This is tough call for the Dodgers and comes back to a common dilemma regarding how best to be inclusive – is an event inclusive when you include everyone or is an event inclusive when you create an atmosphere in which all people would be comfortable attending (here, religious LGBT individuals).
This reminds when of the times in which Pride groups sought to ban gay and lesbian police officers in order to make the event more comfortable for LGBT folks who don’t like the police.
I am so very glad I am not the one who has to make these sorts of decisions, but I can see where the religious folks could have a legitimate complaint in this one.
I understand a reluctance of fetishizing female religious leaders. But you can’t help but feel like it’s targeted when that line is drawn specifically for the LGBT community.
– not gay but drag queens
– not a “nun group” but a vaguely blasphemous/satanic parody of a religious order to clearly contrast with their self admitted sexual extremist vibe
At first this bothered me, and then I read that they self describe as anti-Catholic. I cant imagine any group being “anti-insertmajorreligionhere” being invited/featured in any major sports teams sponsored events.
Religious people are seriously the biggest fucking babies. No one bitches quite like religious assclowns. Las I checked it was the Catholic priests that are molesting children and not drag queens.
As a dodger fan, I’m embarrassed and disappointed by their stance on this (very un-LA of them too). Not very cash money of them.
CaptainButtFucker says
Makes sense. Pride night already probably annoys a lot of customers. Why make it worse by insulting their religion as well?
maxanderson350 says
This is tough call for the Dodgers and comes back to a common dilemma regarding how best to be inclusive – is an event inclusive when you include everyone or is an event inclusive when you create an atmosphere in which all people would be comfortable attending (here, religious LGBT individuals).
This reminds when of the times in which Pride groups sought to ban gay and lesbian police officers in order to make the event more comfortable for LGBT folks who don’t like the police.
MOS95B says
I am so very glad I am not the one who has to make these sorts of decisions, but I can see where the religious folks could have a legitimate complaint in this one.
sumdumhoe says
Sisters of perpetual indulgence
qwertysparrow says
Oh look. It’s not even pride month and we are already starting the “who do we exclude at pride?” Threads.
Smilingtiki says
I’m cool with <insert group> people just as long as they’re not in my face about it.
SpaceCatPower says
Oh look. Its nottheonion pitching a liberal ideology and hating on conservatives again.
I’m shocked…shocked. /s
thrown_ball82 says
Bigots
AM_Kylearan says
Psst … it’s because they are a hate group.
TKDbeast says
I understand a reluctance of fetishizing female religious leaders. But you can’t help but feel like it’s targeted when that line is drawn specifically for the LGBT community.
ModerateThuggery says
– not gay but drag queens
– not a “nun group” but a vaguely blasphemous/satanic parody of a religious order to clearly contrast with their self admitted sexual extremist vibe
Hogs_of_war232 says
At first this bothered me, and then I read that they self describe as anti-Catholic. I cant imagine any group being “anti-insertmajorreligionhere” being invited/featured in any major sports teams sponsored events.
Loganthered says
So, lesbian LARPers?
steeldragon88 says
This is because Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida, who is not a resident anywhere near there, complained.
pradbitt87 says
Religious people are seriously the biggest fucking babies. No one bitches quite like religious assclowns. Las I checked it was the Catholic priests that are molesting children and not drag queens.
As a dodger fan, I’m embarrassed and disappointed by their stance on this (very un-LA of them too). Not very cash money of them.