Perhaps you are if that something you refuse to promote is tolerance.
Although one can fairly argue inaction is not the same as action, the counter to which I guess is a boycott by definition isn't inaction.
I know this is basically the line being pushed as the predominate argument in support of the decision taken by the seven, particularly by those whose thoughts lean towards religious conservatism, but I really think it's obfuscation of what's going on. It relies on the precondition that in wearing the jersey is by wrote celebrating certain lifestyles that one may disagree with. however that is not necessarily the case. Symbolism is funny like that, it can mean different things to different people, and it's easily misrepresented as definitive as you do here.
There is a very clear and defined difference between say the promotion of a particular lifestyle, and the promotion of the idea that that those who choose that lifestyle should be accepted and valued as much as those who do not, and there's a further very clear difference between that, and merely believing that those who choose such lifestyles shouldn't be discriminated against. These ( including the definition you are arguing ) are all ways in which this same symbolism can be interpreted. Where it becomes a misrepresentation is when you assign it a definitive meaning along your own ideological grounds, and present that as the definitive meaning. Plainly this is an ill considered stance, and is demonstrably false.
Of course they are, but no it's not. Are you literally going to conflate criticism of those that hold intolerant beliefs with beliefs that are by definition intolerant? They are of course free to hold these opinions or beliefs, if indeed they do. But equally others are free to criticise those very same opinions or beliefs.
In the end here the ultimate logical conclusion of this line of argument is that if your belief system is bigoted, provided that belief system is religious in it's nature, then criticism of that bigotry is also bigoted.
Or in other words "because religion" isn't a free pass.
As per above, it's symbolism, and that's gonna mean different things to different people. It doesn't have to have a singular and clearly defined meaning, it just needs to represent a general concept or idea, the details of which could be, and indeed are, many faceted and nuanced.
Again the same, what is this something that is being demanded they celebrate, if indeed there is a demand at all?
It occurs to me that if as is the case, they were allowed to sit out and not wear the jersey, then the "demand" was rather weakly put, to the point that it doesn't really seem like a demand at all.
This is certainly ( one of ) the argument(s) being put, but again I think it relies upon assumptions that are far from definitively true, and ignores any nuance of the broader conversation. If indeed it is the case that the seven saw or see this an endorsement, I dare say that they are ignoring that broader conversation, and that it needn't be seen as a personal endorsement of homosexuality at all, and that would indicate that there is very much a problem with the way in which the club handled the entire situation.
Lot's of people agree, so it's ok?
But then lots of people disagree, so it's not ok?
That provides quite the conundrum doesn't it. Indicative perhaps that logical fallacies aren't the most well reasoned of arguments after all.
This is literally a whole mess of unsupported assumptions. Except the bit on homosexuality, which to be fair, is just an application of a generalisation.
Agree on the conflation, there is very clearly a difference there.....
I'd add though that's a very thin definition of the word which ignores how the word is used in the context of this discussion, and in language in general. I would suggest that the appropriate definition here would be that it is the opposite of intolerance, and all connotations that implies.