Professional Hockeys Inquisitorial Pride Nights

National Hockey League commissioner Gary Bettman recently indicated that, in light of the controversy surrounding some players’ refusal to participate in Pride Nights, the league would reevaluate whether to continue hosting such events. In theory, these themed games are intended to demonstrate the hockey community’s tolerance, support, and possibly even celebration of LGBTQ individuals. But the reality is more complicated, reflecting the perpetual clutter of a popular culture that speaks the language of tolerance but is not well trained in its practice.

While most players wore rainbow-and-transgender flag jerseys and taped their sticks with Pride colors, some religious players refused to do so. They explained that wearing those uniforms would convey a message incompatible with their faith. These players have been uniformly gracious and respectful in expressing their objections. They have explained that they harbor no animosity towards gay people, and that they support the inclusion of LGBTQ individuals in hockey, but their consciences prevent them from celebrating homosexuality, transgenderism, or a host of substantive messages symbolized by the Pride colors.

In a culture better trained in the customs of pluralism, the Pride Nights would have passed without incident, respecting the choices of the deviant players. Had that happened, the events could have been a valuable demonstration of how to respect LGBTQ individuals and religious people, and a model of how Americans who disagree on just about everything can nonetheless coexist peacefully. The players wearing Pride uniforms and their religious teammates could have played side-by-side, showing that they remain united as a team despite disagreements on topics that, while extremely important, have nothing to do with hockey.

But liberalism is hardly the spirit of the times, and unfortunately that’s not how things turned out. Instead of quietly letting religious players follow their consciences, advocates and commentators portrayed them as dangerous heretics of progressive bourgeois religion, deserving of punishment for refusing to acquiesce to the binding principles of that secular faith.

As members of a religious minority group, we understand the importance of both promoting tolerance and protecting minority rights to participate in unpopular practices or express dissent. Both ideals, which have been at odds in the Pride Night controversy, must thrive in order to sustain a thriving democratic republic. Liberal coexistence requires us to be polite to one another despite deep-seated disagreements about some of the most fundamental aspects of human life. We propose that, while difficult, this is indeed possible. And until the promotional events actually promote tolerance rather than an emerging cultural orthodoxy, they are probably best put on hold.

Our organization, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Freedomproudly defends the rights of Wiccans, Native Americans, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, and many denominations of Christians. We also haveopposite members of our own faith when we thought they were illegally trying to force their interpretation of Judaism on others. Our goal is to create a vibrant, free and diverse public square, regardless of whether we agree with a religious adherent or speaker whose rights we defend. That pluralistic ethos can be instructive here.

It’s totally understandable that LGBTQ people, and advocates for their causes, wouldn’t celebrate those who refused to wear Pride jerseys. It is also reasonable that they hope to change the hearts and minds of those players by explaining that the players have misunderstood the Pride flag, its message, or its relative importance in the hierarchy of human goods. But what actually happened was unconvincing and erupted in a concerted effort to demonize and punish the players, revealing that this conflict is not between two sets of ideas, but between the competing dogmas of a secular-humanist majority and traditional minority religions, with the majority returning to the pre-liberal playbook of inquisition, coercion, and attempts at forced conversion.

Ivan Provorovwas the first NHL player to conscientiously object to wearing a pride uniform. When asked for comment, he replied: I respect everyone. I respect everyone’s choices, but he objected to wearing a Pride uniform for religious reasons. He didn’t try to veto someone else’s choices. Someone in this situation was trying to force their faith on others, and it wasn’t the Christian.

The response was fast and terrible. In addition to denouncing Provorov as a hateful bigot who didn’t even think LGBTQ people should exist, prominent hockey commentators exclaimed that he should receive hefty penalties. A Canadian broadcaster suggested that Provorov will be fined a million dollars. Several hockey journalists suggested that Provorov should have been benched in retaliation. An NHL Network analyst made xenophobic remarks that if Provovov couldn’t adapt to the way we do things here in the West, he should get on a plane and go back to Russia, and maybe even participate in the war effort against Ukraine.

One might hope that things would improve after the first incident, given the unhinged reaction and blatant hypocrisy to ruin someone’s career for voicing a widely held opinion that is unpopular in elite circles. Perhaps the commentators and proponents had simply overreacted in the heat of the moment. Perhaps, given some time and distance, they’d be more polite the second time around. Unfortunately not.

The second player who refused to wear the uniforms was James Reimer. Reimer explained that while his conscience wouldn’t allow him to wear a Pride uniform, I strongly believe that every person has value and that the LGBTQIA+ community, like everyone else, should be welcome in all aspects of the game of hockey . Reimer got vitriol and charges. The commentators who broadcast his game condemned his conscientious objection and even described it as tonight’s bigger topic. Ironically, while denouncing Reimer for quietly following his faith, the president of the Pittsburgh Penguins proclaimed that Pride Nights is about inclusion and welcoming everyone. The presseven speculated that Reimer’s decision could affect his ability to continue playing in the NHL after his current contract expires. This sends a chilling message to other religious players: Step out of line and your career could be in jeopardy. Express your beliefs, refuse to follow the crowd, and we may find you too repulsive to tolerate.

These incidents continued, each marked by bitterness and conflict. That’s what led Commissioner Bettman to declare that Pride Nights have become a distraction that the league should reevaluate. That decision, of course, was itself denounced.

Some in the press, rather bizarrely, tried to link the situation to anti-gay laws recently passed in Russia and Uganda. Comparing such laws to the players’ respectful disagreements is just another attempt to demonize and stigmatize the religious players. Ugandan law criminalizes homosexuality with penalties that include life imprisonment. How does that brutal law relate to players who claim to support LGBTQ inclusion in hockey but politely refuse to wear Pride uniforms? We can’t even begin to guess, and the fact that we can’t distinguish between two positions that have nothing in common shows a lack of good faith among LGBTQ advocates. But the media apparently was willing to say anything to avoid acknowledging that their own abusive response to respectful religious protest could be the cause of the distraction.

This phenomenon has not been limited to the NHL. A women’s soccer player Bank for refusing to wear a Pride uniform. When five players on MLB’s Tampa Bay Rays refused to wear Pride uniforms, the New York Times convicted for undermining the message of inclusion and suggesting that they should have been benched as punishment.

Some critics might reply that while athletes have a right to object to wearing Pride uniforms, commentators have a right to condemn them and their teams have a right to punish them. This response evades the point and hides behind a dismissive legalism. Of course, the law gives Americans a lot of leeway to be mean, unfriendly, and intolerant of each other. But that doesn’t mean we should strive for life in an uncivilized and fragmented society. It certainly doesn’t mean the NHL should continue to host events that breed animosity and bigotry, the opposite of what they claim to be aiming for.

To take the critics’ cliche reaction one step further, the players are free to object, other people are free to criticize them, and the league is free to cancel Pride Nights. It may do as it pleases within the bounds of the law; It should doing what is best for its company, its players and the culture in which it exists. That would be very clear to return to its core competency, to give fans the opportunity to enjoy the great game of hockey played at the highest level, and to put aside promotional efforts that turn fans into inquisitors and fanatics.

As their advocates repeatedly remind us, the goal of Pride Nights is to create a welcoming and tolerant atmosphere. If such nights are used as mini-inquisitions to exterminate and punish dissenters for their religious beliefs, they are counterproductive to say the least. If one is looking for true tolerance, the way forward is clear. Let those who wish to publicly endorse the LGBTQ Pride message do so. Let conscientious objectors refrain from endorsing that message. We don’t have to agree on everything or much of everything to live together. And the alternative is a fate too heavy to bear.