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

It's funny. We still have people who vehemently believe that homosexuality is immoral and that people deserve to he discriminated against. Because of religion of course, that immortal blanket that we can use to expose all our pathetic beliefs.
 
Putting pride colours on a shirt is a weak and, in PSG's case, deeply hypocritical, gesture of solidarity but it's by no means a controversial political statement. The message it's clearly intended to send is that gay people have as much right to watch, play and work in football without fear or discrimination or harassment as anyone else does. That should be taken as read in any country which claims to be a liberal democracy. Those who can't get behind that message have no place in a workplace or an industry which purports to value inclusivity, tolerance and equality. You don't have to like homosexuality to accept that gay people have as much of a right to get on with their lives as anyone else does.

Gueye is perfectly within his rights to hold bigoted opinion about gay people (if that is indeed the case here) but he's not entitled to let those views affect his work or the people he works with. His job is to represent his club, both by playing football whilst wearing their football strip and by appearing in advertising, marketing, kit-related PR stunts etc. Disliking gays doesn't give him carte blanche not to do his job. At the same time, PSG presumably have a legal responsibility as an employer to ensure a working environment where LGBT staff are able to do their jobs without fear of discrimination or harassment on account of their sexuality (in the UK this responsibility comes under the Equalities Act 2010). I'm not sure how keeping Gueye around (again, if his aversion to the shirt was indeed based in homophobia) is compatible with that.

Coming back to the thread title, how can we expect young gay lads to feel confident about coming out when dressing rooms are full of homophobes?
I agree especially how their owners people treat gay people its actually insane to think that they would even try and pretend. Their chairman would not allow an openly gay person to play in his country I imagine. Its Fugazi and typically sports washing of PSG.
regarding the 2nd bit, I am not sure. They would have to have put in the contract in advance. As we live in a multi cultural world one cannot simply say "you must support ALL our believes and values that we spring on you at any time especially when they change on a month by month basis.

Interesting that religion is a protected characteristic under the same Act.

It's arguable, in fact, since you bring it up, that by attempting to force the player to promote a view that is expressly against his religion you would be harassing him.

That puts these protected characteristics (religion and sexual orientation) on a collision course unless society recognizes that a balance must be struck.

That balance, for me is, no one should be allowed to undertake actions that interfere with anothers wellbeing but beyond that, everyone should be free to believe what they like. That is a fundamental human right.

And I'm certain everyone understands this at some level because no white footballer who refuses to take the knee has been accused of racial discrimination or harassment under the Equalities Act 2010, just yet. Nor should they be.
This was always going to happen. It already happens in England. Birmingham school parents protested against a LGBTQ headteacher teaching LGBTQ curriculum to their kids. This was the most obvious collision known to man. Mostly people who are uninvolved, side step it as they don't want to attack gay people nor Muslims beliefs, or at least thats what I do. I let them resolve it themselves.
 
You just knew this subject coming back to the fore would result in at least one banning.

Tbh if it's just one banning after 38 pages then it has actually gone better than I'd have expected.

Edit: nevermind, just realised this thread was started in 2019. Now I'm less impressed. :lol:
 
I have a question which I'm not sure how to ask.

Basically can you disagree with homosexuality yet not be a homophobe?

I mean no disrespect here and am unsure of the phrasing, as in the word disagree.
as someone already said, homosexuality is not something non tangible or philosophy or life style like something say religion , that we are like "I disagree with its existence, but i respect it", because it is like saying, I disagree with Mount Everest's existence, but I respect it.
 
You just knew this subject coming back to the fore would result in at least one banning.
It also gets quieter when certain newbies run out of their 10 daily posts limit.
8 years a newbie and probably not changing anytime soon.
 
And if he says "no comment", or What if he says " I simply choose not to" what do we do then?

Well then he's opening himself up for all kinds of assumptions. It would be in his own interests to speak up and clarify his position. Look we all know what his reasons are and for me it's bordering on homophobic, if not outright.
 
Not at all, no-one is asking anyone to promote the view that homosexuality is good/morale whatever. They're asking him to accept and promote the view that homosexuals are welcome in sport whether as players or fans. The former is an opinion which would go against some interpretations of all of the Abrahamic faiths, acceptance of the latter is, nominally at least, one of the basic principles of our society. And, again, ensuring that gay people are able to engage in football on equal footing with straight people is literally a legal requirement for any organisation, employer and employee in the industry.

