LGBTQ+ inclusion and Religion Debate in Football

This is exactly it.

The Pride flag message has changed from inclusion to celebration. If it's truly about inclusion and that's what they want the message of the campaign to deliver, then the message needs rebranding to a "Love All" message without the Pride flag. Look at this branding from SPECTRUM who manage the Southampton Hate Crime Network which promote diversity and inclusion for all protected characteristics (including: race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, transgender ident)




Love-Dont-Hate-Logo.jpg
LDH-Coasters-Front-1-scaled.jpeg




The message is clear in that it's only promoting or celebrating inclusion, kindness and love. It's hard to imagine that anyone would refuse to wear or promote this branding.

The fact that the rainbow flag/armband is still a major talking point proves that the current message isn't clear enough.

I find it very easy to imagine
 
There is an Imam who gives sermons against (for want of a better word) homosexuality. In the face of it this would be homophobic right? However he has two people living in his house next to a mosque currently because they were homeless and he took them in. One is an openly gay man. So is he homophobic?

Yes.
 
It sounds to me like what I hear religious conservatives say that being LGBTQ is entirely a choice and a "lifestyle" rather than it being how people are biologically wired. Because what else are they not agreeing with? They don't agree with the fact that LGBTQ people are born with a biological and natural attraction to the same sex (among other differences) and they shouldn't be discriminated against as such?

Frankly, I think this is total bullshit. Being LGBTQ isn't a "lifestyle" as I said above. Its biological and natural. So to even frame it that way, as a lifestyle, is an inherently bigoted and prejudicial framing. It packs in unspoken inferences.
I understand the important biological and political dimensions to the lifestyle/identity argument, and, as you say, potential prejudices. But I feel like ... 'born this way' isn't the actual primary reason we should be respectful of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. The primary reason is because there is simply nothing wrong with it on a conceptual level with the identity or the "lifestyle".
 
For what it's worth.

A lot of people have raised a lot of different posts. Rather than responding individually I've put together this to try and address some of them. This isn't to impose my view. Just for clarification as I understood when I studied Islam.

Not promoting a cause is not seen as the same as intolerance, or in this case homophobia. There is the concept of Justice (in simple terms. Terms like racist or misogynistic or homophobic are not used. It's a catch all) that exists.

In this case, Basically you can't look down on a person, deny a person employment, isolate them, bully/harass them or call them names and/or beat them up because they happen to be gay. Which is what would fall into the notion/meaning of homophobia. Anybody doing the above is homophobic or is seen as injustice from a religious (Islam) perspective.

Promoting something that goes against the teachings is also not allowed. Both the above and this would be a personal sin and you are accountable as an individual.

The notion of sinning Muslims, examples earlier about drinking, drug dealing etc. yes these exist and are personal sins. However this is not something that takes you outside the fold of Islam. Promoting would.

In simple terms in Islam there is the concept of making the halal haram and the haram halal. (Halal being permitted and haram being not).

So to drink alcohol does not do any of this. You are basically breaking a "commandment" and it's on you. In effect you are a bad Muslim. To say drinking is allowed and promoting it is making the not permitted into permitted and that makes you non Muslim.

An example would be the concept of not rebelling against a Caliph/ruler who sins (maybe drinks alcohol for example) but rules by Islam. We can't judge him for his private actions. However if he makes alcohol halal then he has to be removed and rebelled against.

Another example maybe a Muslim going to an off license to buy milk and bread. If this off license is owned by a non Muslim then there is no issue. As we don't judge the non Muslim. However it isn't permitted (is haram) to buy even milk and bread off a Muslim who owns an off license.

There is so much I can write, and I'm prone to going on and digressing so apologies for that. But put simply the concept of not doing injustice to an individual means you can abstain from promoting a concept without hating the individual/s.

There is an Imam who gives sermons against (for want of a better word) homosexuality. In the face of it this would be homophobic right? However he has two people living in his house next to a mosque currently because they were homeless and he took them in. One is an openly gay man. So is he homophobic?

