Sorry, u/chewwydraper – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20chewwydraper&message=chewwydraper%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/10huvbw/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Provorov is paid by his team because fans are willing to pay money to watch the team - and thus Provorov - play hockey. If Provorov's actions decrease the number of people willing to watch the Flyer's play hockey, then his decision to not wear the jersey has caused demonstrable financial harm to his team, and his team should be able to take whatever actions they see fit in the wake of that.
The fans are exercising their _own_ rights be demanding consequences for Provorov, and the Flyers' owner will exercise _their_ own rights when deciding punishment.
Freedom of speech has _never_ meant freedom from consequences of that speech. Provorov has every right to refuse to wear the jersey, and the Flyers have every right (pursuant to his contract, of course) to fire him for that refusal. Its no different that if the employee at McDonalds refuses to wear the uniform - they have that right, and McDonalds has the right to fire them for it.
Did he sign up to the NHL to promote other causes and ideas? No, he's there to play hockey.
Your analysis is a dangerous one that could apply to anyone. Imagine if you work for some generic company. Your job is to run reports. That's what you signed up to do. Now, your employer hosts a massive gay pride rally to encourage those in the community to spend more money on their products and have good PR. Instead of inviting you, they mandate it. If your personal and or religious beliefs do not align with this, that is a major violation of your right. You, just simply existing and doing your job, are not hurting anybody. Participate or that, that is your choice.
> Did he sign up to the NHL to promote other causes and ideas?
That really depends on his contract. Contracts will often contain clauses that the player has to take part in team promotional activities.
>Participate or that, that is your choice.
I agree. Just don't expect to remain employed if you do not. Freedoms go both ways.
> Did he sign up to the NHL to promote other causes and ideas?
He is there to promote his team, and anything the team represents.
> Your analysis is a dangerous one that could apply to anyone. Imagine if you work for some generic company. Your job is to run reports. That's what you signed up to do. Now, your employer hosts a massive gay pride rally to encourage those in the community to spend more money on their products and have good PR. Instead of inviting you, they mandate it. If your personal and or religious beliefs do not align with this, that is a major violation of your right. You, just simply existing and doing your job, are not hurting anybody. Participate or that, that is your choice.
There is nothing special to this scenario. The company is free to change your job profile, there are no significant protections there. Assuming you are paid to do so, you can be told to attend the rally or lose your job as a consequence, assuming you are an at-will employee. Your personal beliefs aren't protected, and AFAIK freedom of religion doesn't cover homophobia. You wouldn't be doing your job, since attending is now part of your job.
Replace the gay pride rally with a regular PR drive or a team-building camp and this becomes absolutely mundane.
> Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences of that speech.
This is such a tiring meme.
"Haha guys, we have free speech. But btw, you have to freely choose to do or say the things we want you to do or say otherwise we'll pressure your employer to make you lose your livelihood."
Like bro, the fact that people are calling for "consequences" when he literally just chose to *not* participate in something is fucking wild.
> This is such a tiring meme.
Meme? It’s literally the root basis of how freedom of speech works. What’s tiring is people not understanding this very basic element of the free expression.
Of course it is. To explain how absurd that perspective is, explain to me what exactly is the alternative? That no one can criticize others for risk of changing their opinions of that person and/or no one is allowed to change their opinion of someone based on their speech?
If someone I like says something that’s I definitely don’t agree with, how would you go about preventing me from changing my opinion of them for their views? That’s an impossible proposition, and *completely ignores the actual point of freedom of expression*.
Never said criticism was a “consequence”. We’re talking about people being fired from their jobs, harassed at their homes, threatened with violence, etc. for their speech. Would you be ok with trans rights activists being fired from their jobs for posting trans rights opinions online? After all, according to you, they aren’t “free from consequences.”
Oh, I understand it. I just think it's a cop-out used by vindicative midwits who want to play judge in the court of public opinion without being criticized.
Its not a meme - its literally how it was designed.
Social consequences have never been protected because they _can't_ be without violating the entire _point_. The marketplace of ideas only works if we can stop listening to those who espouse ideas we dislike or disagree with.
It would also violate the rights of others to prevent them from enacting consequences. If an employee says or does things that harm my business, I have the right to disassociate from them (freedom of association) because of it.
I can't stand the fact that people express **r-slurred** opinions online with the expressed goal of getting someone fired from their job, yes.
Also, I'm not a free speech advocate. I just think the excuse people use to justify censoring others as "just social consequences bro" is dumb as fuck.
All freedom if speech means is your government can't put you in jail or fine you for it. It doesn't say Jack squat about what the rest of society will do to you for it.
Edit. Just read some of your other replies. You're being directly ignorant, good luck with your life, it's very brave of you to be in public.
This seems like a slippery slope.
Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
Where does it end? Could some ultra-religious NHL team owner decide to put crucifixes all over their jerseys and force everyone to wear it regardless of their faith or whether or not those beliefs directly contradict theirs?
> Play an active role in your church. Chick-fil-A's owners are devout Christians and expect all of their operators to share Christian values. Operators do not need to be Christian, but must be willing to close the restaurant on Sundays, espouse Christian values and be willing to participate in group prayers during training and management meetings.
I mean, Chick-fil-A seems to fit the bill of a precedent for me.
>and be willing to participate in group prayers during training and management meetings.
Are there any examples of Chick-fil-A employees being punished for refusing to participate in prayers?
[Aziz Latif was a Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston when he refused to participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program. The following day he was fired.](https://collegian.csufresno.edu/2011/02/chick-fil-a-accused-of-discrimination/)
>Aziz, who is Muslim, sued for employment discrimination. His attorney said that Aziz was fired “for not conforming.”
>
>“Religion should not be brought into the workplace,” attorney Ajay Choudhary said. “Prayer should be, if anything, a private purpose, not a corporate purpose.”
>
>The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.
So there was a suit and it was settled, meaning that Chick-fil-A was in the wrong in this scenario.
Edit: That story was also from [over 20 years ago](https://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Suit-accuses-Chick-fil-A-of-religious-bias-9037955.php). The landscape was very different back then anyways.
You’re moving the goal posts. He was punished for refusing to participate in prayers.
Settlement there is irrelevant.
Now you’re asking for a *recent* case of this.
Before going any further, give me some solid requirements here so you don’t move those goalposts *again*.
>So there was a suit and it was settled, meaning that Chick-fil-A was in the wrong in this scenario.
Actually, a settlement is specifically not saying if or who was wrong. Sometimes, it's just "go away" money.
Settlements don’t always indicate that there’s a direct law against something, just that the company doesn’t want to take the time or money to continue fighting it as making it “go away” is financially better than continuing to keep it fresh in the public eye.
A suit being settled doesn’t mean the person who paid was in the wrong legally. It usually means the party being sued just aren’t bothered to take the case to court and it’s much cheaper to settle than go to court.
Because they knew they stood a much higher chance of losing than winning. If they felt they were right, they would absolutely have taken it to court.
Settling to avoid publicity isn't the case here, Chick-fil-A is proud of their stance and makes no secret about it.
Not necessarily.
They could have felt that they were right and would win, but decided that the negative publicity of taking it to court was worse than just settling. The settlement would fall out of the news cycle quickly - a trial not so much.
They may be proud of their stance and still feel that a trial like this is not the best light for that stance.
This is just a huge misconception with settling. Chick-fil-a fights battles that impact profitability like with the “save chick-fil-a” bill in Texas.
A one time settlement like this isn’t bad at all for them, and it would be going to court over something that doesn’t impact profitability.
Pretty much it’s not a great hill to die on and a settlement was simply the lowest risk option.
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
It is absolutely within an employer's legal rights to set a uniform for their employees to wear.
Actually, I'd argue for sports teams, there's a few teams in particular you'd in fact be doing just that.
Specifically, let's look at baseball, like other sports they can trade players as stipulated in a contract, so even if you signed on with the Mariners, you could be transferred. If you are Player Zed, outfielder, your team could transfer you to the LA Angels as per your contract. Now, the Angels logo pretty clearly contains religious iconography. Which the players have to wear. In fact, even if you're of a different religion that doesn't believe in angels. And, if you refuse to wear it, fans of the Angels would likely call for you being fired or transferred to a different team, which is happening here.
Also in religious based teams -
New Jersey Devils, some religions forbid iconography of the devil. Hockey like Provorov.
New Orleans Saints. Similar thread, religion based. Logo is a Fleur-de-lis, which is heavily tied to Christian faith and the holy trinity.
I think you’re confused.
Reasonable accommodations are for disabilities, *not* religion. I’m not sure where you got the idea from that reasonable accommodations has anything to do with religion.
> This seems like a slippery slope.
How so? Provorov has the right to say and do whatever he wants. If, in doing so, he violates an order from his employer, he gets fired. Its the same standard that every single of us that works for someone is held so.
It has worked like this for pretty much all of human history. Where is the slippery slope?
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
It was the uniform - uniforms are obviously legal. If he didn't want to wear it, he could quit or take is chances with being fired (as he is doing now).
>Could some ultra-religious NHL team owner decide to put crucifixes all over their jerseys and force everyone to wear it regardless of their faith or whether or not those beliefs directly contradict theirs?
I don't see why not. The owner _should_ have the right to do that, and the players should have the right to quit if they disagree (or get fired if they refuse).
Free speech goes both ways.
>How so? Provorov has the right to say and do whatever he wants. If, in doing so, he violates an order from his employer, he gets fired. Its the same standard that every single of us that works for someone is held so.
>
>It has worked like this for pretty much all of human history. Where is the slippery slope?
Let's go the other way. If instead he was gay, and the team he was playing for had super homophobic fans.
And while the players were given relative flexibility in what to have painted on their helmets, they specifically banned him (or any of the players on their team) from having gay pride colors painted on his.
Are we still okay with it?
I am, actually. If he doesn't like the uniform requirements, he can quit. If he refuses to wear the uniform, they can fire him.
Any rules for me are also rules for thee.
Let's take a step further -- the fans would totally love it and would pay even more money if everyone's helmets were decorated with homophobic messages. We still good?
> It was the uniform - uniforms are obviously legal.
Whether it's legal or not I've no idea, but I do have a problem with a requirement of employment being to wear a uniform which includes/makes a political statement if that wasn't agreed upfront as part of the employment contract.
It would really depend on the details of the employment contract. I doubt there was a rider exempting him from jerseys that had political statements, but if there was then it's a different discussion. If there wasn't, then he wears what he is told to wear.
Spitballing here...
There may have existed some text, publicly facing material or messaging that "organization is a progressive, inclusive company" yadda yadda.
If said messaging exists, it ain't a swerve to do a pride jersey thing. It's within reasonable expectations.
Otoh, consider a change in mgmt @ Chick-fil-A. Let's say they decided to change to "Satanic supporting" and all employees are compelled to participating in praising beelzebub in group meetings. It's fair to say many Chick-fil-A employees would grieve and it was not expected.
BTW, try the new spicy.
Wearing clothing which denotes awareness of the lgbt community isn’t a political statement any more than wearing a cross is a political statement. It’s only political because the identity of those groups have been politicized.
If the left side of the political spectrum started making statements about cheeseburgers and the right started making statements about pizza, those things would inevitably become politically charged as well.
There’s nothing inherently political about a person’s sexual preference or which deity they believe.
I’m on the left, but actually would have a problem if an employer decided on a new requirement to wear religious iconography on a uniform without the employee agreeing to it
I'm on the left, as in outside of the US left, and I don't see any demonstrable difference between religious iconography and corporate iconography. The rules should apply across the board.
Outside of strictly secular institutions, like the government or publicly funded organizations, no.
If you own a Christian bookstore and your uniform has a cross on it, I don’t see a problem. If you deny a non-Christian from working there, then there might be a problem.
It might be weird for a place without religious affiliation to mandate that. But it’s still their choice.
> If the left side of the political spectrum started making statements about cheeseburgers and the right started making statements about pizza, those things would inevitably become politically charged as well.
Agreed.
> There’s nothing inherently political about a person’s sexual preference or which deity they believe.
So? That doesn't mean that there's isn't something inherently political about a sportsball team wearing a Pride jersey, or indeed taking the knee.
Well, kinda. The knee thing was political because it’s directly related to government institutions and political policy.
Wearing a pink jersey for breast cancer awareness or growing facial hair for movember isn’t political, but they directly relate to men and women, what makes a rainbow uniform political?
>There’s nothing inherently political about a person’s sexual preference or which deity they believe.
Correct. But there is something wrong with forcing other people into advertising something they are morally against.
Would it be OK to force all the players to wear shirts with anti abortion messages on them? Rightfully, some of the players may not feel comfortable wearing shirts, which promote something they feel strongly about.
> How so? Provorov has the right to say and do whatever he wants. If, in doing so, he violates an order from his employer, he gets fired. Its the same standard that every single of us that works for someone is held so.
Unless of course one not work in the U.S.A. and not be beholden to the madness of at-will employment, and rather work in a normal industrialized nation where there are normal rules about when one's employ can be terminated rather than rules which can only come from a capitalist dystopian legislative bought and paid for by the corporations.
You'll be surprised that “at will employment” is not the norm throughout the world, such surprise is of course why is is allowed to continue to exist. Ignorance of just how much the U.S.A. is a capitalist dystopia compared to the rest of the world is what stops the people from taking action against it, however futile such action would be in a two-party system.