And can we please ditch this pretence that it's somehow unusual for an organisation attempting to bring about some sort of internal cultural change to expect it's employees to be part of that change? In many large workplaces a requirement to foster an inclusive working environment is now written into the job description.

1. That may be so, but given that all the player was asked to do is wear the colours, the interpretation of what message that sends is entirely subjective. He may not see it the way you have, and perhaps the organization would be wiser to express the message less ambiguously. I doubt anyone could oppose a message as simply expressed as you have put it.

2. Not sure where the second part of your post comes from in relation to mine - but of course inclusion cannot be one sided. The very idea of inclusion is tolerance of differences, and this cannot happen unless each side makes concessions.

So, for example, while one person's religion might brand you, his coworker, an infidel, he is not entitled to act on that towards you but you're not entitled to tell him that his religion is stupid and he must ignore its dictates.

Anything more aggressively inclusive isn't inclusion, its conversion.
 
It is very interesting how many homophobes don’t voice their opinions in an open manner, but still try their best to derail threads like these, by starting weird discussions about semantics. Not the first time I’ve seen it happen. They just can’t help themselves.
 
Is anyone aware of any actual homophobic incident/allegation against Gueye? Other than refusing to be forced to publicly support something he may have valid objections to. Surely homophobia doesn't extend to politely refusing to wear the rainbow shirt? It didn't make news until the FFP published it. That should be a personal decision. I didn't hear similar rows about half the F1 paddock kneeling and the other half standing during races. I'm sure there are several other examples.

There's no valid objection to homosexuality, no acceptable reason why anyone should have any negative reaction to someone choosing to have sex with someone of the same gender as themselves. It's prejudice.
 
People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone but the Creater is not an imaginary man. No one in their right mind believes that everything that exists being created by nothing. If you look at the sky, the sea or even us humans you would realise that there is a Creater.

Why not? The idea of a creator was a powerful tool to answer the questions humanity had for thousands of years- how did we get here, how does time work, what the feck is the point of a Narwhal?

But now science has provided us with very logical and likely solutions for most of these questions (even the Narwhal one). I don't see how nobody in their right mind could believe that there is no creator.
 
laughable ideas like "people are born atheist"

Laughable idea or indisputable fact? When a baby is born they basically know nothing except what evolution dictates. They don't know the alphabet, they can't count, they certainly don't know what God is. These are all ideas introduced later in life.

I also don't think it's off-topic as Gueye is reportedly using religion to justify his decision.
 
It is very interesting how many homophobes don’t voice their opinions in an open manner, but still try their best to derail threads like these, by starting weird discussions about semantics. Not the first time I’ve seen it happen. They just can’t help themselves.
And all of this while evading the question „do you thing sexuality is a choice?“
 
And all of this while evading the question „do you thing sexuality is a choice?“
And the way they are going about it suggests that these people seem to think that nobody can actually see their oh so subtle homophobia, because they hide it so well, thanks to their intellectual prowess. That’s what always gets me. How these people try so desperately to seem smart.
 
It is very interesting how many homophobes don’t voice their opinions in an open manner, but still try their best to derail threads like these, by starting weird discussions about semantics. Not the first time I’ve seen it happen. They just can’t help themselves.
It's interesting (but also infuriating) how intellectually dishonest a lot of the arguments are, and I wonder to what extent they know that's what they're doing or if it's just regurgitating talking points without really thinking about it. Surely if you have to resort to such lengths to twist narratives then you must realise there is something fundamentally inconsistent in your reasoning.

If you follow the thread so often it's concept swapping or another dishonest tactic. First it starts with insisting on there being many definitions of something as a matter of fact, even when that's often misleading in itself, and then arguing against a definition of the matter in question that is either easier to argue against or just so bizarre it derails the whole argument. Or falling into the Motte-and-bailey fallacy (only found about this now, and glad I did because it makes it so much easier to spot this dishonest tactic). The wikipedia definition:
"A form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte)."


It's dishonest to say homosexuality isn't a well defined concept. There may be many things we don't know for sure about sexuality, but let's not pretend that the terms themselves aren't well defined. Informally some people may use the term preference here and there as a synonym, and once you get lured into using that term informally then the argument gets derailed into the equivocation fallacy where preference is then applied to all kinds of other examples that are not really relevant and just lure people into comparing things that are not equivalent, and the conclusions drawn from these false equivalences then get applied to the original concept. But preference in psychology or sociology does have more formal definitions anyway, so it's all just an intentional or unintentional attempt to muddy the waters.

