What is it about the Washington Commanders that makes them so consistently unable to get out of their own way? The old team name, the endless Dan Snyder scandals, the defensive coordinator getting fined for inappropriate comments (he’s since been fired for being a lousy coordinator), the rumors swirling around the head coach — what a mess. Oh, and their uniforms suck.
So it’s not really a surprise that the Commies even managed to mess up a feel-good initiative like the NFL’s “My Cause, My Cleats” promotion. As I mentioned in this morning’s Monday Morning Uni Watch report, lots of players participated in the program yesterday, wearing custom-designed cleats to support their favorite charitable causes. That included Commies DB Kendall Fuller, whose cleats supported the Fellowship of Christian Athletes:
Here’s a shot of him wearing the cleats in yesterday’s game against the Dolphins:
Just one catch: The FCA bars LGBTQ people, and even supporters of gay marriage, from serving in a leadership role within the organization. And while Fuller wearing this footwear on the field yesterday in support of an anti-LGBTQ organization, the team was holding its annual Pride Day promotion.
Perfect timing, right? Whatever else you may think about all this, you have to admit that only this team could wind up with this particular situation. They really seem to have a knack for this type of thing.
Outsports, which first reported on this, says Fuller and the team both declined to comment.
Not sure how you can blame this on the team. What were they supposed to do, confiscate his shoes?
Actually, I didn’t blame anything on the team. I just said that this type of thing seems to happen to this particular team quite a bit. That’s all.
Yeah, I think a team needs to look over the messaging on anything their players or management wear. So yes, bar him from wearing that.
If that’s so, then the league needs to stop the MCMC promotions altogether. If some causes are less equal than others, then the NFL shouldn’t pretend they’re giving their players some kind of voice.
It’s interesting how much the NFL has let up on regulating cleats, if I recall correctly, they used to be MUCH more careful about regulating the causes on the cleats when they began the program. And now a player was able to wear cleats supporting a hate group because it (presumably) slipped through the cracks. Honestly this isn’t that surprising, but is very disappointing nevertheless.
It’s absurd to call mainstream Christianity a “hate group.” Just shows how twisted the world has become.
That’s not what he said. Please don’t mischaracterize people’s comments. Thanks.
So a Christian organization that has a main goal of being a Christian organization is a “hate group” because they have such policies that they don’t even advertise as their main goal?
Come on, guys.
Actually, I didn’t say anything about anyone being a “hate group.” I said the FCA doesn’t allow LGBTQ people or supporters of gay marriage in their leadership and that the timing of supporting them on Pride Day was therefore awkward. That’s all.
I believe the comment from “Grant” was a response to the comment from “Grant Maurer” calling them a hate group – not your article, Paul.
Fair enough. My concern is that prefacing the article with the “anti-LGBTQ” line makes it seem like he was repping the Westboro Baptist Church or something like that. I really, REALLY hope we can agree that FCA isn’t on that level. How much do we want to bet he didn’t even know about that and wanted to rep FCA as he enjoyed in high school or college and wanted to give back?
A group that discriminates against LGBTQ people in its leadership and in its stated principles is, literally, the definition of an “anti-LGBTQ group.” The headline is literally descriptive.
Per FCA’s website:
“We are a community working to see the world transformed by Jesus Christ through the influence of coaches and athletes.”
If FCA’s main purpose was anti-LGBT activities, then I’d agree with that statement. But that seems pretty far off from that.
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a group that said the following:
“We’re not anti-Black. We just don’t allow Black people on our board of directors.”
“We’re not antisemitic. We just don’t allow Jews on our board of directors.”
And so on. Is this an anti-LGBTQ group? Yes. Is that *all* they are? No. But is that *part* of what they are, and did that make for awkward timing for these particular cleats on this particular day, and is the headline accurate? Yes.
If you feel differently, that’s fine. We can agree to disagree. Let’s please move on. Thanks.
