Current Events > Flyers players refuses to wear Pride jersey, cites religion

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://apnews.com/article/sports-dayton-flyers-lgbtq-people-ivan-provorov-religion-0390903b8f3bbb0a42910fe83b0228bd

Tortorella praised him for "always being true to himself" which apparently includes being a shitty prick.

Just a reminder, the same coach said hed bench any player that kneeled for the anthem during the BLM protests.

So take a guess as to who he voted for.

Fuck Torts, always and forever.

and while Provorov's hate seems genuine, i'll give him a slight pass in so much as it might literally be illegal for him to wear that jersey. Should have just healthy scratch'd him, though. and not talked about it at all.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

People would be calling for a foreign player's immediate deportation if they protested America, but protesting LGBTQ people is apparently just fine.

One more reason to cheer for the Rangers instead.

AloneIBreak posted...

One more reason to cheer for the Rangers instead.

they still have Tort-funk on them, too.

At least he's smart enough to keep his mouth shut about it.

While I don't agree with his viewpoint, I understand and respect it.

I respect everybodys choices, Provorov said after the game. My choice is to stay true to myself and my religion. Thats all Im going to say.

While I personally think he's 100% wrong, who are we to chastise him for his religious beliefs? In his eyes, as wrong as you may feel they are, homosexuality is a sin and is wrong.

He's not, to our knowledge, going out and spreading messages of hate towards any group, just expressing his freedom of religion.

I look at it no differently than being religious and not remaining friends with someone because you found out they cheated on their wife. Adultery is just as much of a sin as homosexuality to some.

NOT to me, but to some.

NOT Deangelo?

Could've fooled my ass o.O

Ok and? The first amendment protects his right to do so. Don't like it? Move.

Dragon56 posted...

Ok and? The first amendment protects his right to do so. Don't like it? Move.

You have the right to do a lot of things that are bad. Like he's doing. And we have the right to call him an asshole, which he is.

Dragon56 posted...

Ok and? The first amendment protects his right to do so. Don't like it? Move.

You feel that way when Kaep was kneeling during the anthem?

does he, though? obviously, he wouldn't be allowed to protest playing in the normal Orange and Black jersey. that's part of being on the team. why should this official team requirement be any different?

bigblu89 posted...

While I don't agree with his viewpoint, I understand and respect it.

While I personally think he's 100% wrong, who are we to chastise him for his religious beliefs? In his eyes, as wrong as you may feel they are, homosexuality is a sin and is wrong.

He's not, to our knowledge, going out and spreading messages of hate towards any group, just expressing his freedom of religion.

I look at it no differently than being religious and not remaining friends with someone because you found out they cheated on their wife. Adultery is just as much of a sin as homosexuality to some.

NOT to me, but to some.

Sadly pretty much this - hes not actively spreading propaganda and hate or attacking people, its a silent protest akin to kneeling for the anthem during BLM (I know they are not remotely the same and BLM is a far more legitimate issue / movement than evangelical christian hatred).

Fuck the coach though for punishing the kneeling protests and praising this. Fucking Trump boot licker too I bet.

The link posted has me expecting the Dayton Flyers. Instead, I get hit with the Philadelphia Flyers.

A_Good_Boy posted...

You feel that way when Kaep was kneeling during the anthem?

Yeah, the anthem is not special to me. And even if it were, I support protest in all form.

Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov cited his Russian Orthodox religion as the reason he did not participate in pregame warmups when the team wore Pride-themed jerseys and used sticks wrapped in rainbow Pride tape.

So this was just a pre-game thing? Who cares if players participate or not.

voldothegr8 posted...

So this was just a pre-game thing? Who cares if players participate or not.

The media.

Strife drives interest.

They should've deactivated him for the game then.

Even DeAngelo wore his, like come on.

voldothegr8 posted...

So this was just a pre-game thing? Who cares if players participate or not.

Because sitting out pre-game stuff that's meant to get you ready for the game because you're a pissy little bitch is being Grade-A bitchmade.

If he didn't want to participate with his team then he shouldn't have played.

Medussa posted...

does he, though? obviously, he wouldn't be allowed to protest playing in the normal Orange and Black jersey. that's part of being on the team. why should this official team requirement be any different?

I don't know if this is true, at all, but there may be something in his contract where he could decline playing in a situation like this.

It was also just pregame warmups, not the game itself.

voldothegr8 posted...

So this was just a pre-game thing? Who cares if players participate or not.

the entire point is to show that everyone is welcome. also, the pens auctioned their jerseys off for charity. i assume the rest of the league does, too. so, less participation, less donations.

Bio1590 posted...

They should've deactivated him for the game then.

Even DeAngelo wore his, like come on.

Because sitting out pre-game stuff that's meant to get you ready for the game because you're a pissy little bitch is being Grade-A bitchmade.

If he didn't want to participate with his team then he shouldn't have played.

Lets play a little Devil's Advocate here.