Saying homosexuality is a preference for same sex partners doesn't sound entirely wrong, but it clearly implies a degree of voluntary choice and weighing one option against another. However if the other option isn't a reasonable alternative at all (i.e. you have zero desire for the opposite sex), then obviously there isn't any real degree of choice involved. That's not to say you can't chose a heterosexual life as countless homosexuals sadly still do today for various reasons, but that doesn't make you heterosexual.
 
Well then he's opening himself up for all kinds of assumptions. It would be in his own interests to speak up and clarify his position. Look we all know what his reasons are and for me it's bordering on homophobic, if not outright.
That might be ok for him. Many people aren't bothered about peoples assumptions. I am one of them. sometimes I deliberately do not explain myself because I don't like people thinking they have power/control over me and can make me do something, even if they are jumping to negative conclusions about my intentions. I can be very stubborn and often feel I don't owe anyone an explanation.
 
I agree especially how their owners people treat gay people its actually insane to think that they would even try and pretend. Their chairman would not allow an openly gay person to play in his country I imagine. Its Fugazi and typically sports washing of PSG.
If living in an openly gay sexual relationship in Qatar, he would face a long prison sentance, whipping and/or death penalty. It's just mindblowing how far behind they actually are when it comes to human rights....
 
Laughable idea or indisputable fact? When a baby is born they basically know nothing except what evolution dictates. They don't know the alphabet, they can't count, they certainly don't know what God is. These are all ideas introduced later in life.

I also don't think it's off-topic as Gueye is reportedly using religion to justify his decision.

For me it's a fact, but aparantly not for this guy. Almost feel sorry for the thread that he only has 5 (i think) posts a day, this thread would be lit if he could post as much as he wanted :lol:

Anyone who don't believe you're born atheist, should ask themselves why people "accidentally" get the same religion that's most common in the area.

It's definitely not off topic to discuss religion in this thread.
 
It's so obvious, time and time again, that the argument of "choice", "preference" or whatever is just made mostly by people who would at other times in history be talking about how disgusting and sinful f****** are. They've just moved the language away a bit from the explicit insults, but the battle they are waging is the same.
 
Laughable idea or indisputable fact? When a baby is born they basically know nothing except what evolution dictates. They don't know the alphabet, they can't count, they certainly don't know what God is. These are all ideas introduced later in life.

I also don't think it's off-topic as Gueye is reportedly using religion to justify his decision.
For me it's a fact, but aparantly not for this guy. Almost feel sorry for the thread that he only has 5 (i think) posts a day, this thread would be lit if he could post as much as he wanted :lol:

Anyone who don't believe you're born atheist, should ask themselves why people "accidentally" get the same religion that's most common in the area.

It's definitely not off topic to discuss religion in this thread.
I agree, but it made me think. Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say people are born as a blank slate concerning basically everything. But is the initial absence of even thinking about "where do humans and the universe come from" necessarily the same as being atheist? Not thinking about all these questions, and not being told/taught what to think, I guess means not believing in a god. But until a person actually starts asking themselves these questions, can you really say they're atheist?

Of course eventually in modern (secular) schools they will eventually be taught about evolution, but hypothetically a child could come to all kinds of conclusions or belief systems if left on their own.
 
People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone but the Creater is not an imaginary man. No one in their right mind believes that everything that exists being created by nothing. If you look at the sky, the sea or even us humans you would realise that there is a Creater.
We can agree on one thing: People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone.
Advice on being gay or not is not ok though, because sexuality is a part of who we are and something that we are born with.

After examining your post thoroughly I suspect that you might believe in some devine creator. It seems that your fascination for how amazing the world, universe and humans are is proof that this must be the work of some devine creator. Which Creator you are referring to I don't know, it could be the old gods, the new gods or maybe one of the many The Gods, depends on when and where you were born and who your parents are really....
Try to think a little about the following concepts:
- Who claims that anything we know has been created from nothing? ...other than religious people trying to justify the concept of a creator of course.
- Not everything needs to have a beginning or an end. Try to understand the terms eternity, infinity and the concept that time isn't necessarily linear.

Speaking of beginnings:
Homo Sapiens has existed for less than 300 000 years or less than 0,007% of the time life has existed on this planet, which is about 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012% (not nearly enough 0's here, but you get my point) of the universe we know. It is of course a lot bigger than that. Still humans insists on believing that they play the main part in some creator of everything's big plan and that this grand plan includes an eternal happy afterlife for the selected few that chooses to worship him/her/it.