It feels like a misleading headline, that’s all. As someone else mentioned, the headline gives the impression that it’s going to be West Baptist sort of situation where an anti-LGBT agenda is their main reason for existence. Technically you could use the anti-LGBT moniker for the NHL giving their barring of various pride uniform elements, but it would a little jarring to see a headline along the lines of, “Anti-LGBT Sports League Debuts All-Star Jerseys”.
If you feel that something has to stoop the Westboro level to qualify as “anti-LGBTQ,” you’re setting bar reeeeeeaaaaally low. That’s like saying nobody’s a racist unless they’re a cross-burning KKK member.
It seems self-evident to me that this is an anti-LGBTQ group, which made it particularly awkward to wear these cleats on the team’s Pride Day. If you feel differently, that’s fine. We can agree to disagree. Let’s please move on. Thanks.
Paul, would you consider a player’s repping a Catholic charity such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society equally awkward on such a day? Because I assure you their personnel requirements are at least as stringent as the FCA’s.
If and when that happens, I’ll be happy to discuss it.
If you say so, Paul. But even hypothetically, I don’t see the harm in sharing whether or not you’d consider such a group anti-LGBT by definition, or whether you’d consider a player’s boosting it “awkward” in the same sense that boosting FCA is on Pride Day.
link
#72 Abraham Lucas of the Seahawks wore St. Vincent de Paul cleats. He’s very public about his Catholic faith.
link
You seem to be digging for whatever you want to try to slam an organization that does good for those involved. That’s sick and demented.
Actually, Jonathan, I have not “slam[med]” anyone. I have simply noted that a player showcasing a group that excludes certain people on the same day that those people are being celebrated by the player’s team team makes for awkward timing. That’s all.
I would appreciate it if you refrained from using personal insults (whether directed at me or at anyone else) in the comments section. Thanks.
Agreed. This is quite the stretch. I used to coach HS FB in Virginia and quite a few of the athletes from our school participated in this program. I never participated, so I was never compelled to do any research on it. Wouldn’t be shocked if Fuller wasn’t even aware of that policy himself. He probably grew up in the program, appreciated it, and wanted to give it some publicity in return.
Or… Fuller is simply unashamed of his Christian faith.
Nobody said he was ashamed of his faith, or that he had any reason to be. There is nothing inherently anti-LGBTQ about Christianity.
Let’s not create straw-man arguments. Thanks.
It’s a pretty solid repudiation of Christianity to support groups like that.
As the NHL halted pre-game warmup specialty jerseys, will the NFL stop this too?
It does seem to fall into an all or nothing category unfortunately
This is exactly why the NHL made the smart decision (stunning bettman made a smart move for once) to remove all the non-hockey crap from the game area. Leave it in the stands where the team can control the message it wants to portray, don’t put it on the playing surface where you are making the players part of it. Just play the games.
Keep the uniforms standard and this wouldn’t be an issue. Save the player expression for off the field activities. I feel this way for all sports.
First place they need to start is the collection of players around a camera after making an interception or a fumble recovery on defense. Or the idiotic celebrations that we saw yesterday after touchdowns on offense.
I long for the days when all we had was a spike or even better just handing the ball back to the referee. “Act like you’ve been there before.”
All of this. Apologies for being all “damn kids get off my lawn,” but I would prefer to see players repping the name on the front of the jersey and not the name on the back.
It’s still Waaay better than a flag on every single spike or backflip or jump ‘O Joy celebration, like the 90’s…
It’s hard to score a touchdown, whether in Pop Warner or the Pros…just the pros can make it look easy, so even though I laugh out loud at some of the stuff players are doing (the rowboat?), I still want them to be able to celebrate as long as its not taunting.
I find it strange that there’s no outcry about A.J. Green repping “anti-lgbt” Kamp Khalil Legacy (Islamic Org that similarly does not allow LGBT members on it’s leadership board) for My Cause My Cleats. Guess that just wasn’t as newsworthy, for some reason. Wonder why the standards are different for muslims when it comes to “Anti-LGBT” rhetoric.