That Imam sounds like a kind but conflicted man. But that’s inevitable with the way religions are based on charity, love and kindness but won’t move with the times and update their crazily old fashioned stance on sex and sexuality. That’s what creates the sort of situation you describe. How can you be as kind and loving as you want to be if you’re being forced to repeat hateful rhetoric about sexuality that society moved on from decades ago?
 
promote that lifestlye
It's not a fecking 'lifetsyle'. And either way, no one is saying "hey come over here and be gay with us".
 
That Imam sounds like a kind but conflicted man. But that’s inevitable with the way religions are based on charity, love and kindness but won’t move with the times and update their crazily old fashioned stance on sex and sexuality. That’s what creates the sort of situation you describe. How can you be as kind and loving as you want to be if you’re being forced to repeat hateful rhetoric about sexuality that society moved on from decades ago?

I'm from a place called Mirpur which is in Kashmir/Pakistan depending on your point of view or political stance. Most "pakistanis" in UK are from this area and not actual Pakistan. As a rule "we" came from very poor backgrounds (not all for any mirpuris reading this I'm speaking generally and the majority) and our elders were largely uneducated and mired in practices and beliefs in the name of religion, mainly Islam.

Being fortunate enough to have received an education (secular and religious) my biggest battle has never been against non Muslims and/or atheist folk but my very own mirpuris including close family. You maybe surprised that pakistani folk from say Lahore or Islamabad don't always look favourably upon the mirpuris. Mainly down to their "backwards" ideology/s.

I write that as I very much believe people from my background, particularly first gen are absolutely homophobic, often racist. No excuses just as is my experience.

The younger generation are more aware. Those who don't practice Islam pretend to do so in front of family but outside they do exactly what some folk have described. Those who do, do so so properly and are as much at risk of being argued against or ridiculed by non Muslims as they are by their elders.

Mosques are institutions which still to a degree are run by the elder generations with imams that are able to recite Quran (as in memorised it) but don't understand it. These imams are the ones who get represented in say media etc (see Muslim council of Britain) than the few mosques where the Muslims not only can recite but understand the Quran.

What this means, and is relevant maybe to your response above is that there isn't the hateful rhetoric. Let me be clear it doesn't shy away from Quranic teaching but it is "matter of fact". It doesn't then say Homosexuality is ok in Quranic teaching and certainly wouldn't mean promoting it. But it does say ok you are homosexual and that is OK but it is a sin according to Islam and something you will be judged for it. Again some of you will disagree strongly with this and that's absolutely fine.

I have a friend who smokes weed and has the odd drink. We have been friends all our lives. He is a Muslim. I don't hate him. I always advise him as he claims to be Muslim. I also have a friend who is atheist. I have known for less of a time than my Muslim friend but he is a beat friend category friend. He took smokes weed and drinks. I advise him too and certainly don't hate him. I chill with both. When the weed and drink appears I leave. When they are high or drunk I don't really engage. These are my friends.

Let me give you another example if I may. I pay zakat. It's basically charity and I absolutely believe in charity. I also believe in the freedom of Palestine ( and Ukraine but I mention Palestine due to the religion link). Yet I do not attend charity dinners and I certainly have never bought a free Palestine wrist band etc. I'm absolutely slated for this by Muslims I know. Yet I don't do it because Islamically this isn't the definition of charity. Me buying a wrist band is me buying a wristband. It's a transaction. My eating the dinner means it was a transaction not me giving to charity. Because in basic terms charity is something with nil return. There's more to it but I'm keeping it simple. Also any charity I give to has to give 100% of my money to the intended recipients. If they even take 2 pence for themselves it's not charity to me. Does that mean I'm not charitable? I mean I donate 2.5% of my saved income (includes commodities such as gold etc) to various groups Muslim or not. Not to show off but this has meant thousands at times. Yet I'm seen as not charitable because I didn't buy a wristband by some of my fellow Muslims?

This example is to show maybe a difference in understanding? Understanding as in how (for example ) the person above you simply put yes to the Imam in my example being homophobic. Yet to me he absolutely is not homophobic.

Sorry for going on. I didn't want to appear in preacher mode. At the same time I didn't want to argue against what some people have wrote about their experiences with Muslims. I absolutely agree some people are as described by some. I make no excuses for them by providing a historic background, just what I see are the facts warta and all. But also hopefully putting forward that people who are educating themselves in Islamic theology/ideology are not homophobic in the hate the individual/s sense but more a this is Islam but we won't be unjust to you.