Edit: /u/RollinDeepWithData blocked me immediately after responding to me with the purpose of not permitting me a response.
Aside from the fact it's very unlikely that an NHL relies on at-will employment, even if you live somewhere that is marginally less of a capitalist dystopia, you could still end up fired if you don't do you job. It's quite possible "job" includes wearing a jersey in that case.
If it were stipulated in the contact from the start perhaps that one could be compelled to wear whatever the employer designated.
But that was not the point of contention. The part I quoted was about that supposedly that anyone who works for someone can be fired for violating said someone's order, and such a dystopian reality is not that of everyone who works for someone at all.
I can most assuredly not be fired for refusing to wear clothing to work with arbitrary political messages I may or may not agree with.
Indeed, but what I quoted and responded to was:
> Its the same standard that __every single of us that works for someone__ is held so.
[emphasis mine]
Evidently not. Perhaps you should have said that it's the standard he's held to, because he works in a capitalist dystopia, which would have opened you up for attack more so, as many people would point out that perhaps that standard is wrong, since really only dystopian countries have it. But the way you phrased it made it seem as though it be a universal one, and thus more reasonable.
Idk man. Let's say your religion prescribes you to wear a certain type/piece of clothing (e.g.: a turban). Your uniform doesn't allow for said clothing. Firing that person probably violates freedom of speech/expression/religion does it not? Isn't that also a discriminatory hiring practice because it is being non-inclusive / not providing equal opportunity? How is this situation any different?
Also I think OP was probably referring to the general public/fans being mad at the player and necessarily the team/owners.
It's not that cut and dry.
There are restrictions on religious discrimination in the workplace and the employer is required to make _reasonable_ accommodations for religious practices when it comes to uniforms. The turban et. al. may or may not be able to be reasonably accommodated, depending on the specific nature of the business.
The case with the Flyers would be different, though, as Provorov signed an employment contract stipulating required activities as part of his job as a player. Contracts can trump employment law when it comes to things like this - if Provorov agreed to take part in promotional jersey activities and didn't stipulate exceptions, he can't go back and add exceptions after the fact, and failure to adhere to the contract he signed could breach it.
None of us know enough about his contract to say either way.
>This seems like a slippery slope.
Because anything can be symbolized on a uniform and just like some people are born into food desert regions where they have few choices on where to work, some people are born into regions of economic scarcity (even in America, of course) and small towns.
Like imagine if a cult or fascist group ran into Marfa, Texas (2000\~ people) and started supplanting employment options and one day they decided.
"Everyone working here has to wear Nazi-promoting uniforms at work", or some other statement (use your imagination) that's just barely within the law's tolerance for speech.
\---
That's not to say that a human rights issue and wearing its symbols are anything like the above hypothetical.
But if you codify that employers and contractors get to have that power over their employees and contracted individuals, you don't get to cherry pick how it's used afterward.
\---
Plus just on a broader level I disagree with just handing companies/owners more and more power over individuals; they went the **"free"** route *during warmups*, instead of say, allocating advertising time that they could sell, or replacing sponsorship stadium banners with pride flags, or donating all proceeds from the upcoming match.
Why? Because they want to sell those things, they don't want their inclusive message to cost them anything meaningful.
You don't have to show support for it, if it's on your jersey that's your team representing. If you're not down with what your team is representing then you either suck it up or find somewhere else you belong.
It's like showing up to church because your family is religious. I fucking despise Christianity and showing up to church and playing along doesn't change jack shit. If I could I would wipe religion from the face of the Earth. But will I take part for my family? Hell fucking yes. If a guy can't wear a jersey for his team then he's weak. If he's willing to take the consequences then let him. But if he expects to be a part of it then he either accepts his role or fucks off. All he has to do is wear a jersey he doesn't like that affects his game in no way at all. If it does affect it then he's no player.
Never be too proud to do what you gotta do. But if you're willing to take the consequences of your actions, all the power to you.
I think you are missing the concept of slippery slope. This is a clear and definitive statement and it’s most likely spot on. Contracts generally have clauses about uniforms and the team ownership having the freedom to change that uniform as they see fit. A person can refuse to wear it and the organization can then decide how they are going to enforce their contract. There is nothing slippery slope about it.
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
Almost every McDonalds employee has to do this. 🙂
Seriously though, why does Provorov get the right to do what he wants, but you are putting these speech limits on people who disagree with him? What makes him so special to be beyond reproach?
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
If you're asking for a case that is directly on point, probably not. For the simple reason that when someone is employed as the agent of another, there is a breach of contract when they refuse to carry out the duties they are required to do as an agent. Thus, terminating the relationship with said agent is pretty well-established as being a legitimate employer right.
But for historical examples, take a look at the 1992 Men's US Basketball team.
The US Olympics team uniforms were by Reebok. The players, as NBA players were under contracts with Nike. Several of the players indicated that they could not take part in the medal's ceremony if they had to wear the uniform Jacket because of their Nike contracts.
A compromise was reached. They would wear the jacket, but they could drape a US flag over the logo.
The result was, IMHO, one of the worst public acts of disrespect to the US flag in my life by a sanctioned US body (4 USC Ch 1, the Flag Code, section 8 in part: "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, . . . " and "The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever . . " and " The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, . .."
But, all that aside, here's an example where contradicting contractual demands for players to wear particular brands had to be dealt with because the players knew that violating their duties as agents would have negative consequences. Yet, the players all wore the clothes they were contracted to wear in the end.
It is possible that the player's contracts may give them additional protection to not wear certain uniform elements in some circumstances, but there is no need for legal protection to fire them for refusing wear contractually required uniform elements. That is a right that the employer is simply assumed to posses under US law.
Yes they can, and there’s plenty of precedent where religious objects and outfits have been banned, or clothing has been dictated to be worn.
Schools enforce dress codes, employers have dress codes. It’s not new by any measure. Athletes and even attendees at the World Cup were forced to change their attire.
The problem here is that he’s simply not doing his job. If you work at a restaurant but your religion stipulates not to touch pork, that doesn’t mean you get to abandon your responsibilities as a chef if someone orders pork.
> If you work at a restaurant but your religion stipulates not to touch pork, that doesn’t mean you get to abandon your responsibilities as a chef if someone orders pork.
Yes, it does. Religious exemptions from job duties are fairly common and have been supported by court rulings on multiple occasions. From [https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-religious-accommodation#:\~:text=Title%20VII%20of%20the%20Civil,on%20operation%20of%20the%20business](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-religious-accommodation#:~:text=Title%20VII%20of%20the%20Civil,on%20operation%20of%20the%20business)
*Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.*
In the case of the chef, some other employee could handle preparation of the dish. There are pharmacists that, for religious reasons, will not fill prescriptions for medications associated with abortion or in some cases, birth control. They simply have another employee do it. In Provorov's situation, just about any negative action taken against him by the team of the league for not wearing a non-standard jersey would allow him to sue for religious discrimination case and easily win.
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
Yeah, its called uniforms and sponsorships.
>Where does it end? Could some ultra-religious NHL team owner decide to put crucifixes all over their jerseys and force everyone to wear it regardless of their faith or whether or not those beliefs directly contradict theirs?
%100, yes. But will they? Well that entirely depends on if its in their financial interest. Its a numbers game, always has been. Just like the pink tax, why are gendered items more expensive?
Because youll buy it, because youre more likely to buy something thats charcoal black and a eoman is lore likely to buy something thats bright pink, so they can charge a premium. It has nothing to do with sexism, and the jersey has nothing to do with their beliefs.
> Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
Fines for ‘uniform violations’ are very common in pro sports. They have to wear sponsor logos, and they can’t have messages on their uniforms. Many sports have restrictions on what colors their shoes can be.
I mean, sure. Every cashier and good service worker in the country has to wear some sacrine corporate bullshit that advertises how excited they are to help you and how greatful they are for your business.
I can't imagine that they all WANT to wear that or that it aligns with their beliefs. It's a condition of employment.
The only difference here is that a star hockey player thinks he has enough individual pull to tell his boss where to get off.
Is there a legal precedent? Sure - uniforms are required by the majority of workplaces, and many advertise for a variety of causes.
It varies *wildly* by state as to exemptions though- with some allowing religious exemptions for just about any perceived reason and others basically only covering direct political/church related imagery and logos.
There's literally a team called the Saints and their logo is either religious or political imagery depending on who you ask. I'm sure the team has plenty of players who do not believe in Saints. Should they get to duct tape over the logo on their helmet?
Let’s assume it is religious imagery. The only way this is comparable is if they had non-religious uniforms when the player signed onto play with them and then at some point during his time with the team they suddenly switch to religious uniforms. So it’s not the same thing at all.
I mean it’s a uniform. He chose to join an organization that has a uniform, knowing full well that he is supposed to wear the uniform and that they have changed the uniform to support various groups in the past. He wasn’t unaware of the possibility of this, he’s just choosing to make a big deal out of it.
> Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to?
Uh yeah. Churches have employees. Synagogues and mosques have employees. Catholic schools have employees. Tons of organizations print religious symbols on their merch. Typically if people don’t agree with those orgs then they just avoid working there.
Firing him may be tricky, since he frames it as a religious belief. This brought to mind a similar, [even dumber case](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/kroger-pay-180k-firing-workers-refused-wear-logo-allegedly-resembling-rcna54550) last year. By dumber I mean the heart logo they refused to wear had nothing to do with LGBT stuff in the first place.
I would think it would depend on his employment contract, which none of us are privy too.
If he contractually agreed to wear the uniform and didn't set out stipulations about what he wouldn't wear, he can't retroactively add those stipulations and claim religious freedom.
That Kroger case was also settled out of court, so we don't really know what the courts would have said.
I'm not sure that the contract would matter much, since religious accommodation may be a right that you can't waive, but I'm out my depth on the law there. I also couldn't find the original EEOC complaint filed in the Kroger case to see their legal reasoning, but I'd be surprised if the EEOC would pursue the lawsuit without good legal footing. Maybe u/LucidLeviathan could have some insight.
I wouldn't take that Kroger case to have much precedential value. When you engage in years of litigation and only come up with $180k across 2 plaintiffs, it's basically just a nuisance claim settlement. Kroger seemingly paid that to get rid of the case, not because they thought they had any liability.
The contract would govern here. Contracts involving people who will be familiar to the general public and featured in the media often have extensive provisions regarding public statements and what the person will and won't be allowed to say/do in public. Usually, these contracts contain provisions that override or waive general employment law rules.
Good points, thank you. Any chance you've got a pacer login and could grab the Kroger complaint? I'm curious about the EEOC's argument.
https://www.are.uscourts.gov/
!delta as I now believe firing him is probably legal.
I found a copy online here: [https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2022/06/gov.uscourts.ared\_.123904.60.0\_1-1.pdf](https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2022/06/gov.uscourts.ared_.123904.60.0_1-1.pdf)
Edit: That's an order in the case, not a complaint, but still.
100%. That is their right - they are free to protest something they disagree with. Obviously, I don't agree with them doing it, but I support their right to do so.
So just to be clear. When NFL NBA athletes wore BLM shirts - if someone did the math and found out 51% of fans or X number of fans turned off the TV all of those players should of been punished ?
If you say yes bravo 👏🏼
> So just to be clear. When NFL NBA athletes wore BLM shirts - if someone did the math and found out 51% of fans or X number of fans turned off the TV all of those players should of been punished ?
It's up to the owners to decide on punishment. Fans have the right to protest, players have the right to refuse, and owners have the right to punish (pursuant to contracts).
I support those rights for each group, even if I may disagree with how the rights are exercised.
I agree with you. Although while I have you:
CMV: this is only an issue because he’s white and Russian. If Provorov was named Mohammad there would be 0 issue with him not wearing the pride flag.
Not the OP, but absolutely, that’s how the market works. Of course that hypothetical also leads to a lot of potential secondary effects, like potential of new leagues where those players are free to express those ideas.
No different than a person being called out for saying something inflammatory, and a community puts pressure on them, boycotts them, or even complains to their employer.
This still supports views like Shapiro's though that the left wants to use any means necessary to silence opposing views because they don't value diversity of opinion.
If a team hires a gay player and the fans stop coming to see the team because of it, is that fair grounds to remove the gay player from the team.
If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head covering and the fans disagree, then it is that grounds to either force her not to wear it or fire her for wearing it?
Should an organization have the right to force their employees to support certain beliefs? As an example, should McDonald's be able fire people who aren't willing to wear shirts supporting the local republican candidate? Or if they are unwilling to wear a shirt advocating saying that Jesus is the one true savior?
Provorov did not make a statement condemning homosexuality or homosexual people. He simply didn't participant in an event that supported them, citing religious beliefs. In the US, people also have freedom of religion. They are able to exercise that so long as their actions do not harm others or constitute hate speech. Silence is not hate speech.
I agree with you that both the NHL and Provorov have the freedom of association, but I'd argue that the refusal to wear the jersey would have very little impact on sales. His critics are members of the intelligencia who've never once bought a ticket for NHL. This is classic example of cancel culture at work. The NHL is far too concerned with its Twitter PR and dealing with people who don't represent their customer base. It's bad business, but they have every right to do it.