Let's say the owner of the Flyers is a staunch republican, and did "Maga Night" where the pregame jersey had a MAGA Hat logo patch on the jersey.

Would you feel the same way if a player refused to warmup in that jersey?

bigblu89 posted...

While I don't agree with his viewpoint, I understand and respect it.

While I personally think he's 100% wrong, who are we to chastise him for his religious beliefs? In his eyes, as wrong as you may feel they are, homosexuality is a sin and is wrong.

He's not, to our knowledge, going out and spreading messages of hate towards any group, just expressing his freedom of religion.

I look at it no differently than being religious and not remaining friends with someone because you found out they cheated on their wife. Adultery is just as much of a sin as homosexuality to some.

NOT to me, but to some.

I don't know man, there's a point where the beliefs are just not acceptable. Would you be defending this guy if he was "silently protesting" something like interractial marriage, or the fact that black people are allowed to attend games? remember, people used to use religion as a justification for racism.

this dude is flat out against the fact that homosexual people exist. i don't think that is ever OK, even when it's behind the guise of "religious freedom".

sorry, but "religious freedom" does not grant anyone the right to hate people for existing. and I bet I can easily find dozens of instances where this dude goes against other rules in The Bible (like the nonsense in Leviticus) and has no problem with it. do you see him "Silently protesting" shellfish, or wearing mixed fibers in clothing? absolutely not.

Dragon56 posted...

Ok and? The first amendment protects his right to do so. Don't like it? Move.

*looks around*

Is anyone calling for him to be arrested? Sounds like his first amendment rights are being protected.

And believe it or not, calling someone out for being a tool is also a protected first amendment right.

putin Russian culture is a disease

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/9/3/AACqoEAADav5.jpg

Giant_Aspirin posted...

I don't know man, there's a point where the beliefs are just not acceptable. Would you be defending this guy if he was "silently protesting" something like interractial marriage, or the fact that black people are allowed to attend games? remember, people used to use religion as a defense for racism.

this dude is flat out against the fact that homosexual people exist. i don't think that is ever OK, even when it's behind the guise of "religious freedom"

Key word there is "used to".

And at this point, all we can do is take the man at his word. And he is quoted as saying

I respect everybodys choices, my choice is to stay true to myself and my religion. Thats all Im going to say.

So it's not like he is out there actively protesting or railing against the LGBTQ+ community. At least not to my knowledge. He's just silently expressing his freedom of religion. He also, to me at least, acknowledged that not everyone agrees with him, and respects the difference of beliefs.

i'll ask you again: would you be defending his decision if he was acting racist, instead of homophobic? if he was "protesting" the fact that black people are allowed to attend the games by citing his "religious freedom", would you hold the same views?

there comes a point when we, as a society, need to push back on abhorrent religious stances, rooted in hate, that have no place in modern society.

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i'll ask you again: would you be defending his decision if he was acting racist, instead of homophobic? if he was "protesting" the fact that black people are allowed to attend the games by citing his "religious freedom", would you hold the same views?

But he isn't "acting homophobic". He's not actively doing anything to harm the LGBTQ+ community. He even acknowledged that his religious viewpoints is not everyone's viewpoint, and respects other's views on the matter.

You're asking me a question for a situation that does not exist.

Once you show me a religion that currently rails against black people attending hocky games, we can have this discussion in good faith.

Suspend him tbqh

This has nothing to do with his religion. If he was truly a hardline adherent to Russian Orthodoxy he wouldn't be living with his girlfriend, yet he is.

He's just a bigoted piece of shit.

bigblu89 posted...

Lets play a little Devil's Advocate here.

Let's say the owner of the Flyers is a staunch republican, and did "Maga Night" where the pregame jersey had a MAGA Hat logo patch on the jersey.

Would you feel the same way if a player refused to warmup in that jersey?

How is this even an equivalent situation

The article isn't even going to show the jersey? "Oh, look. Two hockey players landed butt to butt. That'll make a great pic for our LGBTQ article. Tee hee hee."

Anyway, it's shitty to be anti-LGBTQ in the name of religion. Or for any other reason.

Bio1590 posted...

How is this even an equivalent situation

Someone refusing to do something based on their belief structure, religious or otherwise.

This has nothing to do with his religion. If he was truly a hardline adherent to Russian Orthodoxy he wouldn't be living with his girlfriend, yet he is.

I have no knowledge of this player other than what was in the AP article originally posted. If that is the case, than it is very hypocritical of him to site religion to protest one aspect, but not another.

And like I said in my original response, I 100% disagree with his stance, just had no issues with him expressing them.

bigblu89 posted...

But he isn't "acting homophobic". He's not actively doing anything to harm the LGBTQ+ community. He even acknowledged that his religious viewpoints is not everyone's viewpoint, and respects other's views on the matter.

You're asking me a question for a situation that does not exist.

Once you show me a religion that currently rails against black people attending hocky games, we can have this discussion in good faith.

silence is violence

bigblu89 posted...

