act in 2013 even though homosexuality was and is illegal anyway. In a country where being gay can get you stoned to death under Sharia law in the North, and a 14 year prison sentence in the Christian South.. I'm not sure if clarifying that gay people may not get married was really necessary

 

[The Siege]

I just hope the travelling fans have his back. He's going to tons of nonsense yelled at him at stadiums on the road, will need that one corner everywhere that doesn't treat him like rubbish.

 

[steve zizou]

I'm not sure why more footballers haven't come out tbh. The majority of your colleagues and the industry are going to be in support of a player coming out as we've seen. Ironically I'll say it's braver to come out as homophobic than gay in our current society.

Do excuse my simple mind but why has the whole lack of players coming out been hinged on fan abuse. Sure you're going to get plenty stick but football fans abuse players for trivial stuff such as not signing contract extensions or "lacking passion". The bar there for abuse is very low. Black players pretty much get racially abused online after every bad game but It hasn't stopped them from being black...

 

[Botim]

Meanwhile, Idrissa Gueye refused to play for PSG because he didn't want to wear rainbow colours on his shirt.

His mates Ismaila Sarr and Kouyate, both playing in England, have come out in support. They posted a picture with him on Instagram, captioned with "un vrai homme" ("a real man")...

Let's see how their clubs respond, with all of their big talk on tackling homophobia.

 

[(...)]

I'm not sure why more footballers haven't come out tbh. The majority of your colleagues and the industry are going to be in support of a player coming out as we've seen. Ironically I'll say it's braver to come out as homophobic than gay in our current society.

Do excuse my simple mind but why has the whole lack of players coming out been hinged on fan abuse. Sure you're going to get plenty stick but football fans abuse players for trivial stuff such as not signing contract extensions or "lacking passion". The bar there for abuse is very low. Black players pretty much get racially abused online after every bad game but It hasn't stopped them from being black...

We have no idea what it's like in a locker room for gay people nowadays. I hope you are right, I hope it changed since Fashanu. For sure fan abuse is part of the problem, but the risk of hindering your career is a huge issue too.
Your point about it not being as brave as coming out homophobic is nonsense imho.
You have countless players having homophobic tweets going unpunished, you have Gueye just this week feeling ok to miss a game and nothing happened to him, so as long as being homophobic is tolerated among players, coming out will be an incredibly brave thing to do.

 

[Hansi Fick]

Good news for football. Good on him, and we can be grateful to him that his action improves football for the rest of us. Let's hope more are to follow soon.

 

[Jippy]

It's ridiculous that someone would be outraged enough to tweet their disgust over a soap opera like Hollyoaks having gay characters..

and their support for the fact that Nigeria felt the need to pass a gay marriage prohibition act in 2013 even though homosexuality was and is illegal anyway. In a country where being gay can get you stoned to death under Sharia law in the North, and a 14 year prison sentence in the Christian South.. I'm not sure if clarifying that gay people may not get married was really necessary

It's odd, a cursory search reveals that banning same sex marriage had been first proposed in 2006 and then was passed in 2013. I couldn't find anything on gay marriages being legal before that though.
But yeah, if you're that outraged at some gay people on Hollyoaks, you clearly have a problem and not just the fact that you watch Hollyoaks.

 

[justsomebloke]

Never said that did I? Believe what I said was.

Why should he be punished for not wanting to support something that might conflict with his own belief system?

As was pointed out he had no issue wearing a shirt with alcohol and gambling sponsors, which are also prohibited by his faith. So if it was a decision based on his beliefs, well then that just makes him a hypocrite.

To me, a religious hypocrite is someone who decides to pick and choose which parts of the faith they want to apply to themselves. Why have no problems with some things your faith denounces but take serious issue with others?

I don't subscribe to any belief system, I don't think there is anything like a god out there. I think it's all a giant waste of time, but I won't force my point of view on anyone. I don't see the point in living my life according to a text that is 1000s of years old, or praying to some invisible being in the sky or wherever it is supposed to be. But if you or anyone else wants to then that's your decision and I am ok with that. I treat everybody the same, I've been in college, work and played football with people from all over the world, many different religions and sexual orientations never once held anything about their own personal choices, sexual orientation or beliefs against them.

People are people. I don't see why anyone should allow a book, or anything or anyone else form their beliefs and opinions about whether or not how other people choose to live is right or wrong.

Two things.

One, it's not clear-cut exactly what is compatible with a faith and what isn't. There are different interpretations of almost everything, within the faiths and most certainly within christianity. Always has been. There's no monolithic body of creed that you either have to take wholesale or not at all. There's choice.

Two, just because you believe something to be right or wrong as a matter of faith, it's not self-evident that gives you the right to condemn someone for not following the same principles, if they are not of the same faith. You can argue that in order to call yourself a christian or a muslim, you have to believe certain things or do or not do certain things (although see point one). But if you attack someone for failing to live up to the demands of a faith he or she doesn't share, you are just a bigot. Which seems to fit Gueye in this case.