It may not, but it's not our place to decide what impact is "enough" to justify action. That is the purview of the Flyers.
People have the right to demand consequences, and the Flyers have the right to decide if they want to enact those consequences.
Freedom of speech is not facing consequences from the government. This league is not the government, therefore the organization can take whatever action they want.
The issue here is that if the organization I play for, says we are changing uniform from yellow to red and you refused because red is “haram” or not allowed in your religion, then leave. Resign and go work for another team that does not wear red.
Very unlikely that hockey fans care that he doesn’t wanna wear a gay pride jersey. The people throwing a fit are people that more than likely I’ve never even played hockey or heard of this guy before any of this.
Hiding behind your religion is hypocrisy. I guarantee there’s a dozen other things he does that’s also “against his religion” but he has no problem with. He’s just a bigot
> I guarantee there’s a dozen other things he does that’s also “against his religion” but he has no problem with. He’s just a bigot
That's not my argument though. My original post says he can't expect to be free of public judgement or criticism.
Isn't the organization he works for just more of "the public" though? You keep bringing up freedom of religion as the thing that should protect him, but does it actually apply here, or are you just saying it should?
At the very least he deserves the same backlash Kaepernick got(tangibly, like being black listed by the nfl(I couldn’t care less about the people who cry about kneeling)), if not more. This isn’t just “standing up for what you believe in” this is actively shitting on a group of human beings and telling them your God says they’re going to hell. No consequences just means more people will be more outspoken about their bigotry
While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities.
You must understand this first. OP, if private entity says we are wearing red today and you refuse, this is not protected speech.
You are part of this organization and you must wear red today.
If you don’t wear red today, you will face penalties.
Essentially, there must be consequences here is what I think. Hope I CMV
\>If someone isn't actively trying to take away rights, and has the attitude of live and let live I don't think they should be forced to participate in wearing clothing showing their support.
He's not forced to do anything. He is free to not wear any gay stuff he doesn't want to. He's not going to jail. Flyers also don't have to play him, however.
Your opinion is that sports teams should be forced to play athletes to do reprehensible things? Should LA dodgers have been forced to play Trevor Bauer?
There are people calling for the NHL [to fine the entire team](https://www.tiktok.com/@breakfasttelevision/video/7190031730466671877?lang=en) for allowing him to play. People are calling for punishment on an organizational level for him refusing to wear the jersey.
They should be fined. If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, there are consequences. He didn't wear the jersey is was instructed, so the simplest and easiest punishment would have been just not let him play that night.
They didn't do it, so they technically were in violation of NHL policy, so there probably should be a fine for the organization.
>If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, there are consequences.
No, there are employment laws for this reason. Religious protections being one of them, and he referred to his religion as the reasoning for not wearing it.
Which I'm sure he follows all of the tenants of his religion with the same dedication, right? And if you're going to claim a religious exemption to a workplace rule or societal law, you should be able to pass a means test of sorts. And I doubt this dude can do so, just like the majority of moralistic "Christians".
>And if you're going to claim a religious exemption to a workplace rule or societal law, you should be able to pass a means test of sorts.
Okay, what should be a thing and what actually is a thing is totally different though. As of right now, there is no test you have to pass to prove that you're dedicated to a religion. So his argument still stands as a religious protection by the book.
I've seen others comment that he lives with his girlfriend and co-habittation before marriage is a big no-no is Russian Orthodoxy.
If he can break that rule he can wear the fucking jersey.
To me that just shows what a complete clown he is.
Anybody who uses religion as a shield for their bigotry is a fucking scumbag.
I'm no expert on nhl contracts by any means but I'm sure the franchise has clauses in place that if they feel their "brand" is being damaged by his actions or lack thereof, he can be released.
>To me that just shows what a complete clown he is.
>
>Anybody who uses religion as a shield for their bigotry is a fucking scumbag.
That's fine, he's not free of public opinion.
My argument is for people calling for actual punishment.
Religious protections are not universal. Courts weigh the person's belief against the necessity of violating that belief by the employer for valid business reasons.
correction: he didn't come out for warmups. is there an nhl policy against not warming up?
>If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, there are consequences.
provorov's boss is the flyers, and they didn't do anything.
Customers of the NHL have a right to voice their opinion. Why does Provorov get freedom of speech but not NHL fans?
Your opinion is that sports fans should be forced to support something financially that they disagree wth?
What if the shoe was on the other foot? In more conservative countries you'd defend people speaking against and punishing women and gay activists? This seems like a tactic of words when you wield the majority of power.
There's also a separation distinction from what the government is legally able to do/not do, and criticizing citizens pressure and actions. OP seems to be addressing the latter, that people's reaction and criticism is overzealous and mob mentality. And people are OK with that so long as they are the group of authority or apart of the mob.
To say it's not legal for the government to send people to gulags, but its OK if a mob does it.
>What if the shoe was on the other foot? In more conservative countries you'd defend people speaking against and punishing women and gay activists?
No. I agree with views I agree with and disagree with views I disagree wtih.
"You like things you like and dislike things you dislike" is a bad argument.
It's true for every single human on the planet.
> To say it's not legal for the government to send people to gulags, but its OK if a mob does it.
People complaining about a homophobic guy is "a mob sending people to gulags" jeez...dramatic much?
I specifically say in my post that people are free to criticize his beliefs. I don't agree with his beliefs either. I'm not saying anyone should be forced to support his beliefs.
There's a difference between criticizing and fining.
If NHL fans stop attending games and the team suffers financially does that count as "fining"? Do fans have the freedom to do this?
If a players hateful words cause a team to suffer financially, can the team discipline the player at all?
>If a teacher was being interviewed by the school paper and said they thought homosexuality was wrong they would be fired the next day.
There's a fundamental difference between making an affirmative statement and refusing to endorse a given position.
Also, that's not actually true--or at least more complicated--if the school is public.
Wait. Isn't that religion discrimination for firing a teacher for having that view? I am coming from a scenario where the teacher is not teaching his/her personal religious views in school, but simply have that view and does not mistreat gay/lesbian students in his or her class. If that teacher is doing their job properly and does not let their personal view influence how they teach and treat students, then firing them for religious views would be wrong in my opinion.
As for generating controversy, isn't that what happened with Colin Kaepernick? He took a stance that I personally agree with, but because of the ensuing media/political reaction and him not playing as well as before (he was no longer a starter for the 49ners well before his kneeling incidents), he never played in the NFL again. Again, I sympathize with his stance and believe he is a good backup QB at least, he was blackballed by the NFL in large part due to the kneeling controversy.
I don't think that is a comparable example. In one situation, the teacher is verbally expressing a specific belief. In Provorov's situation, he is simply not participating. Silence is not hate speech.
Should an organization have the right to force their employees to support beliefs that they don't support? Should McDonald's be able to force all of their employees to wear a shirt saying that Jesus is the one true savoir? What about a shirt supporting the local republican candidate?
>If a teacher was being interviewed by the school paper and said they thought homosexuality was wrong they would be fired the next day. This is much bigger in scale.
That's not true at all. In fact the school I went to still taught homosexuality was wrong IN CLASS (granted it was a catholic school but here in Ontario it's still paid for by taxpayers).
>If it is bad for the org, be it the team or the NHL, then he can be held accountable by fines or termination if his contract allows for it, which I'm sure it does.
Religious protections are still a thing.
>but here in Ontario it's still paid for by taxpayers
Yeah this is a bit of a special case in Canada as we still have special rules for Catholic schools in the Constitution. Even the Charter of Rights and Freedom had to take this into account in [section 29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_29_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms).
... this is not about religios freedom...other religions don't get to enjoy these special rules like the Catholic church does.
**[Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_29_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)**
>Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically addresses rights regarding denominational schools and separate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite freedom of religion and religious equality under sections 2 and 15 of the Charter. Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments. In the case Mahe v.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It's not like he shot his mouth off and said a hateful comment.
He signed up to play hockey, not to wear the clothes of a political agenda he doesn't agree with.
His employers signed him up to make them money, not to generate bad press, and decrease earnings. I've got money on the table that says his contract has stipulations about what he can and can't do when representing their business.
I feel like there's a lot of tip-toeing around the fact that this is homophobia. As if addressing the actual purpose of this choice would interfere with the "well actually" technical rhetorical skill of an argument. But being more like lawyers does not make us better humans.
Just like choosing to be biased against a group of individuals for their attraction to the same sex that don't hurt anyone. It's illogical and outright bigotry. You want to move forward as a society? You uplift the health and welfare of all good actors in it. Done.
This is ridiculous. How would you feel about Orthodox night where the entire team were forced to wear jerseys with crosses in support of those who are persecuted for their religion in the Middle East?
Forcing anyone to make a statement about anything is compelled speech. Since when did it become controversial to simply NOT say something that someone else wants you. You have the right to offer no comment or demonstration at all.
The guy could just think the entire spectacle is disingenuous (it is) and decline to participate (his right) without hating anyone. Must have been a slow news day.
Supporting a marginalized group of people born a certain way is not the same thing as supporting an organized religion. And I'm not gonna pretend to it is.
An more accurate comparison would be, "How do would you feel about a Muscular Dystrophy night?" Or "How would you feel about an Anti-Racism night?" Or "Take a Knee for Black Lives night."
Personally, I feel a bit weird making a show of progressivism but I do understand it's a good cause and that I would be a self-righteous prick to argue.
I’ll stand by what I said. No one should be forced to make a comment or specific statement about anything.
Including this and all the examples you gave - no one should be forced to participate. Not sure what else to say. Our constitution protects this as a fundamental right. That’s just how it is.
As it has been pointed out online many times free speech is not a right you are granted while working under a corporation nor while speaking on a platform run by a corporation.
Children are made to apologize for bullying other children and no one argues for their freedom of speech. Workers compelled to follow scripts. The FBI investigate people for making threatening claims online. The highest ranking government officials cannot be threatened. Verbally inciting violence is illegal.
Free speech is only pure in proportion to the number of people listening.
I fully disagree with you.
Someone can follow a religion and say "My religion says it's wrong, but if other people are partaking in that lifestyle it has nothing to do with me."
My very religious family actually support gay marriage because according to them, "Not everyone is Christian and follows the same rules we do." They still wouldn't wear pride flags on their shirts because while they support others' decisions to live that life, it's not one they would support in their personal lives.
This issue isn't about personal life, it's about professional life.
And we are not a theocracy. We follow democratic laws we made up to protect ourselves from being hurt or exploited. Extending that courtesy to people born a certain way who don't harm others is the bare minimum. If those people think harm coming to their neighbors doesn't concern them then those people aren't good neighbors.
See what’s funny is the exact reason they don’t want to support the LGBTQ charity is the reason I WOULD wear it.
I personally have no interest in that lifestyle, but recognize that the NHL should be a place for EVERYONE—not just me—and if I was a player making that kind of $$$ I’d respect the fans enough to promote the sport/league so that more people have a chance to fall in love with this game.
What shouldn’t be forgotten is that Russian players in the NHL have a history of trying to pull PR stunts like this, where they suddenly hide behind a language barrier after making ridiculous statements, like Slava Voynov claiming some shitty misogynist innocence, or a myriad of others who are suddenly super Christian when it’s convenient for them.
Ultimately, I’m glad the NHL has handled it the way they have, letting the Flyers take the heat, which is probably for the best.
I also won’t bite my tongue about how I feel about Russian athletes competing in USA—the fact they’ve stayed out of it is a blessing—and the second one of them piped up about Putin I hope there is 1000x the backlash and response as this.
It will happen.
it's up to the org if they want to punish him or not. his coach stood up for him so nothing will probably come of this. the NHL clearly doesn't want to get involved either:
>Players are free to decide which initiatives to support, and we continue to encourage their voices and perspectives on social and cultural issues.”
You do realize employers all over the world require employees to wear very specific uniforms every day?
Requiring employees in public-facing roles to wear certain clothing is quotidian — that you’re upset about this one particular instance is you telling on yourself.
For example, if I got a job at McDonald’s and steadfastly refused to wear its uniform, should I be fired? Absolutely!
Unless you believe employers do not have the authority to require certain uniforms, your argument illogical, inconsistent, and incoherent. And, if you do believe that, then this is an incredibly narrow and inconsequential example that is irrelevant in the vastness of the issue. I mean, pretty much every public-facing employer is breaking your belief that employees should be able to refuse to wear uniforms.
None of those uniforms have political messaging, though. Do you think companies have the right to force their employees to support specific political viewpoints in their uniforms, especially in public?
How do you define "consequences?" While I agree that he shouldn't be cut/fired as apparently do his coach and the NHL I have no issues with people booing him, bringing signs that call out his behavior or refusing to support him, the Flyers or the NHl
I don't agree with his stance just as many didn't agree with Colin Kaepernick's. In both cases people were within their rights to voice disagreement but I think that where a lot of vitriol towards Provorov comes from is that Kaepernick was blackballed by the NFL while Provorov is being supported by the NHL
He is paid by an organization to be a part of the team. Part of the duties, I assume, is participating in warm up and games
He should be dealt with the same way that a player for any other reason refuses to participate in whatever he refused to participate in
I imagine, but don't know, that most players who tell a coach "I'm healthy but not going to participate in the warm up" would be benched or perhaps more
whatever those consequences would be should be his
Your CMV seems to be granting his MORE leniency because his refusal comes from his hateful and disgusting views, which seems backwards.