Key word there is "used to".

And at this point, all we can do is take the man at his word. And he is quoted as saying

So it's not like he is out there actively protesting or railing against the LGBTQ+ community. At least not to my knowledge. He's just silently expressing his freedom of religion. He also, to me at least, acknowledged that not everyone agrees with him, and respects the difference of beliefs.

No buddy. Being against homosexuality now is just as bad as Mormons in 1980 people against interracial marriage. Equally wrong, equally awful. It's a negative personality trait to be against homosexuality, full stop.

I don't see posts #20, #23, #33, and #35.

I'm just going to assume they're playing devil's advocate.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

No buddy. Being against homosexuality now is just as bad as Mormons in 1980 people against interracial marriage. Equally wrong, equally awful. It's a negative personality trait to be against homosexuality, full stop.

100% this.

Being anti-lgbt+ is wrong.
Full stop.
No respect for bigots, they should all be loudly and publicly shamed for being disgusting.

FortuneCookie posted...

I don't see posts #20, #23, #33, and #35.

I'm just going to assume they're playing devil's advocate.

It's two people and you're half right, as one of them starts post 23 with literally "lets play devil's advocate" lol

bigblu89 posted...

Someone refusing to do something based on their belief structure, religious or otherwise.

The NHL as an organization is literally openly and staunchly pro-LGBTQ.

An owner trying to pull some pro-MAGA shit would *never* be allowed by the NHL. They aren't equivalent situations at all.

SenlinDescends posted...

It's two people and you're half right, as one of them starts post 23 with literally "lets play devil's advocate" lol

Heh.
Thanks.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

No buddy. Being against homosexuality now is just as bad as Mormons in 1980 people against interracial marriage. Equally wrong, equally awful. It's a negative personality trait to be against homosexuality, full stop.

Which is basically what I said in my original post.

He has a right to protest, and we have a right to tell him he's 100% wrong.

I'm not talking about whether or not what he did was right or wrong, as I feel his viewpoint is 100000% wrong, but if he has the right to do it.

Which he does.

He can say and do whatever he wants, within the law, and we can judge him based off those actions.

Bio1590 posted...

The NHL as an organization is literally openly and staunchly pro-LGBTQ.

An owner trying to pull some pro-MAGA shit would *never* be allowed by the NHL. They aren't equivalent situations at all.

Which is why it was a hypothetical.

Again, I'm not saying what he did was RIGHT, just that he's within his right to do it.

bigblu89 posted...

But he isn't "acting homophobic". He's not actively doing anything to harm the LGBTQ+ community. He even acknowledged that his religious viewpoints is not everyone's viewpoint, and respects other's views on the matter.

"I refuse to demonstrate my support for the cause because I don't believe those people should exist" is very much "acting homophobic" and is actively harming the community.

bigblu89 posted...

You're asking me a question for a situation that does not exist.

it's called a "hypothetical" and it's a thought experiment to see if you are consistent in your views.

bigblu89 posted...

we can have this discussion in good faith.

ah, the old "i can't make a solid point here so I'll accuse you of acting in bad faith" tactic.

let's try this again. are you trying to argue that any belief should be tolerated as long as it's made for "religious freedom"?

OK. I'm done.

Flyers suck anyway.

bigblu89 posted...

Which is basically what I said in my original post.

He has a right to protest, and we have a right to tell him he's 100% wrong.

I'm not talking about whether or not what he did was right or wrong, as I feel his viewpoint is 100000% wrong, but if he has the right to do it.

Which he does.

He can say and do whatever he wants, within the law, and we can judge him based off those actions.

When someone's stance is rooted in hate and bigotry, they no longer have a free pass to spout it without consequence.

Sure the government can't chastise them for it, but we the public can and should.

Fuck bigots.

bigblu89 posted...

I have no knowledge of this player other than what was in the AP article originally posted. If that is the case, than it is very hypocritical of him to site religion to protest one aspect, but not another.

The problem is far too many "religious" people do this. Religion is personal and you can believe whatever you want. There's no reason you can't be Russian Orthodox and support gay people because you are the master of your own religion. That's how it should be. You just can't hide behind it in an attempt to justify your terrible personal beliefs.

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

The problem is far too many "religious" people do this. Religion is personal and you can believe whatever you want. There's no reason you can't be Russian Orthodox and support gay people because you are the master of your own religion. That's how it should be. You just can't hide behind it in an attempt to justify your terrible personal beliefs.

Thats always been my problem with religion.

It isnt a buffet, where you can pick and choose what you want to believe. You need to jump in that pool with no life preserver and sink or swim based on that belief structure.

bigblu89 posted...

Thats always been my problem with religion.

It isnt a buffet, where you can pick and choose what you want to believe.

You absolutely 100% can pick and choose.
Why do you think Christianity has so many branches and sects?

It's entirely possible to be religious and not be a disgusting hateful person.