NHL player scolded for skipping Pride event launches debate over forced activism:

[Michelle]

There's been a journey from pursuing tolerance... to enforced celebration, to punishment and ostracizing of dissenters,' Guy Benson said

Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov made headlines this week as the subject of intense criticism for skipping festivities celebrating LGBTQ pride, the latest example of an issue being foisted upon people who don’t necessarily agree with it. 

Provorov decided Tuesday to skip pregame warmups when the team wore Pride-themed jerseys and used sticks wrapped in rainbow Pride tape, saying it goes against his religion. Provorov has been blasted by the left for the move, but others have rallied to his side as him simply staying true to his beliefs.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nhl-player-scolded-skipping-pride-event-launches-debate-forced-activism-think-ridiculous

NHL player's boycott of team's Pride night tribute 'disrespectful' to gay community: agent

Ivan Provorov's actions show league not 'safe environment' for players to come out, agent Bayne Pettinger says

Laughton said there would be more conversations ahead with Provorov, who moved from Russia to the United States as a teenager. 

"I don't hold anything against anyone," Laughton said after the Flyers' 5-2 victory over the Anaheim Ducks. "It's nothing like that. It was an awesome night and I'm very happy we got a win on a night like this."

Pettinger agrees that more conversations are needed. 

"I'm a strong believer that no one is born to hate another group or religion or race, that's taught," he said.

"We can't put ourselves in Provorov's shoes of how he was raised and his beliefs. We can only try to educate and humanize."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ivan-provorov-nhl-player-boycott-on-teams-pride-night-tribute-disrespectful-to-gay-community-agent-1.6718859

They don't hate religion, but it won't stop them from telling him why his religion is wrong. He needs to be educated doesn't he? Or should I say reeducated?

[Michelle]

I'm Gay. Leave Ivan Provorov Alone | Opinion

Gay rights once meant fighting for marriage equality and anti-discrimination protections. Now, it apparently means harassing random pro athletes who won't wrap themselves in the rainbow flag.

At least, that's what's happening right now with NHL player Ivan Provorov. The Flyers' player stepped on a rainbow-colored hornet's nest on Tuesday night when he declined to participate in a pre-game skate where all the players were wearing Pride-themed warmup gear. He went on to play in their game per normal.

"I respect everybody, I respect everybody's choices," Provorov, who is Russian and a Russian Orthodox Christian, explained to reporters. "My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion."

cont...

https://www.newsweek.com/im-gay-leave-ivan-provorov-alone-opinion-1775084

 

[el midgetron]

The left doesn’t preach “tolerance” any more, it’s been replaced by “acceptance”. It’s acceptance of them, while they won’t even tolerate you.  

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Michelle said:

They don't hate religion, but it won't stop them from telling him why his religion is wrong.

Why should it?  Isn't that free speech?

[Michelle]

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Why should it?  Isn't that free speech?

Exactly what Rpovorov is being condemned for. Well, that and not conforming. You can't have it both ways.

Edited January 21 by Michelle

[papageorge1]

I support his right to not participate and am comfortable with his not participating. I think scolding him is not justified. I also think companies should not force anyone to show support for any controversial political or social cause. 

Edited January 21 by papageorge1

[DieChecker]

2 hours ago, el midgetron said:

The left doesn’t preach “tolerance” any more, it’s been replaced by “acceptance”. It’s acceptance of them, while they won’t even tolerate you.  

I don't necessarily believe that's true. I think it's more true that rather then acceptance, they want obedience. 

They don't care a penny what you think. They want to control how you act, and what you say. If they wanted acceptance they'd act nice and try to convince people, but acting like an  authoritarian is not trying to change people, it's about control.

[Paranoid Android]

There was a similar situation in Australia last year with our national football competition (the National Rugby League [NRL]). One of the teams chose to wear a pink/pride jersey for one game and seven of the players boycotted the game. I won't quote the link, as this is a different topic. The team was thick in the playoffs race and they got smashed because half their starting team didn't play, and it caused a huge rift between the playing group. I for one 100% supported their right to boycott the game. Just like this situation, people shouldn't be forced to participate in an activist event that goes against their religious beliefs. I'm not a Christian, and I 100% support LGBTQ people and their rights. I hope Provoro is supported in his constitutionally protected free speech! 

Edited January 21 by Paranoid Android

[acidhead]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I don't necessarily believe that's true. I think it's more true that rather then acceptance, they want obedience. 

They don't care a penny what you think. They want to control how you act, and what you say. If they wanted acceptance they'd act nice and try to convince people, but acting like an  authoritarian is not trying to change people, it's about control.

History has shown that the Left always goes full blown authoritarian. With the speed of social technology it's sped up the process considerably.

