Sabres are having their Pride Night on Monday

[pi2000]

9 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You know what line is much thinner? It’s the line between intolerance/exclusivity and condemning that lifestyle. Especially when we see this condemnation come in the form of actually being codified into law as we are currently seeing in some states.

I cannot agree more with your last sentence. Like Gandhi advised, let’s be the change we wanna see. 

Agreed.

If and when players wear pride, cancer, military, etc themed jerseys should be up to each player.   Maybe a group of players design a jersey to promote Alzheimer's awareness because a friend or family member is suffering.

Its much more meaningful that way vs the team or league forcing it on them. 

[Archie Lee]

33 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Military appreciation should include not only a living hero but also someone who gave their life.

Pride night is fine, but there's a fine line between demonstrating tolerance/inclusivity and actually promoting that lifestyle. 

IMO each individual player should be allowed to choose what they want to wear for warmups each game... instead of having these forced theme based events.

If we're going to promote tolerance, then lets be an example of that as well. 

What lifestyle?

[Porous Five Hole]

32 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

 

Pride night is fine, but there's a fine line between demonstrating tolerance/inclusivity and actually promoting that lifestyle. 

What does “promoting that lifestyle” mean? I’m not understanding what you’re trying to say.  

[hockey]

The colored jerseys may mostly be cynical PR and may not mean much - I think they're raffled off for related charities, which is cool.

I don't know what individual players think of most social/political issues, and I don't want to know.  That usually leads to trouble.

These jersey controversies absolutely come down to Russian laws and Russian players being rightfully nervous.

If you want your sports organization to really support the LGBTQ+ cause, then check if they actually donate and provide monetary support to the cause. 

(Which they should)

[SabresVet]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

That was my point.

Correct.  I mis-read your post originally, so my apologies. 

[K-9]

44 minutes ago, Curt said:

Honestly curious.  Any links to specific polls you are referencing?  Can PM as to not disrupt thread.

I’ll see what I can dig up, but I got my initial info from the Pew Research Center. If you want, just google “What percentage of Americans want a theocracy” and you’ll find info as well. To be fair, there are religious groups pushing back on this movement as well. What I’m most concerned about is the inherent blindness to the threat. To wit, even though they admit it’s against the Constitution, it’s still ok. I mean, WTF? Anyway, I hope even this little bit hasn’t disrupted the thread. My apologies to the forum if it has. 

[pi2000]

1 hour ago, Happy Days said:

Why is there a need for sports teams to be involved with peoples sexual preferences? Keep politics out of the sport!!! Just play hockey!

Traditionally hockey has been one of the more macho sports because of violence and fighting being part of the game.   

I played growing up in the 80s and the 3 letter F word was thrown around between every whistle every game like it was nothing.

Today there is zero tolerance for it which should've been policy years ago. 

IMO pride night is a way for the league to acknowledge past transgressions, and to get the message out to young boys and girls that the sport is open to everyone. 

 

[BillsShredder83]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

What?   This is a terrible take.
 

Military, police, firefighters, first responders.  They are all hard jobs, extremely necessary, and unfortunately they receive a relatively low pay.  What is wrong with recognition for these folks?  

The objection is that these are all paid sponsorships. Nfl did October breast cancer, then it was revealed it was all part of money changing hands.

Now October is military appreciation and teams are excepting money as a paid recruitment commercial.  It feels very disingenuous when a nice deed is revealed to be profit driven. 

Having to pay for a thank you or inclusivity feels very yucky.

[Eleven]

6 hours ago, K-9 said:

I’ll see what I can dig up, but I got my initial info from the Pew Research Center. If you want, just google “What percentage of Americans want a theocracy” and you’ll find info as well. To be fair, there are religious groups pushing back on this movement as well. What I’m most concerned about is the inherent blindness to the threat. To wit, even though they admit it’s against the Constitution, it’s still ok. I mean, WTF? Anyway, I hope even this little bit hasn’t disrupted the thread. My apologies to the forum if it has. 

