StrayDog

It is likely from people like some I've dealt with, but once I see a vest then they're in. If your friend is having trouble with getting a vested animal into pretty much anywhere, I'd be telling him to call a lawyer. Where I am (I don't know Canadian laws on it, but I assume they're pretty similar) that's a clear violation of the Disabilities Act.

There are also, sadly, too many jerks who abuse the legitimacy of service animals. I saw a couple in an art museum who left their "support animal" in its carrier near a statue; they left the room! It wasn't until security showed up a few minutes later to take the carrier to Lost & Found that the couple came running back in, yelling about how it was a needed support animal. Watching them try to explain to security about how important the dog was to their ability to function while not being able to answer how they forgot it was amusing. Not to mention how frustrating it is seeing people lying about why their "service animal" isn't wearing a vest, though. I see that on at least a weekly basis. I've had people flat out lie to me by suddenly remembering that their dog is a "service animal", somehow believing that telling me that a minute into the conversation, instead of at the beginning, is the silver bullet to make me allow their dog in.

You were discussing grown mean with their dingus out in front of children and how it's not ok (which, for the record, it totally isn't ok), but *something something* priests and altar boys *something something* and everyone is usually defending how it's an isolated incident and not part of the culture. The same holds true for the naked Pride paraders - it is an isolated incident by a few who took things too far. It is not indicative of all of the movement, but somehow you and others are using it as a reason why "all gays are bad"

I might answer deeper into this but Deb asked we try not to dig into religion.....

That's possible, but when asked all they said was "I love everyone but...". They said nothing about disagreeing with some aspects of Pride, which could have been done in a respectful way. I (at least) would have given them more of a pass if they did. Instead we got generic non-answers and a shoulder shrug. So all I'm left with is that they don't actually support inclusivity in hockey.

Because it's not good enough. If you support inclusivity in hockey then you'd wear the bloody jersey that shows your support. Not wearing the jersey shows that you don't actually support it. It's the equivalent of yelling "I got your back!" while you quietly exit the fight.

They're not being called bigots for not complying with what everyone else is doing; they're being called bigots because they had a chance to not be bigots and chose otherwise and then made noncommittal "I love everyone but..." statements.

They got it but didn't feel comfortable publicly supporting you? Sounds like they know they (and you) are in the wrong with comparing Pride to Nazism and would rather cower in the shadows. Or do they exist at all? Is this a moment of "I got a really hot girlfriend. No you can't meet her because she lives, like, in another country and can't video chat but trust me man, she's really hot!!"

I feel this is the crux of it all. If you are able to ignore all the other parts of scripture (who can work on holy days, having to attend religious services, tithing, and the "place" of women in society), then you can ignore this one other thing. If you can't ignore that one bit while turning away from all the others then your excuse is not "your religion"; it's bigotry.

Thank you for the explanation. I think I have a better understanding of your feelings on the situation, even if we do disagree about it. Frankly I doubt we will agree in any way on it, but I hope we can at least understand each others' viewpoint.

Nope, you did not point out any hypocrisy. You said: You equated a Pride shirt with a Nazi shirt, and then followed up by saying if we weren't going to love Nazis that we were not being inclusive. There was no point to miss because you never made one. If you claim that tossing in the religion card comment as a parting shot was your point, it was poorly done.

I'm sure you have an extra you can loan out, right? Do you realize the absurdity of implying you are more comfortable wearing a swastika than a rainbow? And no, I'm not going to love Nazis. Ever. More lives have been lost to that twisted version of "superiority" than pretty much anything else in human history. But thank you for letting us all know which shirt you'll wear

Um, I think we are all of us part of the group who can give reaction to things that happen in the league. We're called "fans". I accept my part in what happened. People calling out players for being homophobes (and I was one) were met with the resistance of "religious freedom!" and both sides amped up their rhetoric, including "you'll get the jerseys cancelled"

So then, if we can only control our own reactions but not the actions of others, why are you you so concerned at the actions of other fans and media. After all, you have no control over them, and more than we do the players

Christianity has been shoved in our face so much for the past couple of millennia. Some of us get it but we also have children that it is getting to the point where they are getting indoctrinated, I get it but let them make their own decisions when they at least hit puberty. And the sad thing is that it's really done more damage than it's doing good. And which decision is your boy making? Whether or not someone from the LGBTQ community is an actual human being with the right to live without fear of persecution? Because that is what Pride Night really is. What will you do if your son comes out as gay?