2K24: Tampa Bay Rays

[revo]

5 Rays players peeled off the LGBTQ pride flag from their jersey before yesterday’s game — Raley, Beeks, Springs, Thompson & Adam.

[madducks]

Shane Baz should be back next weekend.

In his final rehab start, Baz gave up 1 ER and matched a career-high with 10 K's in 4.1 IP on 79 pitches.

Fastball topped out at 99 mph, sat 96-97 mph.

[Moonlight J]

5 Rays players peeled off the LGBTQ pride flag from their jersey before yesterday’s game — Raley, Beeks, Springs, Thompson & Adam.

and they're 0-2 since. Karma

[revo]

and they're 0-2 since. Karma

Must be their poor lifestyle choice.

[cleo]

why should they be forced to support something that they are not comfortable with?

[DMT]

why should they be forced to support something that they are not comfortable with?

Because if you're not comfortable with human rights then you shouldn't broadcast that to everyone else?

[revo]

why should they be forced to support something that they are not comfortable with?

They don't have to. But there's a certain level of hypocrisy here -- the fans applauding this move were almost certainly the same ones against Colin Kaepernick, LeBron James and those NBA teams who chose to support BLM and other human rights issues.

Plus, the way Jason Adam put it, who acted as a de facto spokesman for this crew, they claimed it was a "lifestyle choice" as if they weren't born this way. That's pretty naive.

Anyway, don't want to turn this baseball thread into political theater, but being against human rights causes shows these players have a level of bigotry that's better left private.

[Bene Futuis]

why should they be forced to support something that they are not comfortable with?

The only thing saving these bigots is the fact that they're union, which ironically is something I bet they're largely against. Or perhaps this is protected bigotry under Title (3? 9? can't remember) of the Civil Rights Act. But, yes, employees can be forced all the time in tons of different situations to support something they are not comfortable with, unless their discomfort activity is protected by the Civil Rights Act. I mean, if you've ever held a job you have likely been forced to support something you're not comfortable with.

Edit: Imagine if they weren't comfortable with supporting Jackie Robinson day, for similar reasons.

[Sour Masher]

I think the bigger issue is that we still have not seen a single active major league baseball player come out. That says more about the culture of exclusion that persists than anything. It is a statistical improbability that no current players are gay. I don't think anyone needs to wear their sexuality or their support for same literally on their sleeves, and it all seems just like an empty symbol given that the underlying culture of exclusion that makes people hide who they are, even now, continues.

Part of it is that faith is still a big part of sports. Fahim Anwar has a great bit on that--he wants to become a great high school football coach and lead the team in Muslim prayer. The joke being a lot of folks wouldn't like it, but would tolerate it because he wins games.

[cleo]

What if the team had a Christian Fellowship night and some players did not want to wear a patch that supported that cause? I am sure that that would have made a much larger news story, which is sad. Why should MLB not have a Devil Worship night to support that cause as well? I am sure that a number of players would not wear that patch. Good for those who support it and good for those who don't.

What ever that cause is, I do support people to have the right to their own opinion.

[heyelander]

Must be their poor lifestyle choice.

You think G_d would have rewarded them. Must be punishing all the guys who wore them I guess.

[DMT]

What if the team had a Christian Fellowship night and some players did not want to wear a patch that supported that cause? I am sure that that would have made a much larger news story, which is sad. Why should MLB not have a Devil Worship night to support that cause as well? I am sure that a number of players would not wear that patch. Good for those who support it and good for those who don't.

What ever that cause is, I do support people to have the right to their own opinion.

So you would support players refusing to honor Jackie Robinson then? If not, why not?

[cleo]

So you would support players refusing to honor Jackie Robinson then? If not, why not?

I should have tried to explain my earlier post a litter more. It is not the event that I have an issue with, it was the reaction to players not supporting the event that I had issue with. Would I support a player that refused to honor Jackie Robinson, No. Would I support their right to do this, Yes.

[Sour Masher]

I should have tried to explain my earlier post a litter more. It is not the event that I have an issue with, it was the reaction to players not supporting the event that I had issue with. Would I support a player that refused to honor Jackie Robinson, No. Would I support their right to do this, Yes.

I support their right to refuse to wear it and I am grateful the words they said with their refusal were more measured than maybe some of them wanted them to be. It just amazes me given how much most of the country has moved on gay acceptance that the sports culture still has so many people in the closet. Of course, everyone has a right to keep their private lives private, but clearly there still exist a culture that keeps people in the closet on male team sports. The choice of several players not to wear a patch supporting gay acceptance seems to show part of the reason why some still stay in the closet. Frankly, I'd bet more players did not want to wear the patch, but did not want to deal with the backlash. If we are really down to just five or so players per team who are openly against gayness, that is a lot more accepting than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.

[harmon]

1:54 game vs Cards.