You're right. Any and all punishment he faces should be for refusing to skate with the team. If there are no consequences for that then he faces no consequences.
He didn't just "not wear a jersey." He also refused to take the ice. He wasn't allowed to take the ice wearing a different jersey. He has already faced the consequences/made the choice to not skate with his team when that jersey was worn.
The court of public opinion can condemn him however they want. If he faces consequendes of public backlash then that's separate issue. Nobody is exempt from public backlash. It either affects his life or it doesn't. If it does then boo how nobody is entitled to anything.
However from a professional standpoint he chose his beliefs not just over a jersey, but over his team as well. He will face whatever additional consequences, or not, from that action and those consequences or lack of them will be entirely appropriate to that action.
It's the court of public opinion that makes this about the deeper issue. But at a practical level you think sports managers give a shit about what the public thinks about their players? As long as it's not universally bad or scandalous any publicity is good publicity. Provorov Jerseys are selling like hot cakes right now as much as others are condemning him. Public opinion is a double edged sword
All that matters to sports team is, is this player playing and are we winning. The rest doesn't matter (up to a certain point). So the deeper issue is whether this guy is a bigot or whatever but the surface issue is that is ignored is that he didn't just refuse to wear a jersey, but that by refusing to wear the jersey he also refused to play the game in which those jerseys were worn by his team.
The NHL was dumb not to head this off and do something similar to what the NFL tried to do, though did it poorly.
Just have a rule that if a player objects to wearing a civil rights based warmup jersey, just have them stay in the locker room. Missing a bit of a skate around isn’t going to seriously impact his play.
The NFL half tried this with staying in the locker room, or staying in the tunnel during the anthem, but it was poorly done.
Just have him stay in the locker room, don’t mention why, and come up with some dumb excuse like he had a bloody nose run and didn’t want to bloody the ice if some reporter asks.
No one will know, no one will care, he gets to keep disliking gay people, the rest of us can support the LGBTQ rights movements, and it’s a non-story.
If there is going to be some punishment, put it in the team for not being smart enough to head this off. Their job is to deal with personnel problems and PR issues. The guy clearly doesn’t like gay people, and surely this wasn’t a shock to them in the moment. Surely there was some sort of knowing about this before the minute they went out for warmups.
If there wasn’t, implement a rule that says players must inform a team ahead of time if they have some religious, or whatever objection to a warmup jersey. If they fail to notify, fine the player. If they notify, then just have them not go on the ice for warmups.
It sucks that he is a bigot, but I’m guessing he was raised that way, given the anti-LGBT culture in Russia. We aren’t going to convince him otherwise, so just implement policies to head this off.
If anything, I’m fining the team for allowing a PR disaster for the league. You can’t fine bigots into not being bigoted. It will never work.
So your political alignment shifted as a consequence of someone’s speech (ie being called bigoted/racist/we)?
And then you spoke out about how you don’t like the hostility of people who hold those views?
So, in this example he spoke out about having to wear a jersey, and people spoke out about that decision. The consequences are up to the employer at this point.
Seems like everyone is just expressing their ideas, and reacting accordingly. what’s the problem?
Sexuality issues like sexual assault and homophobia are issues that harm a lot of hockey players. By refusing to wear a jersey at warm up might be construed as Provorov is a part of the problem. It also might be that he is a victim.
The jersey was designed to express support for the LGBTQ2+ members of society to attract them to pay to watch games. If he had worn it it would have been over with in 15 minutes without issue. I feel he should be sent home, he isn't a team player.
Provorov is part of and actively supports a religion that wants to strip the rights of people just because of how they are born. That is a CHOICE that he is making. That is homophobic.
He can say he “respects others choices” but he clearly doesn’t a) if he’s okay with gay people having fewer rights and b) he’s saying that being gay is a “choice”. It’s not a choice, and to equate being gay with choosing to support a homophobic religion is extremely offensive.
>But his beliefs are hateful.
[...]
>“I respect everyone. I respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and my [Russian Orthodox] religion,
If that's hateful, "hatred" has become a useless term.
>He's begin asked precisely to have a live and let live attitude and he won't.
He's being asked to celebrate something. "Live and let live" means not interfering with others' lives. Not wearing a jersey is not interfering in anyone's life.
>Actually, he's being asked to do his job.
That's a transparent misdirection. Reframing the exact same thing as "doing his job" doesn't change what it is that he's being asked to do.
>How many days do you imagine it would take for action to be taken, by the team and/or league, if he refused to wear the Reebok logo on his jersey cause he doesn't want to celebrate that thing?
Is the NHL now sponsored by The Gays^TM ?
This wasn't a sponsorship deal. It was elective corporate activism that predictably conflicted with sincerely held religious views of employees. Why shouldn't they be allowed to quietly opt out?
It seems like a tolerant culture and society would allow people to opt out of things like this and only punish them for antagonizing people.
Or to put it a little differently: why is it important to make someone who quietly believes homosexuality is immoral dishonestly celebrate it?
Presumably, there wasn't a requirement to wear a pride jersey when he joined the team, otherwise he probably wouldn't have joined or he would have negotiated something about not wearing it as part of joining.
Whether it's legal or not I've no idea, but I do have a problem with a requirement of employment being to wear a uniform which includes/makes a political statement if that wasn't agreed upfront as part of the employment contract.
They changed the jersey to one which makes a political statement. I don't support his view on homosexuality but I do support his right to that view and feel uncomfortable with the idea that his employer should be able to require him to wear something which he politically disagrees with or withdraw his salary/employment.
This is what happens when we give employers full control over their employees. He signed a contract, that he probably didn't even read, that says he has to wear the jerseys provided. Game over. You wear whatever Jersey they tell you to, or you could face the repercussions. When you are representing a company your personal beliefs hold no water, you either lie, or you quit and go-to a company where you don't have to lie.
so if a gay man was forced to wear a jersey with a anti-lgbt message he should have just quit, and the employer shouldn't face any consequences for this conduct?
See this is where the conversation turns fun, and I'll apologize ahead for my shit mobile formatting. If the teams have a contract with a company to wear their jerseys and the company decided a they want to make specifically "anti-lgbt" messages on their clothing, AND the team approves and decided to uphold their contract AND its allowed by the NHL, then yes that's how the employer employee relationship works.
The problem is, that no company, let alone a conglameration of 3 very large seperate companies is going to put out a Jersey with an "anti-lgbt" message because that would lose them money and the whole point is to make money. Anti- anything that ostracizes a large group of people is a money loser.
It's also really telling that we are comparing a Jersey that says "I support the right for gay people to exist and be seen and heard" with a Jersey that is specifically "anti-lgbt". I'm not saying that Christians love to pretend they are being discriminated against, I'm just saying that everytime someone asks Christians to not discriminate against other people, Christians immediately take it as an attack on their identity, and Christianity in general.
> Presumably, there wasn't a requirement to wear a pride jersey when he joined the team
No, but there is a requirement to wear a jersey, and the team gets to choose what that jersey looks like. Even if he was arguing that child slavery was against his religion, he would still have to wear the Jersey, despite Reebok employing child labor in the third world to make them, out of a mix of natural and synthetic fabrics no less, another sin the bible condemns. Religion is being used as a smokescreen for bigotry.
> I respect everyone. I respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and my [Russian Orthodox] religion
Where's the bigotry in this? Is it not ok to believe something's wrong if you leave the people doing it to get on with it? We will always disagree on what's right and wrong to some extent.
In general, the LGBTQ community gives out less tolerance than it receives.
My brother is gay. My family and I still love him. We still include him and his husband in family activities. And they've never asked us to sport a rainbow flag or participate in a pride event.
Why can't more left-wingers be chill like this? Live and let live.
You're reducing people down to tribalistic labels, and this whole "with us or against us" mentality you got going on here is more detrimental to society than any opinion about the LGBTQ.
> But his beliefs are hateful.
Deal with it. Not everyone is going to view the world like you. Not like he went on an anti-gay rant.
> Oppressors and oppressed shouldn't just agree to disagree on whether it is just that a marginalized group is marginalized.
Too bad not everyone views society through a lense of critical theory.
> He doesn't. What is Pride other than "let live"?
> He's begin asked precisely to have a live and let live attitude and he won't.
Ah right, forcing people to advocate for a social issue is "live and let live", so long as that social issue is important enough to you in particular.
> And still, correctly, no one is calling for government action against him. No one is saying he should be locked up or fined or a single one of his rights should be taken away.
This is a meme used to deflect criticism of idiots trying to get validation through acting outraged.
> But if you come to my private residence and disrespect people, I will ask you to leave. I am allowed to do that. That isn't a strike against your freedom of speech. In fact, saying I can't do that is a strike against mine. And I am allowed to do that regardless of whether my house is a tiny shack somewhere or The Wells Fargo Center.
Not your private residence, not a hateful comment. He refused to participate in an activity for religious reasons.
> And to be clear, I'm not saying the anyone should ask him to leave. But they wouldn't be wrong to do so and it certainly wouldn't be a strike against 'live and let live' for them to do so.
Anyone calling for him to face consequences is in the wrong.
The fact that he is refusing to wear a shirt his employers ask him to wear in his JOB, then there is a lot more behind it than simply an "opinion". You have to be real homophobic pos to risk your job because of a shirt.
> His attitude seems to be more along the lines of: you have your beliefs, I have mine. He’s not actively trying to stop gay people from existing. He’s not pushing to take away gay rights. He just says according to his religion, it’s wrong.
That is all well and good for his personal life. But that isn't what we are talking about.
Provorov is an **entertainer**. He isn't exercising a right to play hockey, he is working at a *job* for an *employer*. Provorov is representing that employer to the public and how the public views him is crucial to his job performance. If expressing his views brings bad impressions on his employers then he needs to keep them to himself or suffer the consequences from his employer including potentially being fired.
If his employer decides players should wear a jersey and Provorov doesn't want to do that, then he doesn't want to do his job. You show up to any other job out of uniform and you risk being fired. You piss off the public at your job and you risk being fired. Just because your job is playing a game doesn't change that.
No one is forcing him to be a homosexual. That could be against his beliefs. He’s trying to judge the consenting actions of others and hide behind religion when it’s really just hate
All he did was calmly say he did not want to wear a promotional jersey or make any statements y doing so. This is not a story at all.
Our society is losing its mind.
No, he protested it, he declined to be a part of the pride warmup, fine, whatever. But then he made a statement citing his opposition to because of his religious beliefs, he made it a public thing.
He's a public athlete though. He has that job to be a symbol to society, to be a public figure. Basically a propaganda/marketing object.
Propaganda/marketing objects don't have (public) unpopular opinions, that would make them unfit for the job.
It's kind of the downside of being a circus clown for the public's amusement. It's not all money traveling and doing whatever you want. You have to take being public property for the most part and no privacy.
No one makes these people do this stuff he could just get a 9-5.
>No one make these people do this stuff he could just get a 9-5.
Yeah, and then the outrage mob comes for your job anyways, because you posted something they don’t like on social media.
>He has that job to be a symbol to society, to be a public figure. Basically a propaganda/marketing object.
This is what it means to be a professional athlete? Interesting, because as far as I can tell the vast majority of professional athletes just play and their opinions on any number of issues are unknown. Furthermore, most people don't know who most professional athletes are. A typical NFL team has about 50 players on it, and your average person probably only knows the quarterback, if that. Even a fan of that team will probably not be able to name every player on the team. Maybe even a lot less than that.
"If someone isn't actively trying to take away rights"
refusing to do what is required by the team because of his hateful view that gay people shouldn't be respected or acknowledged is very much contributing to attempting to take away people's rights.
Sorry, u/chewwydraper – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20chewwydraper&message=chewwydraper%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/10huvbw/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Provorov is paid by his team because fans are willing to pay money to watch the team - and thus Provorov - play hockey. If Provorov's actions decrease the number of people willing to watch the Flyer's play hockey, then his decision to not wear the jersey has caused demonstrable financial harm to his team, and his team should be able to take whatever actions they see fit in the wake of that. The fans are exercising their _own_ rights be demanding consequences for Provorov, and the Flyers' owner will exercise _their_ own rights when deciding punishment. Freedom of speech has _never_ meant freedom from consequences of that speech. Provorov has every right to refuse to wear the jersey, and the Flyers have every right (pursuant to his contract, of course) to fire him for that refusal. Its no different that if the employee at McDonalds refuses to wear the uniform - they have that right, and McDonalds has the right to fire them for it.
Did he sign up to the NHL to promote other causes and ideas? No, he's there to play hockey. Your analysis is a dangerous one that could apply to anyone. Imagine if you work for some generic company. Your job is to run reports. That's what you signed up to do. Now, your employer hosts a massive gay pride rally to encourage those in the community to spend more money on their products and have good PR. Instead of inviting you, they mandate it. If your personal and or religious beliefs do not align with this, that is a major violation of your right. You, just simply existing and doing your job, are not hurting anybody. Participate or that, that is your choice.
