Footie club sacks striker for homophobic tweet Oxford City have sacked ageing striker Lee Steele after he posted a homophobic tweet. Steele, 38, wrote a tweet about former Wales rugby captain Gareth Thomas entering Channel 5's Celebrity Big Brother house that stated "I wouldn't fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmyarse", The Guardian reports. The remark earned …
Leviticus also says:
Eating shellfish is an abomination
People wearing clothes of mixed fabrics should be put to death
Women are ritually unclean when on their period
Leviticus shouldn't be quoted by anyone who isn't an ultra-authodox Jew, and even then, it's probably best not to. A lot of people forget that pretty much everything in the old testament is superseded by the new covenant, unless they want to use it to defend their own prejudices. I believe it was Desmon Tutu who recently said something along the lines of: "Do you seriously think that if Jesus came back to Earth today he would care at all about matters of personal sexuality, when there is War, Famine, Injustice rife all over the world."
Not just a homophobe, but a sexual harasser too -- probably best to have him shot at dawn.
What? There's no evidence of any such behavior on his part? Okay fine, but we're not going to let that stop us from insinuating whatever the hell we please, are we? After all, he's not just male but a rugby player, and we all know what *they're* like.
I'm sure that any high profile person from any organisation, would face some sort of consequence for publically voicing their opinion that gay men are rapists.
Maybe he'd have gotten away with it, if he'd replaced the hashtag with "lol jk" (or whatever the kids are using, now)?
..because they mistook his grunts for actual grunts and not the attempts at speech that they really were.
i'd personally be flattered if Gareth Thomas propositioned me. i'd have to turn him down of course, but i fail to see what got up this footballer'snose to incite him into ranting his twattery about someone who he'll most likely never share anything with...
>"On this occasion Lee's had to pay for his error of judgment. He's made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn't necessarily mean he's homophobic."
He may not be homophobic but so what if he is. Isn't anybody entitled to a view other than those forced upon us by a namby pamby state? What next, will people be censored for preferring blondes over brunettes?
Would the action taken make a genuine homophobic change their view or reinforce any feeling that gays are getting all the breaks? I can see the rage rising already, I'm making a point not necessarily expressing a personal opinion.
I can see a stream of comments along the lines of "serves the bastard right" but isn't this just another example of big brother telling us how to feel?
Oh, and if you want my personal opinion, I couldn't care less what anybody wants to dip their wick in so long as it's not me, but hey, maybe I should lose my job for writing that.
but it does help to make it clear that discrimination against someone on the basis of the sexuality is not something that our society wishes to tolerate.
Luckily, as a straight, white male, the worst discrimination I've ever had to face, is the assumption that I can rendered incapable by a cold.
I'm a straight, white male, and also short, fat and ugly. For 5 of those 6 attributes, I'm protected from abuse by law and/or political correctness. The remaining attribute is still fair game for everybody!
(gets coat in response to chorus of "stop whining, shortarse!!")
Of course -- the progressive movement would never *dream* of telling you what to think or how to feel! You can bear whatever opinions you like about the world and the people around you; it's just that, inasmuch as those opinions fail to conform to requirements, you're not allowed to act on them, speak of them, or admit to their existence, under penalty of law.
It's not so much what he is, but what he encourages of others or suggests by way of stereotyping.
#lockupmyarse clearly suggests the notion that gays will be going around with abuse in mind and people need to protect themselves from that. That paints a false image of gays and the reality of encounters and interactions with gays. It is consequentially harmful to gays.
Ultimately; you can think what you like but keep those thoughts to yourself, or express them in non-harmful or hateful ways.
Of course, that's only one viewpoint. In other places freedom of speech is argued to embrace freedom to hate so it may seem very odd to some.
Perhaps slightly melodramatic, but true nonetheless. Unless his actions are seen to be inappropiate, it as as if they are condoned. He is of course entitled to his opinion, but his employer is making the point that his opinions are not welcomed at his workplace.