Sorry for the off topic stuff....this post just really baffled me.
 
It's so obvious, time and time again, that the argument of "choice", "preference" or whatever is just made mostly by people who would at other times in history be talking about how disgusting and sinful f****** are. They've just moved the language away a bit from the explicit insults, but the battle they are waging is the same.
Apparently, it's fine to consider homesexuality as a sin/immoral act, because some religious books from 400 years ago that we cling on to tell us so. Aside from being written in these works of fictions, people have absolutely no base to consider someone with a different sexual orientation as lesser beings but religion gives their views "authenticity".
 
We can agree on one thing: People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone.
Advice on being gay or not is not ok though, because sexuality is a part of who we are and something that we are born with.

After examining your post thoroughly I suspect that you might believe in some devine creator. It seems that your fascination for how amazing the world, universe and humans are is proof that this must be the work of some devine creator. Which Creator you are referring to I don't know, it could be the old gods, the new gods or maybe one of the many The Gods, depends on when and where you were born and who your parents are really....
Try to think a little about the following concepts:
- Who claims that anything we know has been created from nothing? ...other than religious people trying to justify the concept of a creator of course.
- Not everything needs to have a beginning or an end. Try to understand the terms eternity, infinity and the concept that time isn't necessarily linear.

Speaking of beginnings:
Homo Sapiens has existed for less than 300 000 years or less than 0,007% of the time life has existed on this planet, which is about 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012% (not nearly enough 0's here, but you get my point) of the universe we know. It is of course a lot bigger than that. Still humans insists on believing that they play the main part in some creator of everything's big plan and that this grand plan includes an eternal happy afterlife for the selected few that chooses to worship him/her/it.

Sorry for the off topic stuff....this post just really baffled me.

This creator certainly waited quite some time to create a form of life they'd reward/punish for all eternity based on their behavior in what would be, for the creator, an infinitesimal part of the metaphorical blink of an eye.
 
That might be ok for him. Many people aren't bothered about peoples assumptions. I am one of them. sometimes I deliberately do not explain myself because I don't like people thinking they have power/control over me and can make me do something, even if they are jumping to negative conclusions about my intentions. I can be very stubborn and often feel I don't owe anyone an explanation.

I mean he's going to have a hard time explaining that it isn't due his own homophobia, so yeah whatever he says would probably just come across worse. He doesn't owe anybody an explanation, of course and if he's happy to be known as a homophobe that's his business, but let's not act like we don't all know what his reasons are.
 
I agree, but it made me think. Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say people are born as a blank slate concerning basically everything. But is the initial absence of even thinking about "where do humans and the universe come from" necessarily the same as being atheist? Not thinking about all these questions, and not being told/taught what to think, I guess means not believing in a god. But until a person actually starts asking themselves these questions, can you really say they're atheist?

Of course eventually in modern (secular) schools they will eventually be taught about evolution, but hypothetically a child could come to all kinds of conclusions or belief systems if left on their own.

It's pretty much the same.
Atheism isn't a religion, which many seem to think, it's just lack og belief in a god.
So literally same as blank slate.
 
I agree, but it made me think. Maybe it's a bit pedantic, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say people are born as a blank slate concerning basically everything. But is the initial absence of even thinking about "where do humans and the universe come from" necessarily the same as being atheist? Not thinking about all these questions, and not being told/taught what to think, I guess means not believing in a god. But until a person actually starts asking themselves these questions, can you really say they're atheist?

Of course eventually in modern (secular) schools they will eventually be taught about evolution, but hypothetically a child could come to all kinds of conclusions or belief systems if left on their own.
Yes you can. A distinction between implicit and explicit atheism has been known in theory for a long time (see> Smith, George H. 1979. Atheism: The Case Against God. New York: Prometheus Books., page 13).

Children are unfamiliar with any relevant concept so they can't be explicitly atheist, but atheism simply denotes an absence of a belief, of which you can be sure by the very fact of unfamiliarity, which makes them implicit atheists. And of course, in that sense everyone is born an atheist.
 
This creator certainly waited quite some time to create a form of life they'd reward/punish for all eternity based on their behavior in what would be, for the creator, an infinitesimal part of the metaphorical blink of an eye.
Sure did. And the timing for sending the biggest, most important messages and sets of rules to the key humans was awful. There was literally very few effective ways of getting the word around those days. I often wonder if this creator was worried about or took into account the "whispering game"-effects. Sad he/she/it didn't have better communication tools, so many more people would've received salvation....
 
