We have two situations before us, one in Oz and the other in the US having to do with sports figures and their apparent “homophobic” statements or actions. In Australia we have the Israel Folau case and, in the US, the Jaelene Hinkle case. Both are at the top of their respective athletic fields of rugby and soccer, and both, through their tweets or actions, have chosen not to drink the multicolored Kool-aid that the world guzzles by the gallon. De rigeur in these absurd times under the mantle of “inclusivity” and “tolerance”, is to make everyone believe in the same things. Oh, the irony!
Isreal Folau tweeted “homophobic” comments via Twitter and Jaelene Hinkle refused to wear a multi-colored jersey that was designed to demonstrate the US Women’s soccer teams support of the LGBTQI+ community. The sponsors of the Australian rugby team, Qantas, Asics, and Land Rover took exception to Folau’s remarks and Hinkle withdrew herself from the team (or was kicked off, I couldn’t follow the ups and downs of the case very well from afar) as the requirement to wear a jersey to support a behavior she (and the Lord, btw) deems sinful, has brought them to the place where they now sit…on the outs.
What seems to be missing in the whole conversation is the notion that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. If Israel Folau, in order to be a good little rugby player, must remain quiet about his worldview, then so too should Rugby Australia, Qantas, Asics, and Land Rover. Jaelene Hinkle should be allowed to make the same sort of statement as her employers by not wearing the multi-colored jersey. The athletes too have a reputation to maintain and to speak and act otherwise compromises their beliefs. If sports figures must shut up about their worldview, then the same should apply to the companies and teams they work for. You know, the goose and gander thing.
As an officer in the US Army years ago, we were not allowed to participate in parades or political events while in uniform as the military did not want to “take sides”. At the same time, however, the military was apolitical, they did not promote one way of thinking over another. These days, I don’t think that is the case, but I do not know for sure. Presidents used to be apolitical, to a degree, such that once in office they represented all the American people. That is no longer the case as flamboyantly demonstrated by Barack Obama when he lit up the White House with multi-colors to “celebrate” the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex unions. At the time of the illumination there were still nearly 50% of the population that was not in favor of the union of same sex couples. That’s a large group of people to thumb your nose at.
The bottom line as far as I can see is: if companies or employers want their employees to remain silent on controversial issues, then they too should remain silent. If the companies speak out on an issue, then their employees should be able to do likewise lest they be painted with the same worldview brush as their employers. If Israel Folau’s remarks or Jaelene’s actions leave a bad mark on their respective employers reputation, then the employers remarks and actions can also leave a bad mark on the reputations of the players. Back to the goose and gander business again.
theologicalcudchewing 