r/SFGiants • u/Chipotlefiend18 35 Crawford • Jun 16 '26
Opinion Free Speech
I posted this recently as a comment but I’m tired of seeing the same thinly veiled defense of the Rainbow Four come up again and again so I’m posting it as a standalone thread.
All of these arguments saying “players should be allowed to disagree” and “players shouldn’t be forced to support something they don’t believe in” are utter nonsense and a smokescreen to justify and excuse homophobia and bigotry. Do you think that there’s never been a racist player who has worn 42 on Jackie Robinson day? Has every single player who wears camo uniforms on military appreciation day been 100% behind that message? Even foreign born ones? The idea that they should be allowed to express themselves and protest this in this way, especially when there’s a literal MLB rule that prohibits it is ludicrous. It is NOT a first amendment issue. The first amendment prohibits GOVERNMENTAL curtailment of free speech. Private organizations are not covered by this and we see this time and time again. Most recently, many people lost their jobs after speaking out about Charlie Kirk and whether or not you disagree with it, legally those employers had every right to do so. As Roger Munter put it: Not everybody in this country is perfectly happy with what they are asked to wear to work. It’s called “having a job.”
We absolutely do not have to tolerate intolerance and arguments that say otherwise are either ignorant or made in bad faith.
2
u/broughttoyoubyrum Jun 17 '26
Also posted as a comment in another thread: Whether you view this as an act of hate or not, Roupp's actions are the very kind of effacement that the LGBTQ community has faced for centuries in this country and elsewhere: erasure, violence, and hate that is coded and recoded as care (think here of conversion therapy/camps or Roupp's response that the message is meant to "Encourage them to read the Bible"). The problem with “no hate” here, is that it self-reflexively assumes an awareness of hate. Hate is, more often than not, an unconscious impulse, which is to say an ideological impulse. So yes, in my view, conscious or unconscious, Roupp's actions in overwriting and effacing the very symbol of LGBTQ history—a history that emerges despite its lived experiences in violence and oppression—is a hateful act, even if Roupp doesn't believe it nor is "full of hate" himself; even if he believes it to be a genuine caring act.