I'm not sure I agree with firing him, personally, as I dont really understand the nature of the tweeting, and for me it would depend on how publically the tweet was expected to be.
"..gays are getting all the breaks? I can see the rage rising already.." - really not sure what you are talking about here..
"I couldn't care less what anybody wants to dip their wick in so long as it's not me..." I'm sure if this was the opinion voiced by Lee, he would have been fine. Instead he was publically ridiculuing a fellow sportsmans sexuality; a sexual orientation that in the very recent past (living memory) was criminalised in the UK, and grounds for chemical castration and stigmatisation, and for which he may risk death in some countries.
You sound to me like you are just regurgitation some 'pub opinion'. It probably sounds like the right thing to say over a beer, but remember that you never really know whats going on in your friends heads. Or how straight they really are...
>You sound to me like you are just regurgitation some 'pub opinion'. It probably sounds like the right thing to say over a beer,
When I lived in Camden Town my local was The Black Cap, so I doubt I'm regurgitating some "pub opinion" as you put it. In other places I have lived I preferred the more alternative bars and where I currently live in Madrid, if I go out for a drink I'm more likely to be in a bar in Chueca than elsewhere so I think I know how straight my drinking partners are.
The tone of the replies to my comment simply illustrate my point that we are only allowed to think what is in fashion at the time.
Personally I think it's ok to hold whatever view you like in private, but when you encourage others to hold the same view - such as a public announcement that you think you might be at risk if you slept in the next bed to a gay man then you have definitely moved out of the private opinion area.
My wife holds the most outrageous views on many subjects - sometimes they offend even me - but I know that she doesn't act on any of them in public (apart from leaping away from the small snotty child that's trying to put their hands on her) so they are not illegal. If she were to post on public blog that she would like to see compulsory sterilisation for arseholes (and give examples) then she would probably be in trouble.
Thankfully I'm pretty ambivalent regarding other peoples' sexuality - put to the test when I was invited out for drinks with friends in Amsterdam and spent the whole evening in a gay bar without even realising it until someone said I 'seemed alright for a bloke' which made me think 'what the fuck are you on about?' and pay more attention to my surroundings. Much to the hilarity of those present I might add. I didn't even know my friend was gay until she went back to her houseboat with her girlfriend.
This planet is a weird old place.
No, you're entitled to think what you like, but if you want to express the view that gay men are unable to resist any other man's unguarded anus, you shouldn't expect that view to go unchallenged, given that it is a) ridiculous, and b) offensive to gay men (maybe all men, unless the "all men are rapists" feminists were right, all along?).
I'll agree that persecuting someone, based on their views is wrong, and so I won't be firing up a burning brand and chasing anyone out of town, any time soon.
However, if you are going to express hateful views, then it surely must be expected that those around you will disassociate themselves from you, much as the football club has done in this case (the sacking probably the result of a contractual obligation to not bring the club into disrepute, or somesuch).
Thanks, you have convinced me of the clubs necessity to dismiss their player. I see your point that the club would find it difficult to distance itself from its players views without taking action against the player. Most of my friends, not to mention my wife, have opposing views to me some I might consider hateful but it doesn't detract from the overall person, it's a pity the club has had to take such drastic action based on one comment.
@AC 14:09 Certain factions of Women Against Rape call for a curfew on all men amongst other more unrestrained wishes.
"Where on earth do you get the idea that the footballer ever suggested abusing anybody?"
err... try the hash tag....
the fact that he suggested he would need a padlock to prevent unauthorised access to his ass because he was in the next bed... in particular the padlock bit, suggesting that "er,thanks but no thanks, your not my type" would not be enough to block entrance !!
i dont believe what he said is a sacking offence.... if it was said about a fellow team mate, maybe at a push and refused to apologise, but if anything, it should be a telling off, and a personal apology to the guy in question.
Welcome to the club. There is often the implication by certain groups that hetrosexual men would have no moral issue about raping a woman who is sleeping in a bed next to them, but hey that's alright, some of them are even funded by government and lottery grants. I assume you also find that equally offensive.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