I accept some may find it hard to get their head around it and some who will absolutely disagree. I'm not trying to preach or convert. Just disagreeing with not wearing a flag/colours means it's homophobic. In the end as long as we don't hurt each other as individuals, and to borrow words from Islam, to you your way and to me mine.
 
I'm from a place called Mirpur which is in Kashmir/Pakistan depending on your point of view or political stance. Most "pakistanis" in UK are from this area and not actual Pakistan. As a rule "we" came from very poor backgrounds (not all for any mirpuris reading this I'm speaking generally and the majority) and our elders were largely uneducated and mired in practices and beliefs in the name of religion, mainly Islam.

Being fortunate enough to have received an education (secular and religious) my biggest battle has never been against non Muslims and/or atheist folk but my very own mirpuris including close family. You maybe surprised that pakistani folk from say Lahore or Islamabad don't always look favourably upon the mirpuris. Mainly down to their "backwards" ideology/s.

I write that as I very much believe people from my background, particularly first gen are absolutely homophobic, often racist. No excuses just as is my experience.

The younger generation are more aware. Those who don't practice Islam pretend to do so in front of family but outside they do exactly what some folk have described. Those who do, do so so properly and are as much at risk of being argued against or ridiculed by non Muslims as they are by their elders.

Mosques are institutions which still to a degree are run by the elder generations with imams that are able to recite Quran (as in memorised it) but don't understand it. These imams are the ones who get represented in say media etc (see Muslim council of Britain) than the few mosques where the Muslims not only can recite but understand the Quran.

What this means, and is relevant maybe to your response above is that there isn't the hateful rhetoric. Let me be clear it doesn't shy away from Quranic teaching but it is "matter of fact". It doesn't then say Homosexuality is ok in Quranic teaching and certainly wouldn't mean promoting it. But it does say ok you are homosexual and that is OK but it is a sin according to Islam and something you will be judged for it. Again some of you will disagree strongly with this and that's absolutely fine.

I have a friend who smokes weed and has the odd drink. We have been friends all our lives. He is a Muslim. I don't hate him. I always advise him as he claims to be Muslim. I also have a friend who is atheist. I have known for less of a time than my Muslim friend but he is a beat friend category friend. He took smokes weed and drinks. I advise him too and certainly don't hate him. I chill with both. When the weed and drink appears I leave. When they are high or drunk I don't really engage. These are my friends.

Let me give you another example if I may. I pay zakat. It's basically charity and I absolutely believe in charity. I also believe in the freedom of Palestine ( and Ukraine but I mention Palestine due to the religion link). Yet I do not attend charity dinners and I certainly have never bought a free Palestine wrist band etc. I'm absolutely slated for this by Muslims I know. Yet I don't do it because Islamically this isn't the definition of charity. Me buying a wrist band is me buying a wristband. It's a transaction. My eating the dinner means it was a transaction not me giving to charity. Because in basic terms charity is something with nil return. There's more to it but I'm keeping it simple. Also any charity I give to has to give 100% of my money to the intended recipients. If they even take 2 pence for themselves it's not charity to me. Does that mean I'm not charitable? I mean I donate 2.5% of my saved income (includes commodities such as gold etc) to various groups Muslim or not. Not to show off but this has meant thousands at times. Yet I'm seen as not charitable because I didn't buy a wristband by some of my fellow Muslims?

This example is to show maybe a difference in understanding? Understanding as in how (for example ) the person above you simply put yes to the Imam in my example being homophobic. Yet to me he absolutely is not homophobic.

Sorry for going on. I didn't want to appear in preacher mode. At the same time I didn't want to argue against what some people have wrote about their experiences with Muslims. I absolutely agree some people are as described by some. I make no excuses for them by providing a historic background, just what I see are the facts warta and all. But also hopefully putting forward that people who are educating themselves in Islamic theology/ideology are not homophobic in the hate the individual/s sense but more a this is Islam but we won't be unjust to you.

