14 Comments
User's avatar
tmatt's avatar

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?

Antonia D's avatar

I read that in this case, the players COULD have decided to wear the regular uniform, but instead chose to push back against the LGBTQ agenda. Good for them! I think players & fans should do MUCH more to (peacefully) challenge this insidious, demonic project.

I’m Catholic, but I’m going to recommend a book by a Protestant… “The Return of the Gods” by Jonathan Cahn.

Dana Ames's avatar

This makes the most sense, which is why it probably won't happen...

Dana

Matt Burrill's avatar

It's a great option, but LBGTs won't be satisfied with it. Wearing the regular team hat will be evidence of hate and the controversies will continue.

tmatt's avatar

If the MLB rules are what the commissioner said, the Pride uniforms are gone except in LA and San Fran.

James's avatar

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?

tmatt's avatar

The key is that LGBTQ+ wants to be seen as the equal of RACE. MLB does several special games each year linked to honoring legendary players of different races.

James's avatar

Race is a characteristic. Really it’s just skin color and means nothing more than your hair color. Sexual acts are different. It is a behavior. I don’t need to approve a behavior. Especially if I believe it is immoral behavior. This is forcing people to violate their conscience, religion, and speech. This is why approval of homosexuality is diminishing. Their focus on children is disturbing. They are courting a backlash and will have no claim for tolerance, a word they no longer use.

Pamela's avatar

If Pride supporters are hurt and offended that players wrote Bible verses that reference God establishing the rainbow, it should be crystal clear to them why Bible believers are hurt and offended by Pride supporters depicting the rainbow for their cause. If one group can do it, why can't the other -- which in truth "had" it first before it was usurped?

Patrick O'Brien's avatar

Mr. Mattingly, I am not sure why I just received your note here but thank you. I remember you from your Denver days. Timely article. And the next time upset players (and I would have been one of them) want to write something in protest, they should write Gen 9:12-16 on their foreheads.

Shelley Smith's avatar

As a San Francisco Bay Area native, the Giants are my lifelong team. I have watched the Giants organization have all kinds of game night celebrations. All are welcomed and appreciated. What I don't appreciate is the way the LGBTQ platform is defended and politicized by the organization over their players. We go to games to see our favorite players play ball.

wjp's avatar

As a past employee of a national laboratory, we were obligated to annually undergo certain training. Most of the time, this training had to do with security, but I'm fairly certain we may have had to take some training relative to treating fellow employees of all stripes fairly and the like. I see that Pride Month was instituted in 2000 by Clinton, so it is possible that the lab had some such celebration before I retired. We definitely had celebrations related to the Hispanic culture while I was employed there, in part because NM is definitely an Hispanic culture. However, at no time were we required to participate in any of these celebrations.

Sports athletes at all levels are required to wear a certain uniform. For these special events, they are required - or optionally required - to wear special official clothing. It seems odd that an employer can require employees to become walking billboards for whatever they want to advertise, as if they own their bodies while on the field.

Most of the people in the stadium are not going to be able to see the little rainbow symbol or the Biblical reference. They had other, more demonstrable, activities. Now the owners have introduced an unwanted controversy and perhaps division among players that they could have avoided.

It would seem that baseball, as a business, would want to steer away from controversial issues. They could celebrate teachers, mothers, fathers, police, military. The latter may engender some controversy. What about celebrating the grounds keepers?

Idk, it is so easy today to step on some controversy. We are not a homogeneous population. Old Timers Day was always popular. Can't we find something that we can all agree on? What about snow removal crews. Yea!

tmatt's avatar

The other special event nights are really not controversial, since most focus ON BASEBALL themes, patriotism and, well, Mom and Dad. However, I guess Mom and Dad are now controversial.

Antonia D's avatar

Big business is more committed to pushing homosexuality & transvestitism (often called “transgenderism,” but people can’t actually change their gender) than they are committed to the sport or to making money. It’s a religious thing for them. Anything to bring down Christianity, and especially anything to bow to the gods (really demons) of LGBTQ.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! Blessed Mother Mary & St. Joseph, pray for us.