Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Outsports.com

"Jaden Ivey has been making a lot of noise on social media as of late for all the wrong reasons.

As the Chicago Bulls guard has been struggling to recover from a knee injury suffered before the 2025-2026 NBA season, Ivey has been taking to Instagram to go on religious rants.

Fans have noticed his long-winded rambling often leads to him saying some questionable things about the world around him, and this culminated in a homophobic tangent in which the fourth-year guard criticized the NBA for recognizing LGBTQ Pride Month. "

The truth is always less radical than the left make it out to be. Here is what he actually said:

His point is that it is not righteous. AKA it is against his deeply held religious beliefs. For that, he lost his job. He said nothing derogatory about anyone. He never threatened anyone. All he did was disagree with "holding up" sin.

 

The NBA needs to be fined fined by the US government for their bigotry. 

 

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted

Dumb thread, dumb take. 

Standards of behavior--especially public-facing behavior--exist at every company in the world. Employers can establish consequences for violation of those standards. Again, every business. People are allowed to believe whatever dumb shit they want, but if they start spouting off in ways that don't align with the corporate standards they can be penalized according to the employment agreement or even fired. 

Welcome to America. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 2
Posted
40 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Dumb thread, dumb take. 

Standards of behavior--especially public-facing behavior--exist at every company in the world. Employers can establish consequences for violation of those standards. Again, every business. People are allowed to believe whatever dumb shit they want, but if they start spouting off in ways that don't align with the corporate standards they can be penalized according to the employment agreement or even fired. 

Welcome to America. 

How many woman beaters are allowed to continue playing in the NBA? The answer is many. 

  • Like 2
Posted
55 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Dumb thread, dumb take. 

Standards of behavior--especially public-facing behavior--exist at every company in the world. Employers can establish consequences for violation of those standards. Again, every business. People are allowed to believe whatever dumb shit they want, but if they start spouting off in ways that don't align with the corporate standards they can be penalized according to the employment agreement or even fired. 

Welcome to America. 

Not if they espoused religious beliefs that the employer uses as the basis of dismissal. You can't fire Abdullah for saying "Allah is great". That is religious discrimination. 

Ivey just said he did not agree with promoting sin. Ok. So what? He did not say anything homophobic, that was a lie by the article. He just didn't want the sin promoted. 

Plus, he was not fired for disparaging the league. He was fired for harming team unity, which did not appear to happen. 

58 minutes ago, robosmith said:

A LOT of people lose their jobs for criticizing their BOSS in PUBLIC.

Colbert LOST his SHOW, for HIGH PROFILE criticism of HIS BOSS Shari Redstone for paying "a big fat bribe."

Colbert lost his job because his ratings are trash, his ad revenue is nil and his costs are insanely high. Not for whatever fantasy you have about his dismissal. 

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Hodad said:

dumb take

Yeah, but not below your avg.

Quote

Standards of behavior--especially public-facing behavior--exist at every company in the world. Employers can establish consequences for violation of those standards. Again, every business. People are allowed to believe whatever dumb shit they want, but if they start spouting off in ways that don't align with the corporate standards they can be penalized according to the employment agreement or even fired. 

Wait a sec: not that long ago left4rds were the standard-bearers for "PEOPLE CAN WEAR SHIRTS WITH WHATEVER POLITICAL SLOGANS THEY WANT TO WORK AND IT'S A VIOLATION OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IF THEIR EMPLOYERS SAY OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!"

Now you're trying to do a 180° to the common sense side? F-off, Hodad. We don't have room for hypocrites here.

 

To be fair, Ivey crossed a line by saying that having pride month was "celebrating LGBTQ unrighteousness". 

That's borderline hate speech, and it is an attempt by him to curtail the NBA's right to have their own opinions.

It would have been fair for Ivey to say that "forcing him to wear any form of LGBTQ paraphernalia constituted "compelled speech", and the NBA had no right whatsoever to do so", but he attacked that issue from an angle that ran afoul of a lot of laws.

It seems like a small distinction, but it's not.

 

I don't think that Ivey is gonna be screwed though. I think that his NBA brothers will probably lawyer up [maybe even against the plaers' union] and set this entire issue straight. Because it's a real stretch for the NBA to adopt this slogan that many players stand firmly against, and force everyone to say it, or at least show tacit support for it, by playing games where that theme is front and centre. Regardless of what the players are forced to sign up for in their NBA contracts, I don't think that free speech laws will enable the NBA to enforce clauses on players' contracts that include that level of compelled speech in any way, shape or form.  

 

This is an interesting issue, and how it plays out is gonna say a lot about the integrity of America's legal system. 