I accept some may find it hard to get their head around it and some who will absolutely disagree. I'm not trying to preach or convert. Just disagreeing with not wearing a flag/colours means it's homophobic. In the end as long as we don't hurt each other as individuals, and to borrow words from Islam, to you your way and to me mine.
But do you realise that all the other examples you gave (weed, drink, etc.) are choices? And being gay isn't a choice? So replace your

"ok you are homosexual and that is OK but it is a sin according to Islam and something you will be judged for it."
with
"ok you are black/asian/red-haired/whatever and that is OK but it is a sin according to Islam and something you will be judged for it."

Does this still seem like an acceptable viewpoint?
 
You'd be surprised. My Pakistani cousin works in a warehouse. He has a gay colleague. The other Pakistani guys just banter with him.

Would any of them be open to their own kids came out of the closet? Not at all. They'd probably be devastated.
Why?
 
But do you realise that all the other examples you gave (weed, drink, etc.) are choices? And being gay isn't a choice? So replace your

"ok you are homosexual and that is OK but it is a sin according to Islam and something you will be judged for it."
with
"ok you are black/asian/red-haired/whatever and that is OK but it is a sin according to Islam and something you will be judged for it."

Does this still seem like an acceptable viewpoint?

I was trying to highlight that not promoting something doesn't equal hatred.

The rest of your post requires a longer post and I am current tied up
 
I don't see what the "agreeing with them" bit is supposed to mean. It sounds to me like what I hear religious conservatives say that being LGBTQ is entirely a choice and a "lifestyle" rather than it being how people are biologically wired. Because what else are they not agreeing with? They don't agree with the fact that LGBTQ people are born with a biological and natural attraction to the same sex (among other differences) and they shouldn't be discriminated against as such?
I'm not trying to defend this footballer's decision, because if the reason is base homophobia, then I wouldn't want to defend that. But I do feel it is a bit of an over-reach of organisations to expect that their employees always have an obligation to support their various public displays of allyship (especially organisations where none of their players have come out as gay in nearly 40 years).

I am not sure it is good for tolerance overall either, which I think is the most important principle in all this, when you risk asking people to demonstrate support for things they may not believe, or even not have particularly strong views about, or want to give too much consideration to.

Mazroui, for whatever personal, religious or cultural reasons, may well have a problem with homosexuality, but nobody has asked him directly as far as I know, and he's under no obligation to tell anyone either, provided his actions don't discriminate. Yet the club's actions have put him on the spot over something that ultimately is nothing to do with his job on the pitch. Is that really what we want?
 
Last edited:
I was trying to highlight that not promoting something doesn't equal hatred.

The rest of your post requires a longer post and I am current tied up
Well fair enough, but it still feels as though a lot of people (not necessarily you, not just on Redcafe, but in general) are pitching the comparisons too low, and equating being gay to life choices. So it would be nice if people stopped using drinking, smoking weed, cheating on spouse, and so on, against which to compare being gay, and started instead comparing it to saying similar things about 'black people', 'asian people', 'women', 'men', etc. "It's fine if you're a woman - you do you and live your life, but it is still a sin in my eyes".

Unless people think that being gay is somewhat a choice, at which point I wouldn't have anything to say to that person and no reason to bother engaging.
 
It's worth pointing that you can always choose not to play for, or support a club, that represents a city which has always tried to be welcoming towards the LGBTQ community.
I guess that is true, if that choice was made clear before he signed the contract.
 
That’s not how intolerance works.

You wouldn’t look at people who are Islamophobic and blame Muslims.

I don’t blame women for Andrew Tate being a prick.
This. 100% this.

The issue is homophobia not a colourful flag.

Can anyone with a straight face (no pun intended) tell me they think the PL is trying to make people gay and trans?

FFS this is an embarrassment and completely shows why these things are very much needed.
 
Homosexuality is not a bloody lifestyle.

Blue Lives Matter is not a “good message”.

hth.
 
The Pride Parade is literally defined as a 'celebration'. It's primary imagery is the Pride flag. The same Pride flag that we are asking devout Christians/Muslims to wear. I agree, the message has been distorted in bad faith, and also in good faith. But it doesn't change the fact the the message has been distorted.
It's tiring that it's always on the people needing support though. They worked hard on various ways to get support and now we've got rainbow campaigns and other things. The messages of these is then distorted largely through their opponents - and now it's supposedly on the people needing support to fix their own message. I know that's partly (largely?) inevitable, but it's a ridiculous dynamic and it's important we at least put the blame on the right group (i.e., those detractors).