Respectfully, I believe you’ve entirely missed the point that was being made. It wasn’t about whether Fuller could or should wear cleats repping that organization. It was about the mixed messages of wearing cleats repping an organization that discriminates against LGBTQ persons on the very day that the team was supposed to be celebrating LGBTQ persons. Further, it was about how the Washington team can’t seem to get out of its own way, from a PR standpoint.
This kind of snafu is definitely on brand for the WTF / Commies.
I watched some of that game, one of the announcers kept on saying how much opportunity there was within this franchise, for a potential new coach, free agents coming in, and the NFL as whole with a “crown jewel” franchise. It was pretty comical. This franchise is so far removed from its glory days, and so deep into bad management and bad on field product that whatever tradition and history it has is all but obliterated from the minds of the general public.
The previous ownership caused everything you just said. Give the new ownership a chance, with new everything. Including a stadium, new GM, new coaches. And stick the new stadium where it belongs, on the RFK site in our Nations Capitol.
Shocking: Christian organization believes Christian things.
Don’t confuse Christians with christianists. The former believe in love as an organizing principle. The latter, including this reprehensible organization, believe in hate as an organizing principle. So no, that group cannot be called a Christian group by any reasonable person. They’d actually be best described as anti-Christian.
For the record, being anti-LGBT is not a tenet of Christianity.
Actually, there’s nothing inherently anti-LGBTQ about Christianity. Let’s please not spread that slander, at least on my website. Thanks.
Thank you for saying that, Paul.
I’d have to say respectfully, Paul, that that depends on the variety or denomination of Christianity. The Catholic & Orthodox churches, as well as certain Protestant denominations, have quite explicit teachings on the subject, for better or worse. That not all denominations take a stance against it isn’t quite the killer response some might think.
“There’s nothing inherently anti-LGBTQ about Christianity” and “It depends on the particular denomination and their specific beliefs” are pretty much the same thing.
Scrutinizing every organization supported by a player via his footwear for whether some part of its platform is ironically contrary to a team or league event seems burdensome, and in the end, wholly uninteresting.
Actually, nobody suggested scrutinizing every organization. I just noted that the juxtaposition of this footwear with this team promotion made for awkward timing, and that this team seems to have a knack for this type of situation. That’s all.
Nailed it!
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is great organization that a lot of professional athletes belong to and support for quite a long time. Their mission is to spread the Word of God.
They are free to spread their anti-Christian message all they like. But they can’t get mad when people don’t like it.
FCA is great. Wonder if Paul has a problem with the JCC or the YMCA….
Actually, I never said that I had a “problem” with the FCA. I simply noted (a) that their stated policy is to discriminate against LGBTQ people and (b) that this made for awkward timing on the team’s Pride Day. That’s all.
Don’t let these guys bully you into backpedaling, Paul. There’s no such thing as “awkward timing” for homophobia.
This organization is just as problematic on a random Tuesday in July as they are on “Washington Commanders Pride Day”. Choosing that organization to promote out of the thousands of non-homophobic ones that one could choose is … well… a choice. And it’s a choice that should be examined.
Sure, it could have been ignorance on Kendall Fuller’s part and it could have been a good teaching moment for him when he found out, but declining to comment is a little damning in that regard.
Thanks to you and Outsports for reporting on this, because when this stuff simmers below the surface it causes harm. It’s good to bring it to the light.
I’m going to take a wild guess that all these defending the FCA are…..straight.
Let’s please not engage in mind-reading, and let’s also not judge people based on their sexual orientation. Thanks.
Wow. Really disappointed in this post…
I think Paul has made it pretty clear that he’s against hate in all forms (purple notwithstanding), and he’s got a long history of highlighting uniform-based hypocrisy and bad timing, both of which he did here.
‘Disappointment’ of the sort you have is a good thing, and those who provide it have made a mitzvah.
Be well.
I’m curious to know if you’d have the same stance on a player that chose to rep an Islamic organization.
The only “stance” I’ve taken here is that it’s awkward for a player to rep an organization that discriminates against a particular group on the same day that the player’s team is celebrating that group. If that happens again, I will definitely note it (especially if it involves a team that has a habit of faceplanting again and again).
If you know if any other situations that fit the bill, please let me know. Thanks!