 

[stw2022]

Oops.

Blackpool captain deleted homophobic tweets on the day teammate Jake Daniels revealed he was gay



https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/18601325/blackpool-fc-captain-deletes-homophobic-tweets-jake-daniels/

Growth

 

[Seveneric]

If religious people expended the same effort into changing their religions from within as they do to victimising themselves online because people rightfully point out how homophobic as a whole most religions are, maybe things would be less of a shitshow for religious people that aren't straight.

Anyway, good on him, brave decision and I hope the rest of his career flourishes. I want to say maybe this will open the doors for players in the bigger leagues, but the difference is night and day, so I'm not sure.

 

[calodo2003]

I just hope the travelling fans have his back. He's going to tons of nonsense yelled at him at stadiums on the road, will need that one corner everywhere that doesn't treat him like rubbish.

He’ll unfortunately get tons of nonsense from his own supporters at home.

 

[calodo2003]

If religious people expended the same effort into changing their religions from within as they do to victimising themselves online because people rightfully point out how homophobic as a whole most religions are, maybe things would be less of a shitshow for religious people that aren't straight.

Anyway, good on him, brave decision and I hope the rest of his career flourishes. I want to say maybe this will open the doors for players in the bigger leagues, but the difference is night and day, so I'm not sure.

Unfortunately they won’t. The outrage opera needs multiple acts.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Meanwhile, Idrissa Gueye refused to play for PSG because he didn't want to wear rainbow colours on his shirt.

His mates Ismaila Sarr and Kouyate, both playing in England, have come out in support. They posted a picture with him on Instagram, captioned with "un vrai homme" ("a real man")...

Let's see how their clubs respond, with all of their big talk on tackling homophobia.

Wonder what their definition of a 'real man' is?

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I'm not sure how, in any work environment, we can expect gay people to be open about their sexuality if they know full well they have coworkers who openly demonstrate disdain for gay people. We need zero tolerance if we want progress, and zero tolerance means exactly that. As in any other work environment, people can hold whatever views they like privately, but if they let it affect their work by choosing to air those views publically in-work or on social media, there should be consequences up to and including sacking them. Anything less sends a message that that homophobic individual's contribution to the club is more important than the wellbeing of gay players/staff.

Ultimately, it's all well and good posting the rihtj stuff on social media and all, but creating an environment where players feel comfortable coming out is going to require clubs to make real material sacrifices which I'm unsure they will be willing to make.

 

[Topgun1]

People that choose not to fall in line with (your interpretation) one of their religion's stances shouldn't be criticized "just because".
There's obvious cases where it's the moral right choice,

Gueye is a twat for not wanting to wear a symbol that promotes acceptance and tolerance, not because he's not a correct Muslim in your view.

You're view indirectly supports fundamentalism, but this seems lost on you. Good day.

The rainbow flag doesn't only promote "acceptance and tolerance" though, it promotes gay pride.

It's fine to criticize someone, but you have to be accurate about the criticism.

The flag is a symbol of gay pride, gay people wear it to show others they are proud to be gay. Didn't you know that?

That's the issue with symbols, sometimes it is subject to interpetation what it actually stands for. But remarkably in this case, it is actually not ambigious. It stands for gay pride, not gay equality.

Which is why again, gay people in my workplace wear it - in particular during gay pride week. And non-gay people usually don't wear it. If you want to call everyone who doesn't wear it a homophobe, you should come right out and say it. Don't hide behind false argumentation.

I'm not sure how, in any work environment, we can expect gay people to be open about their sexuality if they know full well they have coworkers who openly demonstrate disdain for gay people.

You're saying, if straight people don't wear the gay pride rainbow colours, they're showing disdain for gay people, is that right? You need to be clear about what you're saying here.

There is no work environment in the UK which I'm aware of which mandates that people wear gay pride colours. In your workplace, are you forced to wear it, and if you don't wear it, are you deemed a homophobe?

You need to be clear-cut, and not be ambigious.

 

[Oranges038]

Two things.

One, it's not clear-cut exactly what is compatible with a faith and what isn't. There are different interpretations of almost everything, within the faiths and most certainly within christianity. Always has been. There's no monolithic body of creed that you either have to take wholesale or not at all. There's choice.

Two, just because you believe something to be right or wrong as a matter of faith, it's not self-evident that gives you the right to condemn someone for not following the same principles, if they are not of the same faith. You can argue that in order to call yourself a christian or a muslim, you have to believe certain things or do or not do certain things (although see point one). But if you attack someone for failing to live up to the demands of a faith he or she doesn't share, you are just a bigot. Which seems to fit Gueye in this case.

Picking and choosing how you want to interpret the words of texts that are 1000s of years old and using it as some sort of value system to live by and judge how others live compared to your beliefs is hypocritical.

Then again. Isn't trying to force your beliefs on someone who's faith denounces such things not also bigotry?

