In baseball terminology, relief pitchers are often called “firemen” — called upon to douse the flames of the opposing team’s late-inning rally. This past week, a quartet of Giants pitchers who share Christian religious beliefs has found themselves at the center of a growing cultural and political firestorm that has gone from Oracle Park to social media to Vice President Vance and the Trump Justice Department. In response to a Giants corporate decision designating Friday, June 12, “Pride Night,” and directing players to wear caps sporting the traditional San Francisco logo in rainbow colors instead of the team’s traditional orange, three pitchers added to their caps a Biblical passage describing the significance of the rainbow as God’s commitment to humanity “and every living creature of all flesh.” The fourth pitcher declined the rainbow cap and simply wore the usual orange-and-black cap.
The clash between sincerely held religious beliefs and an attempt to demonstrate corporate social responsibility to foster widespread local community values of diversity and acceptance has sparked heated debate and raised difficult questions. This season, Major League Baseball introduced ABS — an automated system to determine whether a pitch is a ball or a strike. There is no ABS applicable to the current controversy. Instead, the controversy could have been avoided with greater communication and planning.
For decades, the baseball diamond has been associated with political and cultural change. In 1949, Giants scout Cappy Harada helped the Army stage a baseball game in Tokyo, where, for the first time in post-World War II Japan, the American and Japanese flags were raised side by side. The moment has been heralded as a key gesture, moving the two countries together after the war. In the 1950s, Jackie Robinson courageously broke down the barrier against African Americans in the major leagues. Even today, Jewish families remember with pride Sandy Koufax declining to pitch Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it conflicted with his religious responsibilities on Yom Kippur. Over this same time period, organized sports, from high school to the professional leagues, have frequently been toxic environments for lesbian and gay athletes who often came out only after their playing days were over.
While Oracle Park and other baseball venues are often considered local landmarks and gathering places for sports or entertainment, they are fundamentally workplaces. Players are employees who enjoy rights under their individual contracts, collective bargaining agreements, and state and federal laws, including the protection from discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and other legally recognized characteristics. Some legal experts say the laws treat baseball players differently from other workers because they are considered part of a team and give up their individual identities when they wear their uniforms. However, these descriptors also could be applied to fast food workers, custodians, and other uniformed workers.
Greater communication could have staved off the current controversy by giving the pitchers the chance to explain their views to their teammates and for others on the team to share their own views on the important values of Pride Night.
Others say that management has a legitimate interest in requiring all players to wear the same attire — the very essence of the word “uniform.” In some industries, such as law enforcement and transportation, there is a safety interest in employees being recognized that justifies uniformity in dress. In baseball, the business necessity may be for players to be easily identified by fans, umpires, and other players. Even this rationale is subject to some exceptions, such as on Jackie Robinson Day when every player wears Robinson’s number 42 instead of their regular jersey.
How do these justifications for all players to wear the same uniforms stack up against compelling players to wear symbols that are contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs or to keeping them from wearing a symbol that does express their beliefs? Courts answer these questions on a case-by-case basis and would consider whether the requested attire is a drastic change from everyone else’s (e.g., wearing a different team’s uniform or an entirely different style) or how noticeable the change is.
Most people would likely consider it a violation of an individual employee’s free speech rights for a sports team owner, or any employer, to require the employee to wear a button or sticker favoring a political candidate or social cause favored by the owner. Courts are even more likely to rule that infringements on religious practices or compelled action against one’s own religious beliefs are unlawful. Over a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law making English the official language of Nebraska and prohibiting German from being taught to the state’s elementary school students because the prohibition infringed on parents’ ability to teach Lutheran Bible lessons to their children in that language. Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for an employer to deny an employee’s request to be exempted from a work schedule forcing him to work on Sundays, contrary to his religious beliefs. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local school districts must provide an exception to any requirement for a student to attend Drag Queen Story Hour if the parent has a religious objection. .
The high regard that courts give to religious freedom in the workplace does not entirely deprive employers of the means to celebrate diversity or particular cultures or societal groups. For example, consistent with the law, the Giants could advance San Francisco’s civic pride in diversity and tolerance by raising the Rainbow Flag; displaying the flag throughout the ballpark; giving rainbow-themed merchandise to fans; having a prominent LGBTQ leader throw out the first pitch; financially supporting LGBTQ community organizations; highlighting testimonials about a player’s or employee’s personal growth in accepting LGBTQ people in their lives; or other ways instead of requiring players who express sincerely held religious views to act in contradiction to them.
The Trump administration has commenced an investigation into Major League Baseball’s warning to the four pitchers that they violated the league uniform policy. This approach unnecessarily politicizes the differences between the players and the league, particularly now that the players themselves have stated they did not feel discriminated against. In the past, before the Trump administration eliminated it, the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service (CRS) would have been the ideal government agency to help resolve the dispute. President Johnson established CRS in the 1964 Civil Rights Act to address racial and other conflicts in communities, not by ordering outcomes, but by bringing together various interests and groups who, while vehemently disagreeing, at least were willing to talk.
Greater communication could have staved off the current controversy by giving the pitchers the chance to explain their views to their teammates and for others on the team to share their own views on the important values of Pride Night and the history of barriers to acceptance of LGBTQ people posed by families, communities, civic institutions, and even religions. Communication would have helped keep team officials from being caught off guard to the conflicting views and provided them time to make alternate, but still meaningful, Pride Night plans without escalating the controversy. Players could have taken the opportunity to pivot back to the main purpose of their employment — to win games — and keep distraction and disharmony to a minimum. Whether the crisis can serve as a catalyst for all the players to come together and improve clubhouse communication and on-the-field outcomes remains to be seen. More important for San Francisco as a community is for all involved to make a critical assessment of the steps needed to build mutual respect for differences where they exist and to stitch together again common bonds of trust.