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a website that said the following:
“We’re not anti-Christian. We just don’t like Christian organizations that actually believe things that are in the Old and New Testament, which is the foundation of their religion.”
So disappointed in this, Paul.
Actually, I never said I don’t like the FCA. I just noted that showcasing a group that excludes certain people on the same day that the team is celebrating those people makes for awkward timing. That’s all.
I’m not sure it’s “awkward” at all. If anything, it seems to send the laudable message that an employee has speech rights that can be in justified tension with whatever speech his employer wants to engage in on a given day. It’s only awkward if I think everybody’s being on message–regardless of the message–is more valuable than diversity of opinion.
An interesting counterpoint! Thanks for that.
“Actually, I never said I don’t like the FCA.” So do you like the FCA, Paul? You have certainly framed the organization (founded in 1954) in a negative light. By nitpicking this small aspect of FCA membership, you are essentially saying it is wrong for a religious organization to ask its members to adhere to the tenets of their religion. It’s disappointing you are choosing to delve into anti-religious issues–especially for those that pay to subscribe to your offerings.
Actually, I didn’t say anything anti-religious or even anti-FCA. I simply noted that showcasing this particular group, with its particular policies, on this particular day, made for awkward timing, and this team seems to have a knack for this type of awkward situation. That’s all.
Highlighting that this group was founded in an era best known for discrimination does not help your case.
“Christian organizations that actually believe things that are in the Old and New Testament, which is the foundation of their religion.”
So when God orders the Hebrews to commit genocide and enslavement of the various peoples they’re stealing land from, I can claim that’s the foundation of my religion and advocate all of that in the here and now (as my Texan forefathers did). And you think it’s offensive to report that.
As if the Bible isn’t full of ridiculous regulations from God that no Christian now obeys, and contradictions because powerful men rewrote it and excluded books that didn’t fit their agendas.
Your second and third paragraphs are subjective opinion.
But that’s what we’re here for, after all.
I want to say thank you, Paul. I was fine with your post– the headline, the tone, etc. I was glad you brought it to our attention. But I also truly appreciate the way you’ve let people with opposing views give their opinions here in the comments, and the way you’ve responded to them–firmly but trying to keep the temperature from rising. That seems to be a rare approach online these days. Another reason to appreciate this site.
Yes…and appreciate how we can be civil but still disagree, then agree on other subjects…
The UNI-verse starts with Uni….
Agreed, Paul doing the lord’s work in these comments here.
Wow you really stepped in it with this one. It’s quite a stretch to call FCA an “anti LGBT” group and essentially ignore their main mission. Are stadiums that serve Chick fil A now “anti-LGBT” stadiums? Why not just rebrand schools like Baylor, TCU, SMU, BYU, Liberty, etc. as “anti-LGBT” institutions?
It’s pretty clear from the tone of this piece that you knew it would offend people and you ran it anyway.
I’m very disappointed in this post and surprised that your response is to minimize people’s frustrations with a simple “let’s move on” when it offends people.
It seems self-evident to me that an organization whose stated policy is to exclude certain people from leadership is, by definition, “anti-” those people. That’s not a value judgment on my part; that’s just an objective description.
If you feel differently, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. And yes, I’ll say “Let’s please move on” to you — not because I want to “minimize your frustrations,” but because when two positions are so clearly at loggerheads (like, say, whether excluding certain people qualifies as being “anti-” those people), there’s nothing productive to be gained by continuing the discussion and it just devolves into pointless nastiness. I’d rather not have that on my website. Thanks for understanding.
You’ve clearly misunderstood the intention of this piece and just want to argue.
So if they had stated guidelines that stated “No people of color may be on the leadership board”, you’d NOT think the organization is racist?
Seems like you and others are the ones that want to just quickly dismiss actual problems with the FCA.
Shut it down and send the whole thing to Montreal…new name, colors, please….
(Yeah, I think I like that, karma in universal ways….heh heh)
Oh my God, last week it was the Army team having uniforms honoring soldiers from the second Persian Gulf war. Now it’s this. And next week we will probably hear about the Army uniforms again.