It's similar in the US with the social conservatives making stuff like trans rights into a wedge issue to make people vote for Republican candidates. Now that Trump has been elected, progressives are being blamed for rubbing progressive issues into everyone's faces, supposedly to the point where people get so fed up that they vote Trump. But that's for the most part not true (exceptions notwithstanding); it's largely their detractors that do the rubbing. Again, even if you can't really (or certainly not easily) change that dynamic, it's important to at least blame the right people for what's happened here.
 
Well fair enough, but it still feels as though a lot of people (not necessarily you, not just on Redcafe, but in general) are pitching the comparisons too low, and equating being gay to life choices. So it would be nice if people stopped using drinking, smoking weed, cheating on spouse, and so on, against which to compare being gay, and started instead comparing it to saying similar things about 'black people', 'asian people', 'women', 'men', etc. "It's fine if you're a woman - you do you and live your life, but it is still a sin in my eyes".

Unless people think that being gay is somewhat a choice, at which point I wouldn't have anything to say to that person and no reason to bother engaging.

Yeah, well said. Apply the same logic to all the mentions in this thread of being ok with people being gay but nobody should be asked to “promote” homosexuality. As though standing up to racism is “promoting” being black.
 
Being gay is not a behaviour , sinful or otherwise. That’s an important point which needs to be grasped by individuals and the religion they follow. Trying to equate people born gay with those who choose to gamble, sleep around, or abuse drugs and alcohol is badly missing the point. The rainbow stuff isn’t about promoting anything, it’s about making people who have no choice about who they are feel a little bit more included. And there’s a huge irony in people who might face exclusion (or even persecution) over stuff they have no choice over (religion, skin colour) failing to show some empathy here.
It's not but it is though. You can be born gay but can also act gay. In fact "being gay" can be a huge of part of the gay persons identity in a way that being straight is not to heterosexuals.
Also an aside, some people can be born more predisposed to certain vices, e.g addiction, promiscuity that if the person then acts on it is deemed to have sinned. Being born gay is deemed not a sin in itself in the bible - it's not mentioned or implied anywhere far as i know. However lusting after a man or having a sexual relationship with one is classed as sexually immoral. Just as it is for a straight man/woman lusting after the opposite sex or having a sexual relationship with a person s/he is not married to. Bible equally condemns that act as sexual immorality. Christians/Muslims might be more tolerant to the latter but you're not going to find many equally promoting causes that advocate for sex outside marriage.
 
It's not but it is though. You can be born gay but can also act gay. In fact "being gay" can be a huge of part of the gay persons identity in a way that being straight is not to heterosexuals.
Also an aside, some people can be born more predisposed to certain vices, e.g addiction, promiscuity that if the person then acts on it is deemed to have sinned. Being born gay is deemed not a sin in itself in the bible - it's not mentioned or implied anywhere far as i know. However lusting after a man or having a sexual relationship with one is classed as sexually immoral. Just as it is for a straight man/woman lusting after the opposite sex or having a sexual relationship with a person s/he is not married to. Bible equally condemns that act as sexual immorality. Christians/Muslims might be more tolerant to the latter but you're not going to find many equally promoting causes that advocate for sex outside marriage.
How does one act gay?
 
It's not but it is though. You can be born gay but can also act gay. In fact "being gay" can be a huge of part of the gay persons identity in a way that being straight is not to heterosexuals.
Also an aside, some people can be born more predisposed to certain vices, e.g addiction, promiscuity that if the person then acts on it is deemed to have sinned. Being born gay is deemed not a sin in itself in the bible - it's not mentioned or implied anywhere far as i know. However lusting after a man or having a sexual relationship with one is classed as sexually immoral. Just as it is for a straight man/woman lusting after the opposite sex or having a sexual relationship with a person s/he is not married to. Bible equally condemns that act as sexual immorality. Christians/Muslims might be more tolerant to the latter but you're not going to find many equally promoting causes that advocate for sex outside marriage.
Well that's that sorted then.
 