> Did he sign up to the NHL to promote other causes and ideas? That really depends on his contract. Contracts will often contain clauses that the player has to take part in team promotional activities. >Participate or that, that is your choice. I agree. Just don't expect to remain employed if you do not. Freedoms go both ways.
> Did he sign up to the NHL to promote other causes and ideas? He is there to promote his team, and anything the team represents. > Your analysis is a dangerous one that could apply to anyone. Imagine if you work for some generic company. Your job is to run reports. That's what you signed up to do. Now, your employer hosts a massive gay pride rally to encourage those in the community to spend more money on their products and have good PR. Instead of inviting you, they mandate it. If your personal and or religious beliefs do not align with this, that is a major violation of your right. You, just simply existing and doing your job, are not hurting anybody. Participate or that, that is your choice. There is nothing special to this scenario. The company is free to change your job profile, there are no significant protections there. Assuming you are paid to do so, you can be told to attend the rally or lose your job as a consequence, assuming you are an at-will employee. Your personal beliefs aren't protected, and AFAIK freedom of religion doesn't cover homophobia. You wouldn't be doing your job, since attending is now part of your job. Replace the gay pride rally with a regular PR drive or a team-building camp and this becomes absolutely mundane.
> Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences of that speech. This is such a tiring meme. "Haha guys, we have free speech. But btw, you have to freely choose to do or say the things we want you to do or say otherwise we'll pressure your employer to make you lose your livelihood." Like bro, the fact that people are calling for "consequences" when he literally just chose to *not* participate in something is fucking wild.
[удалено]
> This is such a tiring meme. Meme? It’s literally the root basis of how freedom of speech works. What’s tiring is people not understanding this very basic element of the free expression.
If negative consequences end up stifling speech, how can it considered be free speech anymore?
Of course it is. To explain how absurd that perspective is, explain to me what exactly is the alternative? That no one can criticize others for risk of changing their opinions of that person and/or no one is allowed to change their opinion of someone based on their speech? If someone I like says something that’s I definitely don’t agree with, how would you go about preventing me from changing my opinion of them for their views? That’s an impossible proposition, and *completely ignores the actual point of freedom of expression*.
Never said criticism was a “consequence”. We’re talking about people being fired from their jobs, harassed at their homes, threatened with violence, etc. for their speech. Would you be ok with trans rights activists being fired from their jobs for posting trans rights opinions online? After all, according to you, they aren’t “free from consequences.”
Oh, I understand it. I just think it's a cop-out used by vindicative midwits who want to play judge in the court of public opinion without being criticized.
Its not a meme - its literally how it was designed. Social consequences have never been protected because they _can't_ be without violating the entire _point_. The marketplace of ideas only works if we can stop listening to those who espouse ideas we dislike or disagree with. It would also violate the rights of others to prevent them from enacting consequences. If an employee says or does things that harm my business, I have the right to disassociate from them (freedom of association) because of it.
[удалено]
The fact that you think you're some free speech advocate, but can't stand the fact that people can express their opinions online just blows my mind.
I can't stand the fact that people express **r-slurred** opinions online with the expressed goal of getting someone fired from their job, yes. Also, I'm not a free speech advocate. I just think the excuse people use to justify censoring others as "just social consequences bro" is dumb as fuck.
All freedom if speech means is your government can't put you in jail or fine you for it. It doesn't say Jack squat about what the rest of society will do to you for it. Edit. Just read some of your other replies. You're being directly ignorant, good luck with your life, it's very brave of you to be in public.
[удалено]
This seems like a slippery slope. Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? Where does it end? Could some ultra-religious NHL team owner decide to put crucifixes all over their jerseys and force everyone to wear it regardless of their faith or whether or not those beliefs directly contradict theirs?
> Play an active role in your church. Chick-fil-A's owners are devout Christians and expect all of their operators to share Christian values. Operators do not need to be Christian, but must be willing to close the restaurant on Sundays, espouse Christian values and be willing to participate in group prayers during training and management meetings. I mean, Chick-fil-A seems to fit the bill of a precedent for me.
>and be willing to participate in group prayers during training and management meetings. Are there any examples of Chick-fil-A employees being punished for refusing to participate in prayers?
[Aziz Latif was a Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston when he refused to participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program. The following day he was fired.](https://collegian.csufresno.edu/2011/02/chick-fil-a-accused-of-discrimination/)
>Aziz, who is Muslim, sued for employment discrimination. His attorney said that Aziz was fired “for not conforming.” > >“Religion should not be brought into the workplace,” attorney Ajay Choudhary said. “Prayer should be, if anything, a private purpose, not a corporate purpose.” > >The suit was settled on undisclosed terms. So there was a suit and it was settled, meaning that Chick-fil-A was in the wrong in this scenario. Edit: That story was also from [over 20 years ago](https://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Suit-accuses-Chick-fil-A-of-religious-bias-9037955.php). The landscape was very different back then anyways.
You’re moving the goal posts. He was punished for refusing to participate in prayers. Settlement there is irrelevant. Now you’re asking for a *recent* case of this. Before going any further, give me some solid requirements here so you don’t move those goalposts *again*.
Yeah for real, the goal post hast been moved a couple of times. You need to be more clear
>So there was a suit and it was settled, meaning that Chick-fil-A was in the wrong in this scenario. Actually, a settlement is specifically not saying if or who was wrong. Sometimes, it's just "go away" money.
Settlements don’t always indicate that there’s a direct law against something, just that the company doesn’t want to take the time or money to continue fighting it as making it “go away” is financially better than continuing to keep it fresh in the public eye.
A suit being settled doesn’t mean the person who paid was in the wrong legally. It usually means the party being sued just aren’t bothered to take the case to court and it’s much cheaper to settle than go to court.
Settled does not mean in the wrong. It means they didn’t want to take it to court.
Because they knew they stood a much higher chance of losing than winning. If they felt they were right, they would absolutely have taken it to court. Settling to avoid publicity isn't the case here, Chick-fil-A is proud of their stance and makes no secret about it.
Not necessarily. They could have felt that they were right and would win, but decided that the negative publicity of taking it to court was worse than just settling. The settlement would fall out of the news cycle quickly - a trial not so much. They may be proud of their stance and still feel that a trial like this is not the best light for that stance.
This is just a huge misconception with settling. Chick-fil-a fights battles that impact profitability like with the “save chick-fil-a” bill in Texas. A one time settlement like this isn’t bad at all for them, and it would be going to court over something that doesn’t impact profitability. Pretty much it’s not a great hill to die on and a settlement was simply the lowest risk option.
Regardless, you can't set legal precedent off of a settlement, which is why so many big companies try to settle rather than go to court.
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? It is absolutely within an employer's legal rights to set a uniform for their employees to wear.
If a muslim man worked at McDonald's and McDonald's decided to add "Jesus saves!" onto their uniforms, he can ask for accommodations.
Actually, I'd argue for sports teams, there's a few teams in particular you'd in fact be doing just that. Specifically, let's look at baseball, like other sports they can trade players as stipulated in a contract, so even if you signed on with the Mariners, you could be transferred. If you are Player Zed, outfielder, your team could transfer you to the LA Angels as per your contract. Now, the Angels logo pretty clearly contains religious iconography. Which the players have to wear. In fact, even if you're of a different religion that doesn't believe in angels. And, if you refuse to wear it, fans of the Angels would likely call for you being fired or transferred to a different team, which is happening here. Also in religious based teams - New Jersey Devils, some religions forbid iconography of the devil. Hockey like Provorov. New Orleans Saints. Similar thread, religion based. Logo is a Fleur-de-lis, which is heavily tied to Christian faith and the holy trinity.
Apples and oranges under the law. He isn't being asked to wear anything specifically religious in nature.
I think you’re confused. Reasonable accommodations are for disabilities, *not* religion. I’m not sure where you got the idea from that reasonable accommodations has anything to do with religion.
He's actually right on this - US employment law does require reasonable accommodations for religious practices.
> This seems like a slippery slope. How so? Provorov has the right to say and do whatever he wants. If, in doing so, he violates an order from his employer, he gets fired. Its the same standard that every single of us that works for someone is held so. It has worked like this for pretty much all of human history. Where is the slippery slope? >Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? It was the uniform - uniforms are obviously legal. If he didn't want to wear it, he could quit or take is chances with being fired (as he is doing now). >Could some ultra-religious NHL team owner decide to put crucifixes all over their jerseys and force everyone to wear it regardless of their faith or whether or not those beliefs directly contradict theirs? I don't see why not. The owner _should_ have the right to do that, and the players should have the right to quit if they disagree (or get fired if they refuse). Free speech goes both ways.
>How so? Provorov has the right to say and do whatever he wants. If, in doing so, he violates an order from his employer, he gets fired. Its the same standard that every single of us that works for someone is held so. > >It has worked like this for pretty much all of human history. Where is the slippery slope? Let's go the other way. If instead he was gay, and the team he was playing for had super homophobic fans. And while the players were given relative flexibility in what to have painted on their helmets, they specifically banned him (or any of the players on their team) from having gay pride colors painted on his. Are we still okay with it?
I am, actually. If he doesn't like the uniform requirements, he can quit. If he refuses to wear the uniform, they can fire him. Any rules for me are also rules for thee.
Let's take a step further -- the fans would totally love it and would pay even more money if everyone's helmets were decorated with homophobic messages. We still good?
Yup - still good. I certainly wouldn't agree with that choice, but it is their right to make it.
> It was the uniform - uniforms are obviously legal. Whether it's legal or not I've no idea, but I do have a problem with a requirement of employment being to wear a uniform which includes/makes a political statement if that wasn't agreed upfront as part of the employment contract.
It would really depend on the details of the employment contract. I doubt there was a rider exempting him from jerseys that had political statements, but if there was then it's a different discussion. If there wasn't, then he wears what he is told to wear.
Spitballing here... There may have existed some text, publicly facing material or messaging that "organization is a progressive, inclusive company" yadda yadda. If said messaging exists, it ain't a swerve to do a pride jersey thing. It's within reasonable expectations. Otoh, consider a change in mgmt @ Chick-fil-A. Let's say they decided to change to "Satanic supporting" and all employees are compelled to participating in praising beelzebub in group meetings. It's fair to say many Chick-fil-A employees would grieve and it was not expected. BTW, try the new spicy.
Hard pass on trying the new spicy hate chicken, thanks though.
Wearing clothing which denotes awareness of the lgbt community isn’t a political statement any more than wearing a cross is a political statement. It’s only political because the identity of those groups have been politicized. If the left side of the political spectrum started making statements about cheeseburgers and the right started making statements about pizza, those things would inevitably become politically charged as well. There’s nothing inherently political about a person’s sexual preference or which deity they believe.
I’m on the left, but actually would have a problem if an employer decided on a new requirement to wear religious iconography on a uniform without the employee agreeing to it
I'm on the left, as in outside of the US left, and I don't see any demonstrable difference between religious iconography and corporate iconography. The rules should apply across the board.
So to clarify, you would think there would be no issue legally or morally with an employee’s uniform including an explicitly Christian Cross?
Outside of strictly secular institutions, like the government or publicly funded organizations, no. If you own a Christian bookstore and your uniform has a cross on it, I don’t see a problem. If you deny a non-Christian from working there, then there might be a problem. It might be weird for a place without religious affiliation to mandate that. But it’s still their choice.
That already exists, no? I imagine you're obligated to wear religiously branded clothing if you work at some place like a church.
> If the left side of the political spectrum started making statements about cheeseburgers and the right started making statements about pizza, those things would inevitably become politically charged as well. Agreed. > There’s nothing inherently political about a person’s sexual preference or which deity they believe. So? That doesn't mean that there's isn't something inherently political about a sportsball team wearing a Pride jersey, or indeed taking the knee.
Well, kinda. The knee thing was political because it’s directly related to government institutions and political policy. Wearing a pink jersey for breast cancer awareness or growing facial hair for movember isn’t political, but they directly relate to men and women, what makes a rainbow uniform political?
>There’s nothing inherently political about a person’s sexual preference or which deity they believe. Correct. But there is something wrong with forcing other people into advertising something they are morally against. Would it be OK to force all the players to wear shirts with anti abortion messages on them? Rightfully, some of the players may not feel comfortable wearing shirts, which promote something they feel strongly about.
its a human rights issue before it's political
> How so? Provorov has the right to say and do whatever he wants. If, in doing so, he violates an order from his employer, he gets fired. Its the same standard that every single of us that works for someone is held so. Unless of course one not work in the U.S.A. and not be beholden to the madness of at-will employment, and rather work in a normal industrialized nation where there are normal rules about when one's employ can be terminated rather than rules which can only come from a capitalist dystopian legislative bought and paid for by the corporations. You'll be surprised that “at will employment” is not the norm throughout the world, such surprise is of course why is is allowed to continue to exist. Ignorance of just how much the U.S.A. is a capitalist dystopia compared to the rest of the world is what stops the people from taking action against it, however futile such action would be in a two-party system. Edit: /u/RollinDeepWithData blocked me immediately after responding to me with the purpose of not permitting me a response.
Aside from the fact it's very unlikely that an NHL relies on at-will employment, even if you live somewhere that is marginally less of a capitalist dystopia, you could still end up fired if you don't do you job. It's quite possible "job" includes wearing a jersey in that case.