Edited by WestCanMan

If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

"I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul

"It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot

Posted
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah, but not below your avg.

Wait a sec: not that long ago left4rds were the standard-bearers for "PEOPLE CAN WEAR SHIRTS WITH WHATEVER POLITICAL SLOGANS THEY WANT TO WORK AND IT'S A VIOLATION OF THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IF THEIR EMPLOYERS SAY OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!"

Now you're trying to do a 180° to the common sense side? F-off, Hodad. We don't have room for hypocrites here.

 

To be fair, Ivey crossed a line by saying that having pride month was "celebrating LGBTQ unrighteousness". 

That's borderline hate speech, and it is an attempt by him to curtail the NBA's right to have their own opinions.

It would have been fair for Ivey to say that "forcing him to wear any form of LGBTQ paraphernalia constituted "compelled speech", and the NBA had no right whatsoever to do so", but he attacked that issue from an angle that ran afoul of a lot of laws.

It seems like a small distinction, but it's not.

 

I don't think that Ivey is gonna be screwed though. I think that his NBA brothers will probably lawyer up [maybe even against the plaers' union] and set this entire issue straight. Because it's a real stretch for the NBA to adopt this slogan that many players stand firmly against, and force everyone to say it, or at least show tacit support for it, by playing games where that theme is front and centre. Regardless of what the players are forced to sign up for in their NBA contracts, I don't think that free speech laws will enable the NBA to enforce clauses on players' contracts that include that level of compelled speech in any way, shape or form.  

 

This is an interesting issue, and how it plays out is gonna say a lot about the integrity of America's legal system. 

I'll wait patiently for you to quote me on any of that BS you're trying to attribute to me. But you're a shameless liar, and you know full well that you made it up, so I won't hold my breath. You lack the smarts to make a legitimate argument and the integrity to own up to lying. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 3
Posted
4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Outsports.com

"Jaden Ivey has been making a lot of noise on social media as of late for all the wrong reasons.

As the Chicago Bulls guard has been struggling to recover from a knee injury suffered before the 2025-2026 NBA season, Ivey has been taking to Instagram to go on religious rants.

Fans have noticed his long-winded rambling often leads to him saying some questionable things about the world around him, and this culminated in a homophobic tangent in which the fourth-year guard criticized the NBA for recognizing LGBTQ Pride Month. "

The truth is always less radical than the left make it out to be. Here is what he actually said:

His point is that it is not righteous. AKA it is against his deeply held religious beliefs. For that, he lost his job. He said nothing derogatory about anyone. He never threatened anyone. All he did was disagree with "holding up" sin.

 

The NBA needs to be fined fined by the US government for their bigotry. 

 

I quit watching or following the NBA years ago when they sold out to China.

They're id1ots.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

So what? He did not say anything homophobic, that was a lie by the article. He just didn't want the sin promoted. 

You want to make up your mind there? lol  -- That's like saying that the fact of a person being Black is a sin, but pretending it's not racist to say that. 🙄

Your pretzel-tastic semantic argument aside it doesn't matter how you want to spin it, the employer was celebrating Pride and he went out of the way to send the opposite message as publicly as he can. 

If his nutball beliefs are not compatible with with the stated objectives of his employer, the valid options are to keep his mouth shut on that issue or to resign. That's what grown ups do. 

Though "conservatives" are typically saying "Shut up and dribble" I'm all for athletes being citizens who can speak out on political issues. They are entitled to free speech like everyone else. But, also like everyone else, when they cross the line and start saying shit that can cost the employer money, it's fair play to pull the plug. 

Edited by Hodad
  • Downvote 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I quit watching or following the NBA years ago when they sold out to China.

They're id1ots.

I really quit watching when Jordan retired. He was a must watch. There has not been another Jordan, yet. 

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted

Wow, it's like I'm psychic! (Or, you know, just live in reality.)

Bulls coach Billy Donovan talked about the decision to waive Ivey before Chicago’s game against the San Antonio Spurs on Monday.

“I think there’s a certain level of standards and expectations that are here,” Donovan said. “I mean, we have people from all different walks of life working in the building and players from all different walks of life, right? So, the first thing is, everybody comes with their own personal experiences. But one is, we’ve got to all be professional. I think there’s got to be a high level of respect for one another, and we got to help each other and then be accountable to those standards.”

  • Downvote 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I really quit watching when Jordan retired. He was a must watch. There has not been another Jordan, yet. 

True Dat.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You want to make up your mind there? lol  -- That's like saying that the fact of a person being Black is a sin, but pretending it's not racist to say that. 🙄

Oh good gawd. You can do better. Skin color is not analogous to actions. Do better.