The politics on this website is getting out of control. Hey, here’s a thought, both sides got represented in the football game in Washington yesterday. cool.
Maybe this blog about “uniforms“ isn’t really about uniforms anymore. It might just not be for me anymore. Darn shame when we can’t just try to get away from politics, and come to a website where we just want to read about freaking football uniforms.
If two posts out of all the content on this site make Uni Watch “not for you,” that’s a shame for both of us, Dennis. But of course you should read (or not read) whatever makes sense to you. Take care.
Appreciate the response, Paul. Hey I’m back!
It’s not just two posts. It used to be, “I think these guys might be on the left, whatever, still good info here.” But no doubt in my mind anymore based on what I’ve read here the in the last year. And I’ve been coming here for at least a decade.
I’m just saying, I can’t be only one getting turned off by the political storylines and snarkiness against anything patriotic or not woke.
As I said before it used to be a place I came to for uniform fun. But seems like there’s an agenda to it all now….. and I would be equally annoyed of this was a pro-trump, ‘murica blog too.
Just wishing we can get back to the uniforms themselves, that’s all.
Thank you for acknowledging that homophobia is political, rather than parroting all this nonsense that it’s somehow religious.
I understand the “just want to get away from politics” view, sometimes when I see an issue that I am indifferent towards or even ones I disagree with, I just don’t post anything….
Sometimes it’s better to start with what we DO agree on and then simply tolerate those few differences that we have, that can be settled with a little communication….(just my take)…
(And really could we just send the WTFClub to Montreal, wipe that slate clean)
I think this one is a real reach .pretty sure that was not the intent and believe me I would pile on if I thought it were the case
I never claimed there was any intent. I just said that showcasing an organization that excludes certain people on the same day that the team is honoring those people makes for awkward timing. That’s all.
This post is predictably becoming something about Pandora and a box…anyway, I think Washington should have worn gold pants and they would have had a decent looking combination. More specific on this subject: scrap the MCMC campaign. More of an individual thing to express anyway, away from the field. It is not really connected to the teams or the league and there are plenty of opportunities for players to advocate individual causes.
For once it would be nice/interesting for a player to own up to this. Seems in this situation – and similar situations that happened in the NHL – players want to be “Anti-LGBT” by their actions/attire but not publicly come out and say such. I’m sure the team told him not to comment, but it would have been refreshing if Fuller either said “I wore these cleats on Pride Day on purpose because I’m against LGBTQ” or “Man, I had no idea FCA was anti-LGBT, my apologies to everyone!” Instead we get, “No comment.”
Maybe saying “it would be nice” is poor phrasing. My point – if you feel strongly about something, when asked about it, own up to it.
To imply in any way that he wore these on purpose because they’re anti-LGBT and not because he’s strong in his faith is very offensive and ignorant
Actually, we don’t know why he wore them. He was asked and declined to comment. So let’s all stop trying to read his mind either way. Thanks.
In 2019 numerous players wore cleats for Fellowship of Christian Athletes: Bills quarterback Matt Barkley, Broncos linebacker Malik Reed, Redskins quarterback Case Keenum, Jaguars safety Cody Davis, and Raiders fullback Alec Ingold.
In 2020 – Cody Davis, New England Patriots · Koda Martin, Arizona Cardinals · Case Keenum, Cleveland Browns.
I’m guessing there were more the last couple of seasons.
I did more research in one Google search then Outsport did.
Actually, Outsports wrote about those players too. link
Perhaps doing more than one Google search would have been helpful.
Oh I see, this has been a yearly attempt by Outsports to frame FCA in the most negative light possible to try and eradicate them from the My Cause, My Cleats promotion. And now this season Fuller is only one player supporting FCA, so he gets all of the vitriol.
Perhaps. In any case, my post didn’t direct any vitriol at Fuller (or at anyone else). I simply noted that showcasing a group that excludes certain people on the same day that the team is celebrating those people makes for awkward timing, and that the team seems to have a knack for this type of awkward situation. That’s all.