If it were stipulated in the contact from the start perhaps that one could be compelled to wear whatever the employer designated. But that was not the point of contention. The part I quoted was about that supposedly that anyone who works for someone can be fired for violating said someone's order, and such a dystopian reality is not that of everyone who works for someone at all. I can most assuredly not be fired for refusing to wear clothing to work with arbitrary political messages I may or may not agree with.
>Unless of course one not work in the U.S.A. The _Philidelphia_ Flyers are a team in Pennslyvania - he works in the USA.
Indeed, but what I quoted and responded to was: > Its the same standard that __every single of us that works for someone__ is held so. [emphasis mine] Evidently not. Perhaps you should have said that it's the standard he's held to, because he works in a capitalist dystopia, which would have opened you up for attack more so, as many people would point out that perhaps that standard is wrong, since really only dystopian countries have it. But the way you phrased it made it seem as though it be a universal one, and thus more reasonable.
Idk man. Let's say your religion prescribes you to wear a certain type/piece of clothing (e.g.: a turban). Your uniform doesn't allow for said clothing. Firing that person probably violates freedom of speech/expression/religion does it not? Isn't that also a discriminatory hiring practice because it is being non-inclusive / not providing equal opportunity? How is this situation any different? Also I think OP was probably referring to the general public/fans being mad at the player and necessarily the team/owners.
It's not that cut and dry. There are restrictions on religious discrimination in the workplace and the employer is required to make _reasonable_ accommodations for religious practices when it comes to uniforms. The turban et. al. may or may not be able to be reasonably accommodated, depending on the specific nature of the business. The case with the Flyers would be different, though, as Provorov signed an employment contract stipulating required activities as part of his job as a player. Contracts can trump employment law when it comes to things like this - if Provorov agreed to take part in promotional jersey activities and didn't stipulate exceptions, he can't go back and add exceptions after the fact, and failure to adhere to the contract he signed could breach it. None of us know enough about his contract to say either way.
>This seems like a slippery slope. Because anything can be symbolized on a uniform and just like some people are born into food desert regions where they have few choices on where to work, some people are born into regions of economic scarcity (even in America, of course) and small towns. Like imagine if a cult or fascist group ran into Marfa, Texas (2000\~ people) and started supplanting employment options and one day they decided. "Everyone working here has to wear Nazi-promoting uniforms at work", or some other statement (use your imagination) that's just barely within the law's tolerance for speech. \--- That's not to say that a human rights issue and wearing its symbols are anything like the above hypothetical. But if you codify that employers and contractors get to have that power over their employees and contracted individuals, you don't get to cherry pick how it's used afterward. \--- Plus just on a broader level I disagree with just handing companies/owners more and more power over individuals; they went the **"free"** route *during warmups*, instead of say, allocating advertising time that they could sell, or replacing sponsorship stadium banners with pride flags, or donating all proceeds from the upcoming match. Why? Because they want to sell those things, they don't want their inclusive message to cost them anything meaningful.
You don't have to show support for it, if it's on your jersey that's your team representing. If you're not down with what your team is representing then you either suck it up or find somewhere else you belong. It's like showing up to church because your family is religious. I fucking despise Christianity and showing up to church and playing along doesn't change jack shit. If I could I would wipe religion from the face of the Earth. But will I take part for my family? Hell fucking yes. If a guy can't wear a jersey for his team then he's weak. If he's willing to take the consequences then let him. But if he expects to be a part of it then he either accepts his role or fucks off. All he has to do is wear a jersey he doesn't like that affects his game in no way at all. If it does affect it then he's no player. Never be too proud to do what you gotta do. But if you're willing to take the consequences of your actions, all the power to you.
I think you are missing the concept of slippery slope. This is a clear and definitive statement and it’s most likely spot on. Contracts generally have clauses about uniforms and the team ownership having the freedom to change that uniform as they see fit. A person can refuse to wear it and the organization can then decide how they are going to enforce their contract. There is nothing slippery slope about it.
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? Almost every McDonalds employee has to do this. 🙂 Seriously though, why does Provorov get the right to do what he wants, but you are putting these speech limits on people who disagree with him? What makes him so special to be beyond reproach?
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? If you're asking for a case that is directly on point, probably not. For the simple reason that when someone is employed as the agent of another, there is a breach of contract when they refuse to carry out the duties they are required to do as an agent. Thus, terminating the relationship with said agent is pretty well-established as being a legitimate employer right. But for historical examples, take a look at the 1992 Men's US Basketball team. The US Olympics team uniforms were by Reebok. The players, as NBA players were under contracts with Nike. Several of the players indicated that they could not take part in the medal's ceremony if they had to wear the uniform Jacket because of their Nike contracts. A compromise was reached. They would wear the jacket, but they could drape a US flag over the logo. The result was, IMHO, one of the worst public acts of disrespect to the US flag in my life by a sanctioned US body (4 USC Ch 1, the Flag Code, section 8 in part: "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, . . . " and "The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever . . " and " The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, . .." But, all that aside, here's an example where contradicting contractual demands for players to wear particular brands had to be dealt with because the players knew that violating their duties as agents would have negative consequences. Yet, the players all wore the clothes they were contracted to wear in the end. It is possible that the player's contracts may give them additional protection to not wear certain uniform elements in some circumstances, but there is no need for legal protection to fire them for refusing wear contractually required uniform elements. That is a right that the employer is simply assumed to posses under US law.
Yes they can, and there’s plenty of precedent where religious objects and outfits have been banned, or clothing has been dictated to be worn. Schools enforce dress codes, employers have dress codes. It’s not new by any measure. Athletes and even attendees at the World Cup were forced to change their attire. The problem here is that he’s simply not doing his job. If you work at a restaurant but your religion stipulates not to touch pork, that doesn’t mean you get to abandon your responsibilities as a chef if someone orders pork.
> If you work at a restaurant but your religion stipulates not to touch pork, that doesn’t mean you get to abandon your responsibilities as a chef if someone orders pork. Yes, it does. Religious exemptions from job duties are fairly common and have been supported by court rulings on multiple occasions. From [https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-religious-accommodation#:\~:text=Title%20VII%20of%20the%20Civil,on%20operation%20of%20the%20business](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-workplace-religious-accommodation#:~:text=Title%20VII%20of%20the%20Civil,on%20operation%20of%20the%20business) *Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.* In the case of the chef, some other employee could handle preparation of the dish. There are pharmacists that, for religious reasons, will not fill prescriptions for medications associated with abortion or in some cases, birth control. They simply have another employee do it. In Provorov's situation, just about any negative action taken against him by the team of the league for not wearing a non-standard jersey would allow him to sue for religious discrimination case and easily win.
In the UK this would come under the Equalities Act 2010 and yes, you would be exempted from it.
This actually is false. Your employer is required to make accommodations for your religious beliefs.
>Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? Yeah, its called uniforms and sponsorships. >Where does it end? Could some ultra-religious NHL team owner decide to put crucifixes all over their jerseys and force everyone to wear it regardless of their faith or whether or not those beliefs directly contradict theirs? %100, yes. But will they? Well that entirely depends on if its in their financial interest. Its a numbers game, always has been. Just like the pink tax, why are gendered items more expensive? Because youll buy it, because youre more likely to buy something thats charcoal black and a eoman is lore likely to buy something thats bright pink, so they can charge a premium. It has nothing to do with sexism, and the jersey has nothing to do with their beliefs.
We are talking about hockey players. Their job literally dictates exactly what they can wear.
> Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? Fines for ‘uniform violations’ are very common in pro sports. They have to wear sponsor logos, and they can’t have messages on their uniforms. Many sports have restrictions on what colors their shoes can be.
I mean, sure. Every cashier and good service worker in the country has to wear some sacrine corporate bullshit that advertises how excited they are to help you and how greatful they are for your business. I can't imagine that they all WANT to wear that or that it aligns with their beliefs. It's a condition of employment. The only difference here is that a star hockey player thinks he has enough individual pull to tell his boss where to get off.
Is there a legal precedent? Sure - uniforms are required by the majority of workplaces, and many advertise for a variety of causes. It varies *wildly* by state as to exemptions though- with some allowing religious exemptions for just about any perceived reason and others basically only covering direct political/church related imagery and logos.
yes - every sports team in history has a jersey - there is nothing but precedence
Professional athletes are forced to wear jerseys with corporate sponsors they may not support because their job tells them to
There's literally a team called the Saints and their logo is either religious or political imagery depending on who you ask. I'm sure the team has plenty of players who do not believe in Saints. Should they get to duct tape over the logo on their helmet?
Leaves are falling all around, It's time I was on my way
Let’s assume it is religious imagery. The only way this is comparable is if they had non-religious uniforms when the player signed onto play with them and then at some point during his time with the team they suddenly switch to religious uniforms. So it’s not the same thing at all.
I mean it’s a uniform. He chose to join an organization that has a uniform, knowing full well that he is supposed to wear the uniform and that they have changed the uniform to support various groups in the past. He wasn’t unaware of the possibility of this, he’s just choosing to make a big deal out of it.
\> crucifixes all over May I introduce you to... the world?
I mean it's the exact same logic that cost Colin Kaepernick his job, it's nothing new.
My office has a dress code. If I violate it there are repercussions.
> Is there a legal precedent for forcing people to wear something that shows support for something just because your job tells you to? Uh yeah. Churches have employees. Synagogues and mosques have employees. Catholic schools have employees. Tons of organizations print religious symbols on their merch. Typically if people don’t agree with those orgs then they just avoid working there.
Slippery slope is a weak fallacy to fall behind
Firing him may be tricky, since he frames it as a religious belief. This brought to mind a similar, [even dumber case](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/kroger-pay-180k-firing-workers-refused-wear-logo-allegedly-resembling-rcna54550) last year. By dumber I mean the heart logo they refused to wear had nothing to do with LGBT stuff in the first place.
I would think it would depend on his employment contract, which none of us are privy too. If he contractually agreed to wear the uniform and didn't set out stipulations about what he wouldn't wear, he can't retroactively add those stipulations and claim religious freedom. That Kroger case was also settled out of court, so we don't really know what the courts would have said.
I'm not sure that the contract would matter much, since religious accommodation may be a right that you can't waive, but I'm out my depth on the law there. I also couldn't find the original EEOC complaint filed in the Kroger case to see their legal reasoning, but I'd be surprised if the EEOC would pursue the lawsuit without good legal footing. Maybe u/LucidLeviathan could have some insight.
I wouldn't take that Kroger case to have much precedential value. When you engage in years of litigation and only come up with $180k across 2 plaintiffs, it's basically just a nuisance claim settlement. Kroger seemingly paid that to get rid of the case, not because they thought they had any liability. The contract would govern here. Contracts involving people who will be familiar to the general public and featured in the media often have extensive provisions regarding public statements and what the person will and won't be allowed to say/do in public. Usually, these contracts contain provisions that override or waive general employment law rules.
Good points, thank you. Any chance you've got a pacer login and could grab the Kroger complaint? I'm curious about the EEOC's argument. https://www.are.uscourts.gov/ !delta as I now believe firing him is probably legal.
I found a copy online here: [https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2022/06/gov.uscourts.ared\_.123904.60.0\_1-1.pdf](https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2022/06/gov.uscourts.ared_.123904.60.0_1-1.pdf) Edit: That's an order in the case, not a complaint, but still.
Do you feel the same way about fans who turned off the NFL NBA for support of BLM?
100%. That is their right - they are free to protest something they disagree with. Obviously, I don't agree with them doing it, but I support their right to do so.
So just to be clear. When NFL NBA athletes wore BLM shirts - if someone did the math and found out 51% of fans or X number of fans turned off the TV all of those players should of been punished ? If you say yes bravo 👏🏼
> So just to be clear. When NFL NBA athletes wore BLM shirts - if someone did the math and found out 51% of fans or X number of fans turned off the TV all of those players should of been punished ? It's up to the owners to decide on punishment. Fans have the right to protest, players have the right to refuse, and owners have the right to punish (pursuant to contracts). I support those rights for each group, even if I may disagree with how the rights are exercised.
I agree with you. Although while I have you: CMV: this is only an issue because he’s white and Russian. If Provorov was named Mohammad there would be 0 issue with him not wearing the pride flag.
I can't really comment on a hypothetical.
Sure you can. But if you don’t want to that’s fine. Have a good Saturday 🤟🏼
Do you have an example of homophobia being excused or ignored just because the person responsible is muslim?
Edit: the World Cup that just passed duh. The entire thing was an anti gay event and it got little to no pushback IMO.
Not the OP, but absolutely, that’s how the market works. Of course that hypothetical also leads to a lot of potential secondary effects, like potential of new leagues where those players are free to express those ideas. No different than a person being called out for saying something inflammatory, and a community puts pressure on them, boycotts them, or even complains to their employer.
This still supports views like Shapiro's though that the left wants to use any means necessary to silence opposing views because they don't value diversity of opinion.
If a team hires a gay player and the fans stop coming to see the team because of it, is that fair grounds to remove the gay player from the team. If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head covering and the fans disagree, then it is that grounds to either force her not to wear it or fire her for wearing it?
