It’s called a “uniform”
What about those who don’t want to endorse gravity, do they get to wear their shoes on their heads? Or those who don’t want to endorse causality? I’m not sure what they’d do. 
Endorsing LGBT as in wanting to get together after the game for a fuck is not the issue, and in essence you’re pretending that it is. What IS at issue is treating them as well, and as respectfully, as you treat everyone else. Anyone not on board with that does not need to be coddled; if you want to be a racist or a bigot, you can just get off the team and go home.
I sense that the thread has reached a point of “immovable disagreement” and is only going to go in circles.
I can only reiterate the same point: People are confusing “Doesn’t want to publicly promote Stance X” with “opposing Stance X.”
In a world of diverse viewpoints, you are not going to find everyone fitting neatly into “Opposes Stance X” and “Willing to Actively, Publicly, Endorse Stance X.” There will be a sizable number of people who don’t fall into either category - perhaps some who support Stance X but don’t want to be seen as publicly political about it, perhaps some people who are just disinterested in the issue and do not want to get involved, perhaps some who have not yet figured out where they stand.
One can support Hillary, yet not want to have a Hillary sign on their front lawn.
An employee can be pro-LGBT, yet object to an employer requiring all employees to march in the local Gay Pride rally.
People seem to think that the only reasons that a player could possibly have for not wanting to wear a pro-LGBT (or pro-BLM, etc.) message on their jerseys must necessarily stem from being a bigot.
They seem to think that because its true.
Not true. You are just in the middle of learning something.
You’re confusing Stance X - which is “I want to fuck gay people” - with Stance Y, which is “Gay people should be treated fairly”. If you don’t want to promote Stance Y, you don’t belong on the team or in the country.
The example you cited was explicitly against equal rights for gay people. And you haven’t explained how someone can be against equal rights for gay people without being bigoted.
You can be in favor of LGBT rights, yet object to being required to march in a Gay Pride rally.
No, they might simply not want to be seen as publicly promoting a political message.
Not referring to Hinkle specifically, but in general. Taxi drivers can support Israel, yet object to being required to have Star of David bumper stickers on their cars.
That’s because so far, 100% of the real-world examples you’ve provided of people refusing to wear a pride emblem have turned out to be anti-gay bigots. When you can find someone refusing to wear a pride emblem who doesn’t already have a documented history of public homophobia, maybe we can revisit this argument.
Did someone try to force you to march in a Gay Pride rally?
It’s almost as though… she’s being treated as a second class citizen. Maybe we can create a special separate soccer team for those who oppose equal rights for LGBT. It will be a separate team, but equal.
When has anyone been required to march in a Gay Pride rally? So far it sounds like you’re either referencing examples of bigots being criticized for saying and doing bigoted things, or making up hypotheticals that have never actually occurred.
For the record, I would refuse to march in a gay pride rally, because that would involve things like going outside, putting myself in the physical presence of people I don’t know, and walking a really long way.
All y’all can have all the rights you want, though. No skin off my nose.
How about we send you the women’s soccer jersey, and we coerce you to wear it under your dressing gown?
You’re confusing human characteristics with political affiliation. We could, by not endorsing it and not paying it any attention and making it hard to find, essentially eliminate the Communist party in the US. Those people would join a different party. But being LGBT is not a political act or political affiliation - it’s a basic characteristic of the person, and would not go away.
Being Jewish and being from Israel are not the same thing. I can (if I want) support Jewish people’s right to be treated well, while being against the current government of Israel.
To put that a little less dumbly, what if I was forced to engage in a completely non-arduous activity that would no way increase the difficulty of me doing my job, but which compelled me to engage in a slightly different activity than I normally would do?
In answer to that, yes, I did indeed wear a button-down shirt to my job, for years, until a change in managers rendered that dress requirement necessary and allowed the more preferred garb of polo shirts to reign supreme.
Of course, I don’t have a bigoted dislike of button-down shirts - if I did I probably would have quit the job rather than put up with wearing them. If it mattered that much to me. And nobody would be impressed with my reason for doing so, and they’d be justified in scorning me for that choice I’d made.
Seriously, though. His act got protests 30 years ago. I wonder if people would still go see him as an outlet of what they are thinking but can’t say.
Unfortunately, what Americans are extremely good at is offering unwanted negative opinions. About every goddamned thing in the universe.
Because hey, Free Speech! I can say whatever I want! No matter how cruel, hateful, angry or off base!
On this subject, LGBTQ, I never get the obsession with what other people do in their bedrooms or who they love. Ain’t none of your goddamned business and no one wants to hear your negative opinion or gives a fuck what you think.
Because it demeans or makes worthless their heterosexual marriage/lifestyle.
At least that is what they tell us. I have yet to figure out how that happens.