[acidhead]

Some so-called sport journalists have even gone as far as telling Provorov to "Go back to Russia and go fight in the war" for refusing to wear a Pride shirt.  

Edited January 21 by acidhead

[+Liquid Gardens]

21 hours ago, Michelle said:

Exactly what Rpovorov is being condemned for. Well, that and not conforming. You can't have it both ways.

Then I guessed I misunderstood whatever point you were making with, "but it won't stop them from telling him why his religion is wrong", I thought you were saying that like there's something wrong with them doing that.

 

19 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I hope Provoro is supported in his constitutionally protected free speech! 

This has nothing to do with the Constitution - what is the very first word of the 1st Amendment?  And what about the free speech of his critics?  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This has nothing to do with the Constitution - what is the very first word of the 1st Amendment?  And what about the free speech of his critics?  

They have every right to sulk, and say they think he was wrong. They have every right to complain, and to boycott. They do not, however, have the right to deny him beliefs, to stop him acting on his beliefs or to get him fired unless there’s an obedience clause in his contract. 

[Raptor Witness]

There is as good a genetic argument for the male and female aversion to this form of sex and behavior, as there is, supporting the understanding it.

There’s a difference between the aversion to something, and discrimination.

There needs to be some flexibility and understanding on both sides of the more powerful, genetic argument.

 

[Tatetopa]

On 1/21/2023 at 1:09 PM, papageorge1 said:

I support his right to not participate and am comfortable with his not participating. I think scolding him is not justified. I also think companies should not force anyone to show support for any controversial political or social cause. 

How about any cause, full stop?

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

How about any cause, full stop?

Well, I'll address each cause on a case-by-case basis. 

Let's take 'Breast Cancer Awareness' day in the NHL. I don't consider that controversial.

[Tatetopa]

57 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

They have every right to sulk, and say they think he was wrong. They have every right to complain, and to boycott. They do not, however, have the right to deny him beliefs, to stop him acting on his beliefs or to get him fired unless there’s an obedience clause in his contract. 

My experience with corporations is that they can do what they want about obedience.  If you don't conform, you get a bad performance review, you get written up and maybe fired, all within the law.  You attend the events you are required to attend, or it goes on your permanent record.  What changes corporate behavior is their bottom line.  If it costs them money, they change their behavior. In this case, it sure would seem to be about to cost them money.  Unless I am seriously  underestimating, the increased ticket revenue from LBGTQ supporters will not make up for bad publicity and angering other fan groups.

There is no Left and Right where money is concerned.  "Woke" corporations are not any different, they make decisions based on their bottom line.

[Tatetopa]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Well, I'll address each cause on a case-by-case basis. 

Let's take 'Breast Cancer Awareness' day in the NHL. I don't consider that controversial.

So what?  Does it not still trample individual rights to be required to participate whether they want to or not? Are you OK with over-riding individual choice if it is a cause you like?

IOW, case by case means individuals have no guaranteed rights, its a matter of whether you support the cause or not.

Freedom would be letting the individual decide. 

[papageorge1]

14 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

So what?  Does it not still trample individual rights to be required to participate whether they want to or not? Are you OK with over-riding individual choice if it is a cause you like?

IOW, case by case means individuals have no guaranteed rights, its a matter of whether you support the cause or not.

Freedom would be letting the individual decide. 

I guess I would restrict it to causes involving religious/political/social issues and yes that might be a judgment call. LGBTQ pride is one of those I would not require one to support. But Breast Cancer Awareness? I suppose someone can decline to participate but it would seem odd to me.

Who gets to decide? I suggest they ask PapaGeorge1 to be official judge.

[Paranoid Android]

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

This has nothing to do with the Constitution - what is the very first word of the 1st Amendment?  And what about the free speech of his critics?  

No issue with free speech of his critics. However, being fired is unwarranted and therefore the outrage mob demanding it deserve to be called out - they are free to their opinion and to even share it, but then they should expect to be called out on it.  If he was fired, it would be because of his Constitutionally protected ability to say words! I will always stand up for a person's ability to say words without the fear of retribution. 

Then there's the low key racism in telling him to go back to Russian and fight in Ukraine. That's an accepted racial attack because the guy is white and Russia is predominately white. But replace "Russia" with a minority of darker skin complexion and you see just how racist it actually is. I mentioned an incident in Australia in which something very similar took place, and 7 players boycotted playing a match. 6 of the 7 are from Polynesian descent, and the seventh is Nigerian/Indigenous. Imagine if the journalists in Australia told them to go back home to Tonga/Samoa/New Zealand/PNG/Nigeria/etc. There is no planet in which that wouldn't be racist! And yet this is precisely how the American left wing establishment is treating a Russian with an unpopular opinion! 