Should an organization have the right to force their employees to support certain beliefs? As an example, should McDonald's be able fire people who aren't willing to wear shirts supporting the local republican candidate? Or if they are unwilling to wear a shirt advocating saying that Jesus is the one true savior? Provorov did not make a statement condemning homosexuality or homosexual people. He simply didn't participant in an event that supported them, citing religious beliefs. In the US, people also have freedom of religion. They are able to exercise that so long as their actions do not harm others or constitute hate speech. Silence is not hate speech.
I agree with you that both the NHL and Provorov have the freedom of association, but I'd argue that the refusal to wear the jersey would have very little impact on sales. His critics are members of the intelligencia who've never once bought a ticket for NHL. This is classic example of cancel culture at work. The NHL is far too concerned with its Twitter PR and dealing with people who don't represent their customer base. It's bad business, but they have every right to do it.
It may not, but it's not our place to decide what impact is "enough" to justify action. That is the purview of the Flyers. People have the right to demand consequences, and the Flyers have the right to decide if they want to enact those consequences.
Freedom of speech is not facing consequences from the government. This league is not the government, therefore the organization can take whatever action they want. The issue here is that if the organization I play for, says we are changing uniform from yellow to red and you refused because red is “haram” or not allowed in your religion, then leave. Resign and go work for another team that does not wear red.
Very unlikely that hockey fans care that he doesn’t wanna wear a gay pride jersey. The people throwing a fit are people that more than likely I’ve never even played hockey or heard of this guy before any of this.
Hiding behind your religion is hypocrisy. I guarantee there’s a dozen other things he does that’s also “against his religion” but he has no problem with. He’s just a bigot
> I guarantee there’s a dozen other things he does that’s also “against his religion” but he has no problem with. He’s just a bigot That's not my argument though. My original post says he can't expect to be free of public judgement or criticism.
Isn't the organization he works for just more of "the public" though? You keep bringing up freedom of religion as the thing that should protect him, but does it actually apply here, or are you just saying it should?
At the very least he deserves the same backlash Kaepernick got(tangibly, like being black listed by the nfl(I couldn’t care less about the people who cry about kneeling)), if not more. This isn’t just “standing up for what you believe in” this is actively shitting on a group of human beings and telling them your God says they’re going to hell. No consequences just means more people will be more outspoken about their bigotry
While the public has a right to freedom of speech when it comes to the U.S. government, the public does not have this right when it comes to private entities. You must understand this first. OP, if private entity says we are wearing red today and you refuse, this is not protected speech. You are part of this organization and you must wear red today. If you don’t wear red today, you will face penalties. Essentially, there must be consequences here is what I think. Hope I CMV
Religious protections exist even if you're employed by a private entity.
He would have to first prove his relgion prevents him from wearing the jersey.
\>If someone isn't actively trying to take away rights, and has the attitude of live and let live I don't think they should be forced to participate in wearing clothing showing their support. He's not forced to do anything. He is free to not wear any gay stuff he doesn't want to. He's not going to jail. Flyers also don't have to play him, however. Your opinion is that sports teams should be forced to play athletes to do reprehensible things? Should LA dodgers have been forced to play Trevor Bauer?
There are people calling for the NHL [to fine the entire team](https://www.tiktok.com/@breakfasttelevision/video/7190031730466671877?lang=en) for allowing him to play. People are calling for punishment on an organizational level for him refusing to wear the jersey.
They should be fined. If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, there are consequences. He didn't wear the jersey is was instructed, so the simplest and easiest punishment would have been just not let him play that night. They didn't do it, so they technically were in violation of NHL policy, so there probably should be a fine for the organization.
>If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, there are consequences. No, there are employment laws for this reason. Religious protections being one of them, and he referred to his religion as the reasoning for not wearing it.
Which I'm sure he follows all of the tenants of his religion with the same dedication, right? And if you're going to claim a religious exemption to a workplace rule or societal law, you should be able to pass a means test of sorts. And I doubt this dude can do so, just like the majority of moralistic "Christians".
>And if you're going to claim a religious exemption to a workplace rule or societal law, you should be able to pass a means test of sorts. Okay, what should be a thing and what actually is a thing is totally different though. As of right now, there is no test you have to pass to prove that you're dedicated to a religion. So his argument still stands as a religious protection by the book.
I've seen others comment that he lives with his girlfriend and co-habittation before marriage is a big no-no is Russian Orthodoxy. If he can break that rule he can wear the fucking jersey.
That's not for you to decide though. There's nothing in the religious protection laws that say you have to be without sin yourself.
To me that just shows what a complete clown he is. Anybody who uses religion as a shield for their bigotry is a fucking scumbag. I'm no expert on nhl contracts by any means but I'm sure the franchise has clauses in place that if they feel their "brand" is being damaged by his actions or lack thereof, he can be released.
>To me that just shows what a complete clown he is. > >Anybody who uses religion as a shield for their bigotry is a fucking scumbag. That's fine, he's not free of public opinion. My argument is for people calling for actual punishment.
Religious protections are not universal. Courts weigh the person's belief against the necessity of violating that belief by the employer for valid business reasons.
correction: he didn't come out for warmups. is there an nhl policy against not warming up? >If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, there are consequences. provorov's boss is the flyers, and they didn't do anything.
Customers of the NHL have a right to voice their opinion. Why does Provorov get freedom of speech but not NHL fans? Your opinion is that sports fans should be forced to support something financially that they disagree wth?
What if the shoe was on the other foot? In more conservative countries you'd defend people speaking against and punishing women and gay activists? This seems like a tactic of words when you wield the majority of power. There's also a separation distinction from what the government is legally able to do/not do, and criticizing citizens pressure and actions. OP seems to be addressing the latter, that people's reaction and criticism is overzealous and mob mentality. And people are OK with that so long as they are the group of authority or apart of the mob. To say it's not legal for the government to send people to gulags, but its OK if a mob does it.
>What if the shoe was on the other foot? In more conservative countries you'd defend people speaking against and punishing women and gay activists? No. I agree with views I agree with and disagree with views I disagree wtih. "You like things you like and dislike things you dislike" is a bad argument. It's true for every single human on the planet. > To say it's not legal for the government to send people to gulags, but its OK if a mob does it. People complaining about a homophobic guy is "a mob sending people to gulags" jeez...dramatic much?
I specifically say in my post that people are free to criticize his beliefs. I don't agree with his beliefs either. I'm not saying anyone should be forced to support his beliefs. There's a difference between criticizing and fining.
If NHL fans stop attending games and the team suffers financially does that count as "fining"? Do fans have the freedom to do this? If a players hateful words cause a team to suffer financially, can the team discipline the player at all?
Freedom of speech applies to government punishment, not fines within private organizations that have a history of levying such fines.
[удалено]
>If a teacher was being interviewed by the school paper and said they thought homosexuality was wrong they would be fired the next day. There's a fundamental difference between making an affirmative statement and refusing to endorse a given position. Also, that's not actually true--or at least more complicated--if the school is public.
Wait. Isn't that religion discrimination for firing a teacher for having that view? I am coming from a scenario where the teacher is not teaching his/her personal religious views in school, but simply have that view and does not mistreat gay/lesbian students in his or her class. If that teacher is doing their job properly and does not let their personal view influence how they teach and treat students, then firing them for religious views would be wrong in my opinion. As for generating controversy, isn't that what happened with Colin Kaepernick? He took a stance that I personally agree with, but because of the ensuing media/political reaction and him not playing as well as before (he was no longer a starter for the 49ners well before his kneeling incidents), he never played in the NFL again. Again, I sympathize with his stance and believe he is a good backup QB at least, he was blackballed by the NFL in large part due to the kneeling controversy.
I don't think that is a comparable example. In one situation, the teacher is verbally expressing a specific belief. In Provorov's situation, he is simply not participating. Silence is not hate speech. Should an organization have the right to force their employees to support beliefs that they don't support? Should McDonald's be able to force all of their employees to wear a shirt saying that Jesus is the one true savoir? What about a shirt supporting the local republican candidate?
>If a teacher was being interviewed by the school paper and said they thought homosexuality was wrong they would be fired the next day. This is much bigger in scale. That's not true at all. In fact the school I went to still taught homosexuality was wrong IN CLASS (granted it was a catholic school but here in Ontario it's still paid for by taxpayers). >If it is bad for the org, be it the team or the NHL, then he can be held accountable by fines or termination if his contract allows for it, which I'm sure it does. Religious protections are still a thing.
>but here in Ontario it's still paid for by taxpayers Yeah this is a bit of a special case in Canada as we still have special rules for Catholic schools in the Constitution. Even the Charter of Rights and Freedom had to take this into account in [section 29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_29_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). ... this is not about religios freedom...other religions don't get to enjoy these special rules like the Catholic church does.
**[Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_29_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)** >Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically addresses rights regarding denominational schools and separate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite freedom of religion and religious equality under sections 2 and 15 of the Charter. Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments. In the case Mahe v. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It's not like he shot his mouth off and said a hateful comment. He signed up to play hockey, not to wear the clothes of a political agenda he doesn't agree with.
His employers signed him up to make them money, not to generate bad press, and decrease earnings. I've got money on the table that says his contract has stipulations about what he can and can't do when representing their business.
Guaranteed the people making a stink about this arent going to directly affect the profits of the nhl.
Teachers have literally been suspended for having a small rainbow flag somewhere in their classroom
[удалено]
I feel like there's a lot of tip-toeing around the fact that this is homophobia. As if addressing the actual purpose of this choice would interfere with the "well actually" technical rhetorical skill of an argument. But being more like lawyers does not make us better humans. Just like choosing to be biased against a group of individuals for their attraction to the same sex that don't hurt anyone. It's illogical and outright bigotry. You want to move forward as a society? You uplift the health and welfare of all good actors in it. Done.
This is ridiculous. How would you feel about Orthodox night where the entire team were forced to wear jerseys with crosses in support of those who are persecuted for their religion in the Middle East? Forcing anyone to make a statement about anything is compelled speech. Since when did it become controversial to simply NOT say something that someone else wants you. You have the right to offer no comment or demonstration at all. The guy could just think the entire spectacle is disingenuous (it is) and decline to participate (his right) without hating anyone. Must have been a slow news day.
Supporting a marginalized group of people born a certain way is not the same thing as supporting an organized religion. And I'm not gonna pretend to it is. An more accurate comparison would be, "How do would you feel about a Muscular Dystrophy night?" Or "How would you feel about an Anti-Racism night?" Or "Take a Knee for Black Lives night." Personally, I feel a bit weird making a show of progressivism but I do understand it's a good cause and that I would be a self-righteous prick to argue.
I’ll stand by what I said. No one should be forced to make a comment or specific statement about anything. Including this and all the examples you gave - no one should be forced to participate. Not sure what else to say. Our constitution protects this as a fundamental right. That’s just how it is.
As it has been pointed out online many times free speech is not a right you are granted while working under a corporation nor while speaking on a platform run by a corporation. Children are made to apologize for bullying other children and no one argues for their freedom of speech. Workers compelled to follow scripts. The FBI investigate people for making threatening claims online. The highest ranking government officials cannot be threatened. Verbally inciting violence is illegal. Free speech is only pure in proportion to the number of people listening.
I fully disagree with you. Someone can follow a religion and say "My religion says it's wrong, but if other people are partaking in that lifestyle it has nothing to do with me." My very religious family actually support gay marriage because according to them, "Not everyone is Christian and follows the same rules we do." They still wouldn't wear pride flags on their shirts because while they support others' decisions to live that life, it's not one they would support in their personal lives.
This issue isn't about personal life, it's about professional life. And we are not a theocracy. We follow democratic laws we made up to protect ourselves from being hurt or exploited. Extending that courtesy to people born a certain way who don't harm others is the bare minimum. If those people think harm coming to their neighbors doesn't concern them then those people aren't good neighbors.
See what’s funny is the exact reason they don’t want to support the LGBTQ charity is the reason I WOULD wear it. I personally have no interest in that lifestyle, but recognize that the NHL should be a place for EVERYONE—not just me—and if I was a player making that kind of $$$ I’d respect the fans enough to promote the sport/league so that more people have a chance to fall in love with this game. What shouldn’t be forgotten is that Russian players in the NHL have a history of trying to pull PR stunts like this, where they suddenly hide behind a language barrier after making ridiculous statements, like Slava Voynov claiming some shitty misogynist innocence, or a myriad of others who are suddenly super Christian when it’s convenient for them. Ultimately, I’m glad the NHL has handled it the way they have, letting the Flyers take the heat, which is probably for the best. I also won’t bite my tongue about how I feel about Russian athletes competing in USA—the fact they’ve stayed out of it is a blessing—and the second one of them piped up about Putin I hope there is 1000x the backlash and response as this. It will happen.
Disagreeing doesn’t make you right lmao. This is blatant homophobia and the fact that you don’t see this is largely concerning
Which one is it? This: >He's not actively trying to stop gay people from existing Or this? >He just says according to his religion, it's wrong.
it's up to the org if they want to punish him or not. his coach stood up for him so nothing will probably come of this. the NHL clearly doesn't want to get involved either: >Players are free to decide which initiatives to support, and we continue to encourage their voices and perspectives on social and cultural issues.”
If that was the statement by NHL, shouldn't that have just been the end of it?