Simply, we don't know whether or not he made this decision based on his faith. But, he's had no problem wearing shirts promoting gambling and alcohol in the past. So maybe he is a hypocrite or a bigot or maybe he is just a homophobic person. We'll never know unless he tells us.

 

[Cascarino]

The rainbow flag doesn't promote "acceptance and tolerance" though, it promotes gay pride.

 

[horsechoker]

Doesn't acceptance lead to pride?

Or rather acceptance means there isn't shame.

Either way the rainbow flag symbolises positive sentiment towards lgbtq+ people

 

[ExoduS]

I'd have Man Utd full of gay dudes that can actually play football instead of supposedly straight guys who are mediocre.

 

[Cascarino]

Doesn't acceptance lead to pride?

Or rather acceptance means there isn't shame.

Either way the rainbow flag symbolises positive sentiment towards lgbtq+ people

Exactly. It's a direct result of the criminalisation and social stigma that has long afflicted the queer community. Pride being in contrast to shame. He's fully cognisant of that fact he's just being a tosser.

 

[Topgun1]

It goes back to 1978, when the artist Gilbert Baker, an openly gay man and a drag queen, designed the first rainbow flag. Baker later revealed that he was urged by Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay elected officials in the U.S., to create a symbol of pride for the gay community. Baker decided to make that symbol a flag because he saw flags as the most powerful symbol of pride. As he later said in an interview, “Our job as gay people was to come out, to be visible, to live in the truth, as I say, to get out of the lie. A flag really fit that mission, because that’s a way of proclaiming your visibility or saying, ‘This is who I am!’”

https://www.britannica.com/story/how-did-the-rainbow-flag-become-a-symbol-of-lgbt-pride

The pride flag, also known as the rainbow flag, gay pride flag or LGBTQ+ pride flag, is a symbol which represents lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride and LGBTQ+ social movements.

The colours of the pride flag represent positivity, peace, pride and diversity within the LGBTQ+ community, and the flag is most frequently used as a symbol of pride at LGBTQ+ pride marches and events.

The rainbow flag has become the most widely recognised symbol of people who identify as LGBTQ+, the colours' meanings synonymous with diversity, pride and freedom.

Doesn't acceptance lead to pride?

Or rather acceptance means there isn't shame.

Either way the rainbow flag symbolises positive sentiment towards lgbtq+ people

It can symbolize technically anything in fact, some people and organizations who wave the flag are now saying it symbolizes anti-racism as well. They're literally making it up as they got along, because that's the nature of symbols, it doesn't need to have a fixed meaning.

But this idea that it is only about equality, and not about what it fundamentally it was designed for - which is gay pride - is just astonishing disinformation on Redcafe. It's just an outright lie. The other uneducated user won't even admit that the flag represents gay pride, he'd rather call me a "tosser" (which is against the rules), than engage with the actual facts.

Some people rely on false information and disinformation to argue their points online, and I can't respect that.

 

[duffer]

Picking and choosing how you want to interpret the words of texts that are 1000s of years old and using it as some sort of value system to live by and judge how others live compared to your beliefs is hypocritical.

Then again. Isn't trying to force your beliefs on someone who's faith denounces such things not also bigotry?

Simply, we don't know whether or not he made this decision based on his faith. But, he's had no problem wearing shirts promoting gambling and alcohol in the past. So maybe he is a hypocrite or a bigot or maybe he is just a homophobic person. We'll never know unless he tells us.

Nobody is trying to force beliefs onto someone, it's a rainbow on a shirt to show a bit of solidarity.

And lets be honest, this has nothing to do with his religion unless he is a member of some strange religion which is fine with gambling but hates gay people.

 

[Cascarino]

It goes back to 1978, when the artist Gilbert Baker, an openly gay man and a drag queen, designed the first rainbow flag. Baker later revealed that he was urged by Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay elected officials in the U.S., to create a symbol of pride for the gay community. Baker decided to make that symbol a flag because he saw flags as the most powerful symbol of pride. As he later said in an interview, “Our job as gay people was to come out, to be visible, to live in the truth, as I say, to get out of the lie. A flag really fit that mission, because that’s a way of proclaiming your visibility or saying, ‘This is who I am!’”

https://www.britannica.com/story/how-did-the-rainbow-flag-become-a-symbol-of-lgbt-pride

The pride flag, also known as the rainbow flag, gay pride flag or LGBTQ+ pride flag, is a symbol which represents lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender pride and LGBTQ+ social movements.

The colours of the pride flag represent positivity, peace, pride and diversity within the LGBTQ+ community, and the flag is most frequently used as a symbol of pride at LGBTQ+ pride marches and events.

The rainbow flag has become the most widely recognised symbol of people who identify as LGBTQ+, the colours' meanings synonymous with diversity, pride and freedom.

...yes?

 

[kthanksbye]

What a lad, in an ideal world it should make no difference to anyone, fans or teammates or the club what the sexual preference of a player is.

Hope the next gen of footballers normalize this.