Crossroads -- Yes, the Genesis rainbow is controversial
Major League Baseball wants complete control of their game's sacred vestments
Please rise, for the hymn of the day: “Take me out to the ball game, Take me out with the crowd; Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack, I don’t care if I never get back. Let me root, root, root for the home team, If they don’t win, it’s a shame. For it’s one, two, three strikes, you’re out, At the old ball game.”
Now, today’s reading from Major League Baseball’s book of the law and profits: “[a] Player may not write, attach, affix, embroider or otherwise display nicknames or messages on apparel or playing equipment.”
Unless, of course, the lords of baseball waive this law during some other special observance — such as Mother’s Day, linked to Breast Cancer Awareness Day.
Baseball fans probably know that this joke about the rites of America’s alleged National Pastime is linked to coverage of the news story that served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. The headline for the Associated Press report proclaimed: “MLB warns players about altering uniforms after Giants pitchers add Bible verses on Pride Night.” Here is some essential information, in the overture:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Major League Baseball has warned players about writing on their uniforms after San Francisco starter Landen Roupp and two other pitchers added Bible verses to their Pride Night caps last week.
Roupp started the 5-1 loss to the Chicago Cubs on Friday night with “Gen 9:12-16” written on his cap. A portion of the Bible verse overlapped the rainbow SF logo players wore for the Pride Night. San Francisco relievers JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker also added Bible verses to their caps.
Another Giants pitcher, left-hander Sam Hentges, wore the team’s standard black cap with the orange logo instead of the Pride Night version.
MLB issued a warning about future violations of the league’s uniform policy.
“The writing on the cap violates our rules and consistent with normal practice we have warned the players about future violations,” MLB said in its original statement.
The New York Times, along with AP and many other publications, noted that MLB officials quickly attempted to explain that the content that the players added to their caps was not the issue. The Times story said:
“To be clear, this routine verbal warning not to wear the hat in future games is not disciplinary and had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the message,” the league said in a follow. “We respect players’ right to free expression. However, writing of any kind, with any message, is prohibited per Major League Baseball’s uniform regulations. …
“We have given the same warning numerous times in the past to players for messages such as ‘Dad,’ ‘Happy Mother’s Day, I Love Mom’ and names of family members.”
In other words, baseball executives were saying that the Bible passage in question — Genesis 9: 12-16, or thereabouts — was not offensive, in and of itself.
In the podcast, I wondered if MLB leaders would have said the same thing if the pitchers had chosen to add one of the lightning-rod Bible verses — often called the “clobber passages” — consistently used in faith-defined public debates about homosexuality, gay marriage and gender identity.
However, the specific Genesis passage at the heart of this story focused on a potent symbol that was part of these players’ public stand — the rainbow. This quotation is from the New International Version:
And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
Thus, the players were scribbling a clear reference to the biblical rainbow right next to the rainbow icon that the San Francisco Giants had added to the official baseball cap for the Pride Night game.
Critics of these players may have linked their actions to the growing “Reclaim the Rainbow” movement and efforts to start alternative June celebrations focusing on centuries of religious teachings about sexuality, marriage and family.
However, it would also be possible to interpret the Genesis passage as an affirmation of God’s covenant with all of humanity — period. Consider the following clip from the progressives at “The View.”
Then again, it is important that this protest took place in San Francisco, long known as one of the most important U.S. cities in terms of LGBTQ+ clout and culture.
The Associated Press also noted that Major League Baseball has been on the front lines of efforts to promote corporate and community celebrations of Pride Month. The AP report linked that directly with one of the player’s defense of his symbolic action during the game:
MLB teams sometimes host Pride Nights during the regular season to support their LGBTQ+ fans. The league has been a leader among the four major U.S. pro sports in hosting Pride Nights, in part because its regular season overlaps with Pride Month in June. Many adopt rainbow-colored uniforms patches or logos, set up special signage around ballparks and invite guests including community leaders and drag performers.
The portion of the Genesis verse cited by Roupp on his hat included God’s promise to never again send a worldwide flood and the rainbow in the sky is the sign of that covenant.
“That’s just kind of something I believe in, and I stand firm in that, and I’m thankful we live in a country where, you know, we have the freedom to believe what we want … and express what we want,” Roupp told reporters.
It would have been appropriate if some of the news stories about this controversy had mentioned any other Pride Night festivities linked to this game.
After searching for that information, I asked for a summary from the Grok AI platform, which found this:
National anthem: It was performed by an LGBTQ-affirming nondenominational church (specific name not widely detailed in reports, but described this way in coverage of the event’s pregame elements). …
Other Pride Night festivities … included:
— Pregame and in-game celebrations with community performances and appearances.
— An on-field vow renewal ceremony for same-sex couples, hosted by drag queen Peaches Christ (with couples featured on the jumbotron).
— Special Pride-themed caps for players (most wore rainbow/progress Pride versions; this became controversial—see below).
— A special Pride jersey giveaway designed by artist Favianna Rodriguez (available with certain ticket packages).
— Postgame fireworks show featuring music by LGBTQIA+ artists.
Smartphone images of some of these festivities may exist somewhere in social media, but I was not able to find them. I assumed that Peaches Christ would have his/her own YouTube channel.
During the podcast, I stressed that this event represented a head-on collision between two important bodies of First Amendment case law.
First, it’s possible to view these players as employees who need to wear the uniforms mandated by their employers, in this case the San Francisco Giants, acting within the rules and regulations of Major League Baseball. Then again, courts could view disputes of this kind through a religious-liberty lens and say that it is wrong to force people to wear symbols and messages that violate their personal beliefs.
Looking ahead: What if all of the activist players had simply chosen to wear the regular home-game hat, as opposed to the Pride Night model? Would that have inspired an official ruling from MLB leaders?
Also, baseball’s powers that be may, sooner or later, have to deal with some franchises disagreeing of how to observe Pride Month — or not.
The San Francisco Giants management took a clear stance, after the game:
“Baseball should be a place where everyone feels welcome, respected, and valued,” the statement read, per The San Francisco Standard. “We also respect that individuals may make personal choices about participating in team activations.”
“We understand that the choices by individual players have caused pain and anger to many in the LGBTQ+ community and we are sorry for that,” the statement continued. “Those choices do not change our organization’s commitment to inclusion, belonging, and creating a welcoming environment for all. We remain grateful to our fans, partners, employees, players, and coaches who help make Pride Night a meaningful celebration.”
Then again, note this Yahoo!Sports feature published by USA Today: “The Texas Rangers are only MLB team without Pride Night. Why?” The overture for that story noted:
Fans attending MLB games in June may spot pride-themed celebrations around the league — except at Texas Rangers games.
The Rangers are the only Major League Baseball team that has never hosted a Pride Night, an event commonly held during Pride Month to recognize and celebrate the LGBTQIA+ community. In 2026, the team’s schedule again does not include a themed Pride Night for this specific cause.
Instead, the team’s community night schedule lists a “Faith and Family Night”on Thursday, June 18, in a game against the Minnesota Twins. The team is also set to recognize mental health awareness, military, first responders and healthcare workers in the month of June.
Stay tuned (please click). I imagine that these First Amendment dramas will continue. You think?
Thank you for the comments. I was on the road all day and not able to respond to comments as they came in. I will say this: At the end of the podcast, I noted that MLB could simply make one change in the policy and solve the standoff -- say that a player can always choose to wear the team's normal uniform, home or away, depending on the situation. What think ye all?
I don't feel welcomed and valued by MLB, I haven't watched in years. June is the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. They should wear the Sacred Heart emblem on their hats. No one would object, right?