 

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Your pretzel-tastic semantic argument aside it doesn't matter how you want to spin it, the employer was celebrating Pride and he went out of the way to send the opposite message as publicly as he can. 

By deleting all of his social media and only posting on one? That is the most that he can? He was talking to his followers about how his faith is troubled by his employers actions. That is federally protected speech. 

 

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Though "conservatives" are typically saying "Shut up and dribble" I'm all for athletes being citizens who can speak out on political issues.

Show me one person that said they should be fired? Fans don't have to like Ivey for his views. But the NBA never fired any player for liberal views. Hell, an office employee celebrated Kirk's death and only got suspended after backlash. 

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Wow, it's like I'm psychic! (Or, you know, just live in reality.)

Bulls coach Billy Donovan talked about the decision to waive Ivey before Chicago’s game against the San Antonio Spurs on Monday.

“I think there’s a certain level of standards and expectations that are here,” Donovan said. “I mean, we have people from all different walks of life working in the building and players from all different walks of life, right? So, the first thing is, everybody comes with their own personal experiences. But one is, we’ve got to all be professional. I think there’s got to be a high level of respect for one another, and we got to help each other and then be accountable to those standards.”

Who did he disrespect? We are all sinners. Saying we shouldn't celebrate sin does not call out anyone. 

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted
24 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh good gawd. You can do better. Skin color is not analogous to actions. Do better.

 

🙄Except that skin color and sexual orientation are EXACTLY analogous. They are both intrinsic, immutable characteristics of an individual which are incapable of harming others. 

Quote

By deleting all of his social media and only posting on one? That is the most that he can? He was talking to his followers about how his faith is troubled by his employers actions. That is federally protected speech. 

 

No, it's not federally protected speech, aside from the fact that governments (including federal) are constitutionally prohibited from curbing it. As always, free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. Again, welcome to America. I think you'll have a good time learning about our laws, culture and customs. 

 

Quote

Show me one person that said they should be fired? Fans don't have to like Ivey for his views. But the NBA never fired any player for liberal views. Hell, an office employee celebrated Kirk's death and only got suspended after backlash. 

Who did he disrespect? We are all sinners. Saying we shouldn't celebrate sin does not call out anyone. 

You're being obtuse. The charitable interpretation is deliberately obtuse, but who can say?

It is certainly disrespectful to say that the simple fact of someone's existence is a sin--and apparently one of which they are meant to feel ashamed. And if you don't think that's disrespectful enough, you should see what he said about Catholics. 

BTW, I'm looking forward to your full-throated condemnation of the NFL for their treatment of Colin Kaepernick would. Which, in contrast, was legitimate and principled political speech rather than crazy homophobic rants.🙄 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Hodad said:

🙄Except that skin color and sexual orientation are EXACTLY analogous. They are both intrinsic, immutable characteristics of an individual which are incapable of harming others. 

This completely invalidates your position. 

42 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, it's not federally protected speech, aside from the fact that governments (including federal) are constitutionally prohibited from curbing it.

Do you want to think about that for a while? 

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted
45 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You're being obtuse. The charitable interpretation is deliberately obtuse, but who can say?

Am I? Or...are you just trying to invalidate my opinion because you recognize you are losing this argument? 

 

45 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It is certainly disrespectful to say that the simple fact of someone's existence is a sin--

That is not what he said. He said the act was a sin. Not the existence.

46 minutes ago, Hodad said:

BTW, I'm looking forward to your full-throated condemnation of the NFL for their treatment of Colin Kaepernick would.

Kaepernick was not renewed because he was not very good. He won a Super Bowl, but the only reason he was in it was because his back up got him there. He only averaged 4.5 completions per quarter in his best season. 

  • Like 1

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Hodad said:

I'll wait patiently for you to quote me on any of that BS you're trying to attribute to me. But you're a shameless liar, and you know full well that you made it up, so I won't hold my breath.

This forum no longer has a "search" function because it was quickly becoming a compendium of crushed left4rd talking points and the conservative conspiracy theories that replaced them in the "established facts" category, and there was no way that the LPoC could allow it all to be indexed for quick confirmation. 

But I don't have to quote "you", cultist, because we all know that CNN's woketard mob was fighting for the rights of low-IQ Americans to wear BLM slogans on their clothes at work, and you have never, ever broken ranks with the left4rd cult, not even for one second, so the woket4rd mob's opinion always counts as "your opinion".

Do you wanna take the position that "left4rds were wrong to say that Starbucks had no right to prevent their employees from wearing BLM gear to work?