Yes you can. A distinction between implicit and explicit atheism has been known in theory for a long time (see> Smith, George H. 1979. Atheism: The Case Against God. New York: Prometheus Books., page 13).

Children are unfamiliar with any relevant concept so they can't be explicitly atheist, but atheism simply denotes an absence of a belief, of which you can be sure by the very fact of unfamiliarity, which makes them implicit atheists. And of course, in that sense everyone is born an atheist.
Thanks for that! I'd never heard of implicit vs explicit atheism, but that's a great way to put it and makes a lot of sense.
 
I guess you could also say people are born agnostic, as they simply have no opinion on the matter and are essentially still open to everything. An agnost is basically an unsure atheist (is that the same as implicit atheism?), and that might make the idea more palatable to people.

But yes, religion is not something you're born with, unlike your sexual preferences. I suppose what confuses some people is that societal norms can make it difficult for people to properly identify their sexual preference (or preferences, for bisexual people) when growing up. So there are (many) instances where people later in life realize, for example, that their discomfort with sex is due to them being homosexual (while society always pushed them into heterosexuality). That still doesn't make sexuality a choice though; it's not like people in this example changed their minds at any point.
But now science has provided us with very logical and likely solutions for most of these questions (even the Narwhal one).
Actually, I think scientists still aren't entirely sure why narwhals have one tooth growing into a sword! (I.e., what purpose it serves.)
 
1. That may be so, but given that all the player was asked to do is wear the colours, the interpretation of what message that sends is entirely subjective. He may not see it the way you have, and perhaps the organization would be wiser to express the message less ambiguously. I doubt anyone could oppose a message as simply expressed as you have put it.

2. Not sure where the second part of your post comes from in relation to mine - but of course inclusion cannot be one sided. The very idea of inclusion is tolerance of differences, and this cannot happen unless each side makes concessions.

So, for example, while one person's religion might brand you, his coworker, an infidel, he is not entitled to act on that towards you but you're not entitled to tell him that his religion is stupid and he must ignore its dictates.

Anything more aggressively inclusive isn't inclusion, its conversion.

On your first point, we don't know what conversation was had around the shirt. To accept your argument we'd have to assume an unrealistically limited conversation took place between the player and the club both before and after he refused the wear it. The idea that the club didn't brief the players on the decision to put the colours on the shirt and that they as professional footballers living in 2022 had no grasp of the context behind the gesture being made is far-fetched. The idea that this conversation wasn't had with Gueye even after he refused to wear the shirt stretches credulity to its limit.

My second point was a general response to the idea that it's some huge free speech issue for an employee to be expected to embody the professed values of their employer whilst representing that employer. If I was sent to a conference on behalf of my organisation and refused to attend a mandatory session on LGBT rights in the workplace, or a keynote speech by a Muslim CEO about the struggles they'd faced in the industry, on the grounds that I didn't like homosexuality or Islam, my organisation would have every right to throw the book at me. Firstly because I'd have damaged their reputation as an equal-opportunity employer and possibly lost them prestige or business. And then, on a slightly different note, I'd have demonstrated an inability to aside my personal beliefs to do my job properly. In that situation, how could I reasonably be trusted to carry out my responsibilities to contribute to an inclusive and diverse working environment in which everyone is treated equally? If I was a manager, or had any HR role, how could I be trusted to make fair decisions on who to hire, fire or suggest for promotion?

Which leads me onto your point. No-one is asking anyone to change their beliefs or opinions in order to work somewhere. But they are asking that people who hold those beliefs don't let them affect their work, impact their ability to treat colleagues, customers, stakeholders etc. fairly and with respect or leas them to act in a manner which might impact upon the rights of others to go to work without fear or discrimination and harassment. If someone is unable to at least pretend that they're fine with working alongside LGBT people, their presence in a working environment is not congruent with a tolerant, inclusive workplace. Arguing that we need to tolerate intolerance and allow people to be subject to discrimination in order to be truly inclusive is lamentable sophistry.
 
One thing I don't get though, is why it's suddenly so popular to be against closeted gay men. As a closeted gay man myself (and proud of it), I take a bit of offence to that. Some are open, others are closeted, it doesn't mean one is better than the other, you know. Each to their own, I say. Live and let live.
 