Please no.

[PerreaultForever]

10 hours ago, Night Train said:

When it stirs issues, then it seems so forced and insincere.

I know it's a PC world these days but sports is an escape from politics. I have zero issues with it myself, belonging to a UCC church that likes everything that moves without predjudice. Yet I can't act surprised when someone objects to wearing the jersey. 

Ya, EXCEPT, the political statement is actually the guy who refuses to wear it. I mean think about it. It's putting on a colourful jersey for a few minutes. It's not that big of a deal. Doesn't say anything really about you and your religion or beliefs or even your prejudices. It's just wearing a jersey in a warm up. When you refuse to wear it you know you are drawing attention to it and then and only then you are making the intentional political statement, and you're right, that has no place in sports. 

[shrader]

6 hours ago, K-9 said:

I’ll see what I can dig up, but I got my initial info from the Pew Research Center. If you want, just google “What percentage of Americans want a theocracy” and you’ll find info as well. To be fair, there are religious groups pushing back on this movement as well. What I’m most concerned about is the inherent blindness to the threat. To wit, even though they admit it’s against the Constitution, it’s still ok. I mean, WTF? Anyway, I hope even this little bit hasn’t disrupted the thread. My apologies to the forum if it has. 

Did the poll include how many Americans know what a theocracy is?

[MattPie]

8 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Agreed.

If and when players wear pride, cancer, military, etc themed jerseys should be up to each player.   Maybe a group of players design a jersey to promote Alzheimer's awareness because a friend or family member is suffering.

Its much more meaningful that way vs the team or league forcing it on them. 

I simply cannot wait to see what happens when some player doesn't want to wear a military appreciation jersey.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, MattPie said:

I simply cannot wait to see what happens when some player doesn't want to wear a military appreciation jersey.

Well that would be a Colin Kapernick type situation wouldn't it?

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, MattPie said:

I simply cannot wait to see what happens when some player doesn't want to wear a military appreciation jersey.

Some Russians may be uncomfortable showing support for NATO troops.

[Skooby]

Just win the game, I don’t care about jersey colors

[Believer]

The NHL and the Buffalo Sabres appreciate all their fans… Imagine the locker room has already opined among themselves about this particular Fan Appreciation Night… Non-issue for the players, my bet… If a player refuses to wear the jersey, allow them to skip the warm-up… 

[rickshaw]

Having an issue wearing a pride jersey is an absolute joke. These players using God as their reason is an absolute farce.

And why can’t people just mind their business when it comes to love and their preferences? How is a gay couple hurting you over a straight couple? 
 

Stop all the hate and nonsense. I’m as straight as an arrow but I support this initiative 💯. Enough of the marginalization of communities that are in the minority.

People got to stop being so afraid of things they don’t need to be afraid of. 
So Simone is gay? Who cares? Leave them be. No need for hate.

I hope our one Russian player having a backwards a$$ law in his home country doesn’t derail the entire night.

[JohnC]

21 hours ago, K-9 said:

I’ll see what I can dig up, but I got my initial info from the Pew Research Center. If you want, just google “What percentage of Americans want a theocracy” and you’ll find info as well. To be fair, there are religious groups pushing back on this movement as well. What I’m most concerned about is the inherent blindness to the threat. To wit, even though they admit it’s against the Constitution, it’s still ok. I mean, WTF? Anyway, I hope even this little bit hasn’t disrupted the thread. My apologies to the forum if it has. 

Don't apologize because your comments are on topic. Your comments are cogent and relevant to the topic. Whether people agree or disagree with your perspective, listening to an intelligent voice on the topic is a good and positive thing. 

I recognize that there are religious beliefs that influence one's views on this issue. I can respect that. What I find perplexing is the often-stated argument of "promoting a lifestyle" as a basis for a view. That makes no sense to me. 

[LTS]

Choosing to support something or choosing not to support something is the right of each individual. The issue is when one person takes action that would diminish the quality of life of another because of what they believe or how they choose to act.