I don’t agree with calling FCA anti-LGBTQ but the point Paul is making is the irony of this on the Commanders Pride Day.
He didn’t give any vitriol toward Fuller.
Agree with dchis, Paul just pointing out the irony and he literally made no comment on anything else.
Here is a question: The NFL allows players to put a charitable organization or cause on their cleats. Would people get mad for a player having the Chick-Fil-A Shared Table Program image? It is a program that donates surplus food to charitable organizations. Many don’t like the founders “Anti” beliefs. If so, should Adidas not be in the same boat? Their founder was a member of the Nazi party. I would say the Nazi party was a bit “Anti” towards certain groups.
As someone who grew up in these spaces, there is a history of hate directed at the Gay community and also Muslim people. Whether it is subtle as taking away leadership opportunities, or disguised in ‘love those people anyways’ sayings, it’s powerfully detrimental and ultimately hateful. I tried to have cognitive dissonance, and when confronted would have the same angry defensive reactions. As someone of this faith group, I am sorry for corporate hate that anyone has experienced.
thanks Paul,
Those cleats are fire
Remember when the Colts told Peyton he couldn’t wear black high-top cleats to pay tribute to Johnny Unitas after his death?
-C.
Here we go again, Paul. It’s not anti-LGBTQ to stand for traditional religious orthodoxy. You know better. This site is getting more and more politicized every day.
To me, it’s fairly self-evident that excluding certain people is pretty much the literal definition of being “anti-” those people.
If you feel differently, we can certainly agree to disagree. Either way, my point was that showcasing a group that excludes certain people on the same day that the team is celebrating those people makes for awkward timing. That’s all.
The problem with the idea of “excluding certain people” is that an LGTBQ day excludes people of faith, which make up 80-some percent of Americans who are people of faith, of all religions.
This is why the idea of “pride nights” are so problematic, because they are intentionally divisive for the sake of being intentionally divisive.
I wasn’t supporting or critiquing Pride events. I simply said that showcasing a group that excludes certain people on the same day that the team was celebrating those people made for awkward timing. That’s all.
I’ve got plenty of friends that identify as Christian that have no problem with Pride activities. It might be that they read the Gospels, but who can say? There is absolutely nothing about Christianity that is against gay folks.
Exactly. Being proud of your religion does not mean you hate something else. Just because I am proud to be a Cowboys fan does not mean I hate other teams. But in this day and age, if you are for something, you are immediately labeled as against or hating something else.
If your “religion” includes hate, then you should just own that. Actual Christians don’t hate anyone. (There’s some stuff about that in the Gospels; you should check it out.) Christianists like FCA are not Christian by any reasonable definition.
I love seeing a Kinlsey Gaffe in the wild; thanks for that!
I agree with you that being homophobic is political and has nothing to do with religion.
The issue is, if a lgtbqia group were on a pair of cleats, they are a hate group clearly against christianity, so would they get so much flak? That’s the big question.
Dunno, there are an awful lot of gay Christians that would disagree with your premise.
Classic Uni Watch — clickbait headline, repost of someone else’s original reporting, and snarky back-and-forth in the comments. Paul: your responses to folks in the comments hide beyond journalistic objectivity (“I was just showcasing…”), but a journalist knows fair reporting is not cherry-picking information. If you want to go after FCA and their supporters (including Fuller), have the courage to own that position and defend it against those who think boiling down FCA to “anti-LGBT” is too simplistic.
Actually, *all* journalism (and, indeed, all communication) is cherrypicking information. We all decide what to say and what not to say. I’m doing it right now; you did it in your comment; we all do it every time we open our mouths or sit down at a keyboard.
And I haven’t been snarky at all. On the contrary, I’ve just pointed out, in a very straightforward tone, what this post is and isn’t about. That’s all.
I have no interest in “go[ing] after” anyone here. I’m sorry — really and truly, not snarkily — that that doesn’t comport with what you’d apparently like me to say.
I’ve never understood why so many (or so it seems) people of faith get so defensive so easily. How is that possible? To be the chosen people. To have eternal life in your back pocket. Sometimes I wonder if folks truly have faith.