Amorim put in a shit position having to explain the decision.

It does boil down to Mazraoui having an issue wearing it because of religion.

“It was a group decision as players as it should be and and then there’s three difficult things to manage,” the Portuguese said. “On one side it’s club values and I think all can agree that it’s not an issue but then you have religion which you have to respect.


“It’s our values to respect other opinions. And then the third thing is the group thing, I won’t leave Nous (Mazraoui) alone, we are a team.

“The majority of the players believe in one thing
but they saw one guy alone and said let’s be together. It’s three things we have to manage and respect, it’s a hard issue to address. I think we did it in a good way. This club represents…we need to respect everything but we also to respect the religion of Nous and his culture.”
So the majority wanted to support it but dropped it because of one person’s homophobic views whether they are based in religion or not that is the crux of this.

I think it’s ridiculous. What about the culture of the club and of the UK in general? What about the community for which these campaigns support?
 
Amorim put in a shit position having to explain the decision.

It does boil down to Mazraoui having an issue wearing it because of religion.


So the majority wanted to support it but dropped it because of one person’s homophobic views whether they are based in religion or not that is the crux of this.

I think it’s ridiculous. What about the culture of the club and of the UK in general? What about the community for which these campaigns support?
For whatever reason, some people don't want to be allies, and I'm not sure it's the job of an employer to make them.

Nobody, in the end, forced James McClean to wear a poppy (and he got shit for that).
 
Last edited:
nothing that we didn't know already.

but to me, the surprise isn't all of them simply abandoning support for the cause for one guy, it's doing it for the guy who has 3 about months of football here.

love the "let's be together" part.
 
Amorim put in a shit position having to explain the decision.

It does boil down to Mazraoui having an issue wearing it because of religion.


So the majority wanted to support it but dropped it because of one person’s homophobic views whether they are based in religion or not that is the crux of this.

I think it’s ridiculous. What about the culture of the club and of the UK in general? What about the community for which these campaigns support?

Amorim’s take on it is team unity above all other considerations. I can see why that might piss people off but it is at least a coherent stance.
 
For whatever reason, some people don't want to be allies, and I'm not sure it's the job of an employer to make them.

Nobody, in the end, forced James McClean to wear a poppy (and he got shit for that).

We shouldn't be comparing the poppy situation to this.
 
It's not but it is though. You can be born gay but can also act gay. In fact "being gay" can be a huge of part of the gay persons identity in a way that being straight is not to heterosexuals.
Also an aside, some people can be born more predisposed to certain vices, e.g addiction, promiscuity that if the person then acts on it is deemed to have sinned. Being born gay is deemed not a sin in itself in the bible - it's not mentioned or implied anywhere far as i know. However lusting after a man or having a sexual relationship with one is classed as sexually immoral. Just as it is for a straight man/woman lusting after the opposite sex or having a sexual relationship with a person s/he is not married to. Bible equally condemns that act as sexual immorality. Christians/Muslims might be more tolerant to the latter but you're not going to find many equally promoting causes that advocate for sex outside marriage.


being born gay isn't mentioned in the bible because people didn't believe you could be born gay back then
 
For whatever reason, some people don't want to be allies, and I'm not sure it's the job of an employer to make them.

Nobody, in the end, forced James McClean to wear a poppy (and he got shit for that).
There’s a distinct difference between the poppy appeal and being homosexual.
 
We shouldn't be comparing the poppy situation to this.
Tell me why. It seems to me there are enough similarities. Is the problem that you agree that is was OK for James MClean not to wear a poppy?
 
Last edited:
There’s a distinct difference between the poppy appeal and being homosexual.
There is also a similarity, which is about a player not being put in a position where he has to act in a way which compromises deeply held beliefs.

The beliefs may be misguided and wrong, but that's not the point I am making.
 