Edited January 22 by Paranoid Android

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

They do not, however, have the right to deny him beliefs, to stop him acting on his beliefs or to get him fired unless there’s an obedience clause in his contract. 

Depending on which 'they' you are referring to, 'they do not have the power to do any of the above anyway.  Whether he is fired or not is not up to them, it is up to his employer and the specifics of his contract. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

No issue with free speech of his critics. However, being fired is unwarranted and therefore the outrage mob demanding it deserve to be called out - they are free to their opinion and to even share it, but then they should expect to be called out on it. 

Go ahead, from what I've seen they don't seem to care about what you think is unwarranted.  

14 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

If he was fired, it would be because of his Constitutionally protected ability to say words! I will always stand up for a person's ability to say words without the fear of retribution. 

Just look into it if you don't believe me, I just handed you why this has nothing to do with the Constitution.  Since you didn't answer maybe you don't know, but the first words of the 1st Amendment are not, 'The National Hockey League'... Until you connect Congress to any of this, I don't think you know what you're talking about with references to 'Constitutionally protected'.  If you're just pointing out that if he were fired it would be because of speech that he wouldn't be arrested for, no duh, people get fired for things they can't be arrested for all the time. 

As far as your last sentence, no, we've been over this, you would not stand up for a person's ability to have a speech-filled Hillary rally at your apartment/house, in that case you all of a sudden discover other rights than just speech.  Why don't you ever mention the rights of private organizations who employ and pay people?  You really, really don't understand that your right to free speech without 'retribution' are seriously curtailed if you want to be employed?  If a grocery store clerk starts using racial epithets with certain customers you hopefully would not stand up for their ability to say those with no fear of being fired.  Assuming you wouldn't, then no you will not 'always' stand up, you are selective like everyone else.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

30 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Depending on which 'they' you are referring to, 'they do not have the power to do any of the above anyway.  Whether he is fired or not is not up to them, it is up to his employer and the specifics of his contract. 

Exactly my point, all the complainers can do is complain. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Does it not still trample individual rights to be required to participate whether they want to or not? Are you OK with over-riding individual choice if it is a cause you like?

They are not really 'required to participate' though (normally, not sure about additional responsibilities in sports contracts).  He doesn't have to play hockey with this team/league and if he decides not to he won't be put in jail, he has tons of freedom and plenty of individual choice-making available to him.  Employment involves lots of 'over-riding' of individual choice by necessity.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Exactly my point, all the complainers can do is complain. 

And in sufficient numbers potentially have influence on those who have the right to do more than complain.

[Paranoid Android]

41 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Go ahead, from what I've seen they don't seem to care about what you think is unwarranted.  

Just look into it if you don't believe me, I just handed you why this has nothing to do with the Constitution.  Since you didn't answer maybe you don't know, but the first words of the 1st Amendment are not, 'The National Hockey League'... Until you connect Congress to any of this, I don't think you know what you're talking about with references to 'Constitutionally protected'.  If you're just pointing out that if he were fired it would be because of speech that he wouldn't be arrested for, no duh, people get fired for things they can't be arrested for all the time. 

As far as your last sentence, no, we've been over this, you would not stand up for a person's ability to have a speech-filled Hillary rally at your apartment/house, in that case you all of a sudden discover other rights than just speech.  Why don't you ever mention the rights of private organizations who employ and pay people?  You really, really don't understand that your right to free speech without 'retribution' are seriously curtailed if you want to be employed?  If a grocery store clerk starts using racial epithets with certain customers you hopefully would not stand up for their ability to say those with no fear of being fired.  Assuming you wouldn't, then no you will not 'always' stand up, you are selective like everyone else.

A store clerk calling a customer racial epithets is an impediment to them doing their job. 

An athlete choosing not to wear a particular colour associated with a movement that they are religiously opposed is not an impediment to their job. If they were fired, they would have an unlawful termination case because their firing infringed upon their free speech. Maybe that wouldn't be explicitly under "First Amendment" (maybe it would go into Title VII or some such) but the point is that employers should respect the rights of employees to say what they want when it is not happening on the company dime. 

Also keep in mind that we are now firmly in the realm of generalisations, talking about generalised examples of companies disrespecting free speech when the context of this article is specifically about an incident in which a hockey player simply sat out a training session. Being part of this training session wasn't demanded in his contract, nor does supporting gay rights or any such. 

Nevertheless, I 100% support his right to not be forced by an employer to support a movement that he is religiously opposed to. Whether you want to call that First Amendment or not, this is now a semantic debate. Whatever words you want to use, I'm comfortable using.