The other part of the argument that teams wear logos of companies that promote betting or drinking are usually sponsors that pay to have the logos on the jumpers and therefore inject monies into the club...did LGBT pay the Manly boss to change the usual and registered Manly jumper...?
That argument does not make sense. Scott Penn injects the most money into Manly, i.e. he owns them. So he can do what he pleases. So if he chooses to do an inclusion jersey, then that's it: Manly are doing an inclusion jersey.
By your argument, if the Paedophile and Recidivist Rapists Association (PARRA) was to sponsor Manly, that's fine, because they are putting monies in?
It is a valid point where one's morality extends to not being able to support, associate or even politely overlook people who have different sexual and gender identities, but be totally fine to have the same association with gambling and drinking. It shows you the strange line where they draw their moral values.
And it's doubly-valid not just on a morality argument, but that such persons often turn to scripture as evidence or support for their position, but again ignoring religious text that speaks out against other issues for which they don't take a stand. E.g. the bible is pretty big on condemning covetousness (e.g. being jealous when you find out another player has a bigger salary than you), warns against drinking too much alcohol, about love / obsession with money.
The good book is also pretty huge on not desiring or having relationships with your neighbour's wife, so I can only assume that footballers will no longer associate with players who are guilty of adultery, or with sexual relations prior to marriage.