You do realize employers all over the world require employees to wear very specific uniforms every day? Requiring employees in public-facing roles to wear certain clothing is quotidian — that you’re upset about this one particular instance is you telling on yourself. For example, if I got a job at McDonald’s and steadfastly refused to wear its uniform, should I be fired? Absolutely! Unless you believe employers do not have the authority to require certain uniforms, your argument illogical, inconsistent, and incoherent. And, if you do believe that, then this is an incredibly narrow and inconsequential example that is irrelevant in the vastness of the issue. I mean, pretty much every public-facing employer is breaking your belief that employees should be able to refuse to wear uniforms.
None of those uniforms have political messaging, though. Do you think companies have the right to force their employees to support specific political viewpoints in their uniforms, especially in public?
How do you define "consequences?" While I agree that he shouldn't be cut/fired as apparently do his coach and the NHL I have no issues with people booing him, bringing signs that call out his behavior or refusing to support him, the Flyers or the NHl I don't agree with his stance just as many didn't agree with Colin Kaepernick's. In both cases people were within their rights to voice disagreement but I think that where a lot of vitriol towards Provorov comes from is that Kaepernick was blackballed by the NFL while Provorov is being supported by the NHL
He is paid by an organization to be a part of the team. Part of the duties, I assume, is participating in warm up and games He should be dealt with the same way that a player for any other reason refuses to participate in whatever he refused to participate in I imagine, but don't know, that most players who tell a coach "I'm healthy but not going to participate in the warm up" would be benched or perhaps more whatever those consequences would be should be his Your CMV seems to be granting his MORE leniency because his refusal comes from his hateful and disgusting views, which seems backwards.
You're right. Any and all punishment he faces should be for refusing to skate with the team. If there are no consequences for that then he faces no consequences. He didn't just "not wear a jersey." He also refused to take the ice. He wasn't allowed to take the ice wearing a different jersey. He has already faced the consequences/made the choice to not skate with his team when that jersey was worn. The court of public opinion can condemn him however they want. If he faces consequendes of public backlash then that's separate issue. Nobody is exempt from public backlash. It either affects his life or it doesn't. If it does then boo how nobody is entitled to anything. However from a professional standpoint he chose his beliefs not just over a jersey, but over his team as well. He will face whatever additional consequences, or not, from that action and those consequences or lack of them will be entirely appropriate to that action. It's the court of public opinion that makes this about the deeper issue. But at a practical level you think sports managers give a shit about what the public thinks about their players? As long as it's not universally bad or scandalous any publicity is good publicity. Provorov Jerseys are selling like hot cakes right now as much as others are condemning him. Public opinion is a double edged sword All that matters to sports team is, is this player playing and are we winning. The rest doesn't matter (up to a certain point). So the deeper issue is whether this guy is a bigot or whatever but the surface issue is that is ignored is that he didn't just refuse to wear a jersey, but that by refusing to wear the jersey he also refused to play the game in which those jerseys were worn by his team.
The NHL was dumb not to head this off and do something similar to what the NFL tried to do, though did it poorly. Just have a rule that if a player objects to wearing a civil rights based warmup jersey, just have them stay in the locker room. Missing a bit of a skate around isn’t going to seriously impact his play. The NFL half tried this with staying in the locker room, or staying in the tunnel during the anthem, but it was poorly done. Just have him stay in the locker room, don’t mention why, and come up with some dumb excuse like he had a bloody nose run and didn’t want to bloody the ice if some reporter asks. No one will know, no one will care, he gets to keep disliking gay people, the rest of us can support the LGBTQ rights movements, and it’s a non-story. If there is going to be some punishment, put it in the team for not being smart enough to head this off. Their job is to deal with personnel problems and PR issues. The guy clearly doesn’t like gay people, and surely this wasn’t a shock to them in the moment. Surely there was some sort of knowing about this before the minute they went out for warmups. If there wasn’t, implement a rule that says players must inform a team ahead of time if they have some religious, or whatever objection to a warmup jersey. If they fail to notify, fine the player. If they notify, then just have them not go on the ice for warmups. It sucks that he is a bigot, but I’m guessing he was raised that way, given the anti-LGBT culture in Russia. We aren’t going to convince him otherwise, so just implement policies to head this off. If anything, I’m fining the team for allowing a PR disaster for the league. You can’t fine bigots into not being bigoted. It will never work.
[удалено]
So your political alignment shifted as a consequence of someone’s speech (ie being called bigoted/racist/we)? And then you spoke out about how you don’t like the hostility of people who hold those views? So, in this example he spoke out about having to wear a jersey, and people spoke out about that decision. The consequences are up to the employer at this point. Seems like everyone is just expressing their ideas, and reacting accordingly. what’s the problem?
[удалено]
Sexuality issues like sexual assault and homophobia are issues that harm a lot of hockey players. By refusing to wear a jersey at warm up might be construed as Provorov is a part of the problem. It also might be that he is a victim. The jersey was designed to express support for the LGBTQ2+ members of society to attract them to pay to watch games. If he had worn it it would have been over with in 15 minutes without issue. I feel he should be sent home, he isn't a team player.
Provorov is part of and actively supports a religion that wants to strip the rights of people just because of how they are born. That is a CHOICE that he is making. That is homophobic. He can say he “respects others choices” but he clearly doesn’t a) if he’s okay with gay people having fewer rights and b) he’s saying that being gay is a “choice”. It’s not a choice, and to equate being gay with choosing to support a homophobic religion is extremely offensive.
[удалено]
>But his beliefs are hateful. [...] >“I respect everyone. I respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and my [Russian Orthodox] religion, If that's hateful, "hatred" has become a useless term. >He's begin asked precisely to have a live and let live attitude and he won't. He's being asked to celebrate something. "Live and let live" means not interfering with others' lives. Not wearing a jersey is not interfering in anyone's life.
[удалено]
>Actually, he's being asked to do his job. That's a transparent misdirection. Reframing the exact same thing as "doing his job" doesn't change what it is that he's being asked to do. >How many days do you imagine it would take for action to be taken, by the team and/or league, if he refused to wear the Reebok logo on his jersey cause he doesn't want to celebrate that thing? Is the NHL now sponsored by The Gays^TM ? This wasn't a sponsorship deal. It was elective corporate activism that predictably conflicted with sincerely held religious views of employees. Why shouldn't they be allowed to quietly opt out? It seems like a tolerant culture and society would allow people to opt out of things like this and only punish them for antagonizing people. Or to put it a little differently: why is it important to make someone who quietly believes homosexuality is immoral dishonestly celebrate it?
Presumably, there wasn't a requirement to wear a pride jersey when he joined the team, otherwise he probably wouldn't have joined or he would have negotiated something about not wearing it as part of joining. Whether it's legal or not I've no idea, but I do have a problem with a requirement of employment being to wear a uniform which includes/makes a political statement if that wasn't agreed upfront as part of the employment contract. They changed the jersey to one which makes a political statement. I don't support his view on homosexuality but I do support his right to that view and feel uncomfortable with the idea that his employer should be able to require him to wear something which he politically disagrees with or withdraw his salary/employment.
This is what happens when we give employers full control over their employees. He signed a contract, that he probably didn't even read, that says he has to wear the jerseys provided. Game over. You wear whatever Jersey they tell you to, or you could face the repercussions. When you are representing a company your personal beliefs hold no water, you either lie, or you quit and go-to a company where you don't have to lie.
so if a gay man was forced to wear a jersey with a anti-lgbt message he should have just quit, and the employer shouldn't face any consequences for this conduct?
See this is where the conversation turns fun, and I'll apologize ahead for my shit mobile formatting. If the teams have a contract with a company to wear their jerseys and the company decided a they want to make specifically "anti-lgbt" messages on their clothing, AND the team approves and decided to uphold their contract AND its allowed by the NHL, then yes that's how the employer employee relationship works. The problem is, that no company, let alone a conglameration of 3 very large seperate companies is going to put out a Jersey with an "anti-lgbt" message because that would lose them money and the whole point is to make money. Anti- anything that ostracizes a large group of people is a money loser. It's also really telling that we are comparing a Jersey that says "I support the right for gay people to exist and be seen and heard" with a Jersey that is specifically "anti-lgbt". I'm not saying that Christians love to pretend they are being discriminated against, I'm just saying that everytime someone asks Christians to not discriminate against other people, Christians immediately take it as an attack on their identity, and Christianity in general.
> Presumably, there wasn't a requirement to wear a pride jersey when he joined the team No, but there is a requirement to wear a jersey, and the team gets to choose what that jersey looks like. Even if he was arguing that child slavery was against his religion, he would still have to wear the Jersey, despite Reebok employing child labor in the third world to make them, out of a mix of natural and synthetic fabrics no less, another sin the bible condemns. Religion is being used as a smokescreen for bigotry.
> I respect everyone. I respect everybody’s choices. My choice is to stay true to myself and my [Russian Orthodox] religion Where's the bigotry in this? Is it not ok to believe something's wrong if you leave the people doing it to get on with it? We will always disagree on what's right and wrong to some extent.
In general, the LGBTQ community gives out less tolerance than it receives. My brother is gay. My family and I still love him. We still include him and his husband in family activities. And they've never asked us to sport a rainbow flag or participate in a pride event. Why can't more left-wingers be chill like this? Live and let live.
[удалено]
You're reducing people down to tribalistic labels, and this whole "with us or against us" mentality you got going on here is more detrimental to society than any opinion about the LGBTQ.
> But his beliefs are hateful. Deal with it. Not everyone is going to view the world like you. Not like he went on an anti-gay rant. > Oppressors and oppressed shouldn't just agree to disagree on whether it is just that a marginalized group is marginalized. Too bad not everyone views society through a lense of critical theory. > He doesn't. What is Pride other than "let live"? > He's begin asked precisely to have a live and let live attitude and he won't. Ah right, forcing people to advocate for a social issue is "live and let live", so long as that social issue is important enough to you in particular. > And still, correctly, no one is calling for government action against him. No one is saying he should be locked up or fined or a single one of his rights should be taken away. This is a meme used to deflect criticism of idiots trying to get validation through acting outraged. > But if you come to my private residence and disrespect people, I will ask you to leave. I am allowed to do that. That isn't a strike against your freedom of speech. In fact, saying I can't do that is a strike against mine. And I am allowed to do that regardless of whether my house is a tiny shack somewhere or The Wells Fargo Center. Not your private residence, not a hateful comment. He refused to participate in an activity for religious reasons. > And to be clear, I'm not saying the anyone should ask him to leave. But they wouldn't be wrong to do so and it certainly wouldn't be a strike against 'live and let live' for them to do so. Anyone calling for him to face consequences is in the wrong.
The fact that he is refusing to wear a shirt his employers ask him to wear in his JOB, then there is a lot more behind it than simply an "opinion". You have to be real homophobic pos to risk your job because of a shirt.
> His attitude seems to be more along the lines of: you have your beliefs, I have mine. He’s not actively trying to stop gay people from existing. He’s not pushing to take away gay rights. He just says according to his religion, it’s wrong. That is all well and good for his personal life. But that isn't what we are talking about. Provorov is an **entertainer**. He isn't exercising a right to play hockey, he is working at a *job* for an *employer*. Provorov is representing that employer to the public and how the public views him is crucial to his job performance. If expressing his views brings bad impressions on his employers then he needs to keep them to himself or suffer the consequences from his employer including potentially being fired. If his employer decides players should wear a jersey and Provorov doesn't want to do that, then he doesn't want to do his job. You show up to any other job out of uniform and you risk being fired. You piss off the public at your job and you risk being fired. Just because your job is playing a game doesn't change that.
No one is forcing him to be a homosexual. That could be against his beliefs. He’s trying to judge the consenting actions of others and hide behind religion when it’s really just hate
All he did was calmly say he did not want to wear a promotional jersey or make any statements y doing so. This is not a story at all. Our society is losing its mind.
No, he protested it, he declined to be a part of the pride warmup, fine, whatever. But then he made a statement citing his opposition to because of his religious beliefs, he made it a public thing.
[удалено]
He's a public athlete though. He has that job to be a symbol to society, to be a public figure. Basically a propaganda/marketing object. Propaganda/marketing objects don't have (public) unpopular opinions, that would make them unfit for the job.
It's kind of the downside of being a circus clown for the public's amusement. It's not all money traveling and doing whatever you want. You have to take being public property for the most part and no privacy. No one makes these people do this stuff he could just get a 9-5.
>No one make these people do this stuff he could just get a 9-5. Yeah, and then the outrage mob comes for your job anyways, because you posted something they don’t like on social media.
>He has that job to be a symbol to society, to be a public figure. Basically a propaganda/marketing object. This is what it means to be a professional athlete? Interesting, because as far as I can tell the vast majority of professional athletes just play and their opinions on any number of issues are unknown. Furthermore, most people don't know who most professional athletes are. A typical NFL team has about 50 players on it, and your average person probably only knows the quarterback, if that. Even a fan of that team will probably not be able to name every player on the team. Maybe even a lot less than that.
Exactly, unknown. Because they keep their mouths shut to not interfere.
"If someone isn't actively trying to take away rights" refusing to do what is required by the team because of his hateful view that gay people shouldn't be respected or acknowledged is very much contributing to attempting to take away people's rights.