Paul brought up a fair observation, and he did so without accusation or slander. Kudos to thought provocation.
“I’ve never understood why so many (or so it seems) people of faith get so defensive so easily. How is that possible? To be the chosen people. To have eternal life in your back pocket”.
I don’t know if generalizing and providing a condescending take is the best way to advance the discussion, but OK.
I said “Or so it seems”.
I honestly did not mean for that to be condescending, but if it upsets someone… that proves my point, no?
Fortunately, I was only making an observation. I wasn’t trying to move the discussion.
“Politics and religion are as American as humble pie.” – Anonymous
Would Paul post an “anti-LGBTQ” headline when a player wore an Islamic group’s logo on his shoes? Doubtful. Catholics and other Judeo-Christian adherents are considered fair targets for criticism of their religious beliefs, but for whatever reason (fear of reprisal, fear of being labeled a racist), Muslims are not. So selective outrage masquerading as a benign comment on a uniform choice is not a brave or principled effort at calling out bigotry, it’s highlighting the author’s biases.
Prove me wrong, Paul. I won’t be holding my breath.
If a player highlights an any anti-anything group on the same day that their team celebrates that group, thereby creating an awkward juxtaposition, I’ll definitely mention it, just as I did here — especially if the team in question has a recent history of gaffes and controversies. (And if you’re aware of any such situations going forward, please bring them to my attention. Thanks!)
As a Catholic, I can say we are low-hanging fruit for many social critics. But throughout this discussion thread, I have not read anything from Paul that could be perceived as selective outrage. Paul doesn’t need me to defend his point of view, of course, but for what it’s worth … -C.
Way better angle. IMO
People who hate others often suffer criticism for that hate. I’m not an expert in Islamic theology, but being a Christian requires someone to not hate anyone. Someone who is anti-gay is anti-Christian.
The nuance being missed here is that there’s a difference between being ANTI something and not agreeing with something. I am not anti-abortion even though I don’t agree with it….if that is something a woman chooses to do I’d never stand in their way, nor vote against them, but I 100% disagree with the actual act.
I think you can disagree with the manner in which people live, but not be against the way they live. This isn’t just as simple as the FCA choosing to be against LGBTQ as much as it’s their religious beliefs don’t align. This group not allowing LGBTQ in their leadership would be no different than me as a Catholic probably not allowed to be in the leadership of a Jewish group.
As long as Fuller isn’t actively promoting anti LGBTQ rehetoric himself written or verbally, I don’t see him wearing these shoes as anything noteworthy at all.
Good for him supporting his cause and his beliefs.
Also, just want to put this on record, I love when the site has topics like this. It’s great to have discussion and see other people’s viewpoints. I don’t agree with everything but I don’t want to see things every day that are only aligned with what i agree with. I may comment with the opposite viewpoint, but that does not mean i don’t respect your take or your view. Hopefully our different perspectives can help everyone get exposed to ideas outside of our individual “bubbles”.
here here
I actually think it’s perfectly fitting that this is happening in DC and I think it’s beautiful that we are a country in which you can publicly display you’re dumbest opinions on the biggest stage. Now, the NFL can do whatever they want, they’re a private organization. They can mandate Pride gear while banning anti-LGBTQ gear.
I like that they do not though. To be clear, his opinion is dumb and probably hateful. But this is America, where you get to publicly be those things, and then the rest of us get to tell you that you’re being dumb and hateful. Maybe you learn something, maybe we even learn something, or maybe you just continue on with your stupid opinions, and we continue on thinking little of you.
But I think getting it all out there is much better than censoring it where it just festers and gets more bitter. Trust me, if you’re that group you’d much rather the NFL ban those cleats. Can you imagine the press they’d get and the money they’d raise? Instead the cleats were allowed and this is the inly place I’ve even heard about them.
> To be clear, his opinion is dumb and probably hateful.
Nice speculation!
> I think it’s beautiful that we are a country in which you can publicly display you’re dumbest opinions
You’re
Coming back just to see if an apology has been made