Rays made the right call on controversial LGBTQ uniform logos
When is advocacy not really advocacy? When someone is forced to support a cause they would otherwise not support. With that in mind, the Tampa Bay Rays made the right call in allowing players to decide for themselves whether to display LGBTQ+ logos and colors on their uniforms for recent Pride Night celebrations.
The Rays have a long history of backing LGBTQ+ efforts. The team was the first in pro sports to sign an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting same-sex marriage. The Rays also joined the “It Gets Better” campaign to fight youth bullying. This was the first year the Pride Night celebrations included uniform changes. The team added rainbow-colored logos to uniforms, to the “TB” on their caps and a sunburst on their right jersey sleeves. Most of the players appeared to participate, but at least five did not, electing to peel off the burst logo and wear the standard hat.
ADVERTISING
Pitcher Jason Adam, chosen by team officials to speak for the players who opted out, said the decision centered mostly on religious beliefs.
“We love these men and women, we care about them, and we want them to feel safe and welcome here,” Adam said. That’s nice, but he also said that the players who opted out did not want to encourage the “behavior” of those in the LGBTQ+ community, as if their sexual orientation is a choice, something that should be remedied, not simply the way they were born. This is not to single out Adam. He’s a baseball player, not a renowned moral philosopher. And he told the truth — his truth — about deeply held beliefs. Mocking him gets us nowhere.
The team would have preferred full participation from the Rays players, as would have this Editorial Board. But the organization was smart to allow individuals to make their own decisions. Advocacy should be an individual choice — whether it be for the LGBTQ+ community, military veterans, breast cancer research, Black Lives Matter or the myriad other causes that sports teams actively champion. Of course, choices have consequences.
The public might turn on a player or his value may diminish in the eyes of the organization that employs him. The Rays can decide if they think a player’s advocacy — or lack thereof — affects their business operations in a way that outweighs that player’s importance to the team. Same goes for teams that upset their supporters. Fans can take their business elsewhere.
The point is that players should not be forced to support a cause — no matter how worthy or noble that cause may be. It should be a choice. Otherwise the “advocacy” becomes as fake as the turf at Tropicana Field.
— Tampa Bay Times