We should all be afforded the freedom to believe what ever we want, however misguided or ignorant someone else may see it. We should all also be afforded the opportunity to live our lives how we want when those actions do not harm others.

We need to be thicker in our own skins and learn to ignore those who may speak against what we believe; at least if those people speaking are not interested in intelligent discourse.

To wear a jersey or not it not going to harm a person on this Earth despite what people may infer. If someone who supports the LGBTQ+ lifestyle takes offense then so be it. If someone who does not support the community takes offense that the Sabres organization chooses to have Pride Night, then so be it. Taking offense at something is the action of the one offended. They have chosen to lend validity to the actions or words of another that have not caused them harm. The "so called" mental harm people feel is nothing more than their distress at someone not acting in accordance with the way they believe life should play out.

No one HAS to be any particular way in life so long as they are not going to harm or impede others. Let's move on such petty trash where we spend so much time looking for what's wrong in the world we forget to look at what's right.

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by LTS

[Zamboni]

I don’t care if they wear any jerseys for appreciating anything before a game.

I don’t care if a player doesn’t want to wear any of those jerseys that appreciate anything before a game.

I don’t care if a player has a religious view about any of the topics that require a jersey to be worn.

A player has the freedom to wear or not wear a jersey that demonstrates a particular appreciation for a particular topic before a game.

Wearing a jersey to appreciate or recognize a certain topic, Has blown up in the past 20 years. I am sure next year or the year after or maybe the year after that… There will be one or two more topics that will come to the forefront at that particular time that a jersey seems to be the go to idea, to appreciate or draw attention to a certain topic or issue. And I’ll feel the same way about the NHL team need to wear a jersey to show off their support. So be it. 
 

First responders jerseys?

Grandparents appreciation jerseys?

Youth sports coaches appreciation jerseys?

Skilled trades appreciation jerseys?

BLM appreciation jerseys?

Healthcare professionals appreciation jerseys?

NRA appreciation jerseys?

Antifa appreciation jerseys?

I mean we can go down some fun crazy rabbit holes and make a ton of appreciation jerseys for every subset and niche group. 😂

[Believer]

Follow the money…

[TheAud]

14 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Ya, EXCEPT, the political statement is actually the guy who refuses to wear it. I mean think about it. It's putting on a colourful jersey for a few minutes. It's not that big of a deal. Doesn't say anything really about you and your religion or beliefs or even your prejudices. It's just wearing a jersey in a warm up. When you refuse to wear it you know you are drawing attention to it and then and only then you are making the intentional political statement, and you're right, that has no place in sports. 

Is it a political statement or an ethics statement? To the best of my knowledge, LGBTQ is not a political party nor even associated with one, rather it's a collection of folks with a particular sexual/gender identity, who hold a wide range of political views themselves. 

Some people feel that the 'lifestyle' (for lack of a better term) of the LGBTQ group(s) is at odds with their ethical beliefs.  For them, I think it's more a question of living in alignment with their beliefs than a political statement.  For example, looking at the statement made by the Staal brothers they tried to make it quite clear that 'politically' they support people's right to live their life as they see fit and they welcome everyone to the game of hockey. Whereas 'personally' their belief system is at odds with what they believe the jerseys' are representing. 

I may not agree with the Staal brothers code of ethics, or even their interpretation that wearing the jerseys is at odds with their code of ethics, but I want to live in a country where they are free to follow their beliefs so long as they don't harm others in the process. I think it's a stretch to say that not wearing the warm-up jerseys represents a harm to anyone.

[LTS]

3 minutes ago, Believer said:

Follow the money…

The vast majority of society does.

[Cascade Youth]

I have zero idea what is, and is not, fair game in this conversation.  Concerned it depends on the viewpoint / popularity as a poster.

[Porous Five Hole]

On 3/24/2023 at 6:00 PM, Thorny said:

 

so here is the statement. I didn’t read it the same way Ian did. It doesn’t seem like any trouble is brewing here.