On your first point, we don't know what conversation was had around the shirt. To accept your argument we'd have to assume an unrealistically limited conversation took place between the player and the club both before and after he refused the wear it. The idea that the club didn't brief the players on the decision to put the colours on the shirt and that they as professional footballers living in 2022 had no grasp of the context behind the gesture being made is far-fetched. The idea that this conversation wasn't had with Gueye even after he refused to wear the shirt stretches credulity to its limit.

My second point was a general response to the idea that it's some huge free speech issue for an employee to be expected to embody the professed values of their employer whilst representing that employer. If I was sent to a conference on behalf of my organisation and refused to attend a mandatory session on LGBT rights in the workplace, or a keynote speech by a Muslim CEO about the struggles they'd faced in the industry, on the grounds that I didn't like homosexuality or Islam, my organisation would have every right to throw the book at me. Firstly because I'd have damaged their reputation as an equal-opportunity employer and possibly lost them prestige or business. And then, on a slightly different note, I'd have demonstrated an inability to aside my personal beliefs to do my job properly. In that situation, how could I reasonably be trusted to carry out my responsibilities to contribute to an inclusive and diverse working environment in which everyone is treated equally? If I was a manager, or had any HR role, how could I be trusted to make fair decisions on who to hire, fire or suggest for promotion?

Which leads me onto your point. No-one is asking anyone to change their beliefs or opinions in order to work somewhere. But they are asking that people who hold those beliefs don't let them affect their work, impact their ability to treat colleagues, customers, stakeholders etc. fairly and with respect or leas them to act in a manner which might impact upon the rights of others to go to work without fear or discrimination and harassment. If someone is unable to at least pretend that they're fine with working alongside LGBT people, their presence in a working environment is not congruent with a tolerant, inclusive workplace. Arguing that we need to tolerate intolerance and allow people to be subject to discrimination in order to be truly inclusive is lamentable sophistry.

1. Once you accept that you don't know what discussion has been had with the player, end of conversation. You've adopted the position that your interpretation of the message behind the colours is the message PSG intended and clearly expressed. In reality, I doubt they had any specific intention other than currying public goodwill.

No point speculating, and very ridiculous to build an argument off a conversation you imagine has happened.

Your example is also a false analogy (and the actual sophistry btw). Attending a conference does not require that you personally promote any particular view. You're literally just attending. Clearly, Gueye's issue is with the appearance of personally promoting a view that his religion does not accept.


2. This is not about asking that Gueye does not let his views impact his work. Again, ironically, you're the one resorting to sophistry by shifting the goalposts.

Gueye is a footballer and his views do not in anyway stop him from representing his employer unless he refuses to play with homosexual teammates.

It is the employer who has asked him to do something beyond the remit of his job by supporting a political message which puts him in conflict with his religion. And clearly they understand this, which is why the club has not made a big deal over him not playing in that game.

3. I never made the argument that we should allow people to be subject to discrimination. In fact, I have made the opposite argument, stating that the line of tolerance should be drawn at acts which affect others negatively. You made that up and its called a strawman argument - another example of the sophistry you seem to love so much.

Happy to agree to disagree at this point as there's really no point.
 
One thing I don't get though, is why it's suddenly so popular to be against closeted gay men. As a closeted gay man myself (and proud of it), I take a bit of offence to that. Some are open, others are closeted, it doesn't mean one is better than the other, you know. Each to their own, I say. Live and let live.

I can't imagine. Unless in the sense that you might be concerned that an individual might be suffering for being closeted?
 
Have been seeing some people trying to make out that Gueye was the braver person.

Homophobes will always find a way, I guess.
 
Fair play to the lad. It's a brave move.



Isn't he's a practicing muslim?

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

Because his belief system is based on a book written over 1000 years ago, times have changed and religion needs to progress and understand the acceptance of modern society.

It is quite funny that you say that, when religion is meant to be about peace, love and acceptance, yet so much of religion is the total opposite of any of that.
 
People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone but the Creater is not an imaginary man. No one in their right mind believes that everything that exists being created by nothing. If you look at the sky, the sea or even us humans you would realise that there is a Creater.

:wenger:
 
People shouldn't hate other people for anything rather give them advice and if they don't take it leave them alone but the Creater is not an imaginary man. No one in their right mind believes that everything that exists being created by nothing. If you look at the sky, the sea or even us humans you would realise that there is a Creater.
Oh dear.