Can you say that right now?

Can you admit that Don Lemon and all the other snakes at CNN go it so wrong before?

Quote

You lack the smarts to make a legitimate argument and the integrity to own up to lying. 

No one thinks that you're telling the truth, Hodad. No one. 

If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

"I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul

"It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot

Posted
2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Wow, it's like I'm psychic! (Or, you know, just live in reality.)

Bulls coach Billy Donovan talked about the decision to waive Ivey before Chicago’s game against the San Antonio Spurs on Monday.

“I think there’s a certain level of standards and expectations that are here,” Donovan said. “I mean, we have people from all different walks of life working in the building and players from all different walks of life, right? So, the first thing is, everybody comes with their own personal experiences. But one is, we’ve got to all be professional. I think there’s got to be a high level of respect for one another, and we got to help each other and then be accountable to those standards.”

Yeah, it didn't play out that way when NBA players were caught telling kids to 'take a hike' when they came to ask for signatures.

Respect, accountability, and professionalism in the NBA are all directly proportional to "talent level".

Don't get me wrong, it's like that everywhere, and Ivey's case is no different.

If he was setting scoring records right now no one would even be talking about this. It would just quickly go away like a billion-dollar Trudeau scandal.

If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

"I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul

"It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot

Posted
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

No one thinks that you're telling the truth, Hodad. No one. 

No one believes you're telling truth, because you have NO EVIDENCE.

And you still won't admit it rained and Trump LIED. LMAO

Posted
3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

This completely invalidates your position. 

Do you want to think about that for a while? 

You wrote some words, but unfortunately couldn't manage an argument.

  • Downvote 1
Posted
3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This forum no longer has a "search" function because it was quickly becoming a compendium of crushed left4rd talking points and the conservative conspiracy theories that replaced them in the "established facts" category, and there was no way that the LPoC could allow it all to be indexed for quick confirmation. 

But I don't have to quote "you", cultist, because we all know that CNN's woketard mob was fighting for the rights of low-IQ Americans to wear BLM slogans on their clothes at work, and you have never, ever broken ranks with the left4rd cult, not even for one second, so the woket4rd mob's opinion always counts as "your opinion".

Do you wanna take the position that "left4rds were wrong to say that Starbucks had no right to prevent their employees from wearing BLM gear to work?

Can you say that right now?

Can you admit that Don Lemon and all the other snakes at CNN go it so wrong before?

No one thinks that you're telling the truth, Hodad. No one. 

Of course Starbucks had that right. Not even a question.

Now, it takes a real special kind of a-hole to be offended by "Black Lives Matter," but of course Starbucks is weeeeell within their rights to set a dress code. 

The nice thing about having actual principles is that I don't have to spin like a weathervane every time some jackass FOX news host gives Trump an on-air reach around on whatever issue will be the distraction of the week. -- You should try it. 

I honestly have no idea what news item this was it when it occurred. (I'm sure it's somewhere on you list of copy/paste grievances.) But if I were betting I'd say that you're conflating criticism of Starbucks' decision rather than any claim that they don't have a right to make such a decision. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Of course Starbucks had that right. Not even a question.

Now, it takes a real special kind of a-hole to be offended by "Black Lives Matter,"

 

And it was a real special kind of a-hole to be involved in "Black Lives Matter" as most of the "donations" to that diseased and awful "charity" were stolen by the founders and spent on mansions and personal expenses.  Total and disgusting fraud.  Of course it was.

As Democrat and Liberal governments fall, Republicans and Conservatives come to the rescue.

Posted
3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

 

That is not what he said. He said the act was a sin. Not the existence.

  

Ah, that old chestnut. It's complete nonsense, of course. Just religious nuts trying to reconcile their irrational hatred with the whole Jesus thing. 

Pride is a celebration of one's self as they are, in contrast to the shame and abuse that were once the norm in this society. It really couldn't be any plainer. If you're telling someone that they can't be proud of who they are--that they should feel shame instead--then you are indeed criticizing that person's very existence. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Ah, that old chestnut. It's complete nonsense, of course. Just religious nuts trying to reconcile their irrational hatred with the whole Jesus thing. 

Pride is a celebration of one's self as they are, in contrast to the shame and abuse that were once the norm in this society. It really couldn't be any plainer. If you're telling someone that they can't be proud of who they are--that they should feel shame instead--then you are indeed criticizing that person's very existence. 

Yes. We are saying no one should be proud of their sin. That is the point. That is his point. That is why what the Bulls are doing is so abhorrent. They fired him for a very basic tenant of Christianity. 

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...