I think it’s ridiculous. What about the culture of the club and of the UK in general? What about the community for which these campaigns support?
The culture of the UK is not particularly supportive of trans people, which fall into the LGBTQ category. According to this poll: more Britons oppose than support hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery being available through the NHS, a minority of Britons believe that you should be able to change your legal gender, and 50% of Britons believe it should be harder to do so. Large majorities also oppose trans women participating in female sports. Gay people have much better support but there are still non-trivial numbers that oppose gay marriage (1 in 6) or think that same-sex relationships are less valid than heterosexual relationships (15%).

LGBTQ acceptance has moved quickly in the last decades. I'm guessing that part of why it's so quick is because some of the acceptance is not strong or deeply-held. So that's how you get these cases, of players who are previously supportive of these measures taking a step back because of one player who didn't.
 
I can appreicate that one player not wearing the jacket and being singled out as appearing Homophobic would have been bad optics for the club. Yes much better to have the entire squad look Homophobic :confused:
 
There is also a similarity, which is about a player not being put in a position where he has to act in a way which compromises deeply held beliefs.

The beliefs may be misguided and wrong, but that's not the point I am making.
But one of those deeply held beliefs is homophobic the other is a stance as outlined below:

“The poppy which originally stood for World War I and II has now been adopted into honouring and remembering British soldiers that have served in all conflicts throughout the world including those who opened fire and [killed] 14 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday Jan 1972, in my home city, as well many other brutal crimes throughout Ireland.

“That is why I never have and never will wear a poppy. If the poppy’s sole purpose was to honour World War 1 and 2 then I would have no issue wearing it, but that’s not the case.
Now you can disagree with his position here (and many do) but I’m sure you see the difference.
 
I can appreicate that one player not wearing the jacket and being singled out as appearing Homophobic would have been bad optics for the club. Yes much better to have the entire squad look Homophobic :confused:
Maybe one day a footballer will actually come out and we can celebrate that, instead of arguing whether someone should be forced to wear a colourful jacket or not.
 
The culture of the UK is not particularly supportive of trans people, which fall into the LGBTQ category. According to this poll: more Britons oppose than support hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery being available through the NHS, a minority of Britons believe that you should be able to change your legal gender, and 50% of Britons believe it should be harder to do so. Large majorities also oppose trans women participating in female sports. Gay people have much better support but there are still non-trivial numbers that oppose gay marriage (1 in 6) or think that same-sex relationships are less valid than heterosexual relationships (15%).

LGBTQ acceptance has moved quickly in the last decades. I'm guessing that part of why it's so quick is because some of the acceptance is not strong or deeply-held. So that's how you get these cases, of players who are previously supportive of these measures taking a step back because of one player who didn't.
If only we could do something to raise awareness and publicly support that community.
 
But one of those deeply held beliefs is homophobic the other is a stance as outlined below:


Now you can disagree with his position here (and many do) but I’m sure you see the difference.
Doesn't matter to my argument, which is that I don't think companies / clubs should require their employees to make public declarations of allyship. Invite them, for sure, and if a company wants to show support in other practical or symbolic ways, then no problem. If players as individuals want to get behind various causes, eg Rashford's various campaigns, then they should be allowed to as well, within limits. But ultimately players are there to win games and everything else is a distraction.
 
Maybe one day a footballer will actually come out and we can celebrate that, instead of arguing whether someone should be forced to wear a colourful jacket or not.

Well that day seems further off if we have teams showing solidarity with a Homophobe when they were being asked to do the oppsoite. And no one was being forced to wear anything. Mazraoui had the choice to wear one or not wear one. He chose not to fair enough if that's what he wanted to do but the rest of the team should have carried on. You can't let one person undermine a programme of public support for a section of our society.
 
Maybe one day a footballer will actually come out and we can celebrate that, instead of arguing whether someone should be forced to wear a colourful jacket or not.
Do you think Mazraoui and the Man United response to wearing a jacket to support and celebrate that community is going to make any footballer more likely or less likely to feel comfortable coming out? Or even at least being open with their team mates about their preferences?

Let’s say there was a homosexual in the United men’s dressing room (ignoring for a moment the women’s side) how will they be feeling?
 
Tell me why. It seems to me there are enough similarities. Is the problem that you agree that is was OK for James MClean not to wear a poppy?

Think about what you're wearing a poppy for and what you'd be wearing a rainbow armband for and you should be able to figure it out.