I ran across a photo if the masthead of The Philadelphia Inquirer from February 25, 1953, and noticed the ‘taglines’ that it used: “Public Ledger” and “An Independent Newspaper for All the People”. By Public ledger, the Inquirer was setting itself up as Philadelphia’s newspaper of record, which Wikipedia defines as “a major newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative.” That Wikipedia article named four newspapers of record for the United States: The New York Times (Founded 1851), The Washington Post (1877), The Los Angeles Times (1881) and The Wall Street Journal (1889). First printed on Monday, June 1, 1829, the then Pennsylvania Inquirer is older than any of them. “An editorial in the first issue of The Pennsylvania Inquirer promised that the paper would be devoted to the right of a minority to voice their opinion and ‘the maintenance of the rights and liberties of the people, equally against the abuses as the usurpation of power.’”

Boy has that changed! As has happened to other great newspapers, the newsroom of the Inquirer was captured by the young #woke, who forced the firing resignation of Executive Editor and Senior Vice President Stan Wischnowski over the headline Buildings Matter, Too.

“Devoted to the right of a minority to voice their opinion”? Yeah, that failed, too, in February of 2021, as the Inquirer closed comments on the majority of its articles, stating that:

Commenting on Inquirer.com was long ago hijacked by a small group of trolls who traffic in racism, misogyny, and homophobia. This group comprises a tiny fraction of the Inquirer.com audience. But its impact is disproportionate and enduring.

Really? How do they know? How can they be sure that these views do not represent more than a “tiny fraction” of their audience? Have they really done the research, or was it just that the #woke didn’t like the idea that the riff-raff could express their opinions? “An Independent Newspaper for All the People”? No, the Inquirer has now become a non-profit newspaper for the left.

However, the newspaper did leave commenting open on sports articles, and the Inky draws a fair number of them.

Marcus Hayes is a sports columnist for the Inquirer, one of some less than restrained opinions.

Ivan Provorov shuns LGBTQ+ community as Flyers miss a chance to make a difference on Pride night

Flyers coach John Tortorella should have benched the defenseman. Plain and simple.

by Marcus Hayes | Wednesday, January 18, 2023

Not long ago, John Tortorella would’ve benched a player for kneeling during the national anthem. These days, if you wear your homophobia like a Pride flag, you earn Tortorella’s respect.

More than a bit disingenuous, that. When Coach Tortorella made that statement, he was coaching the United States national hockey team, as they prepared to play in the 2016 World Cup of Hockey, an international tournament. That team was representing the United States, not just Philadelphia.

Oh, how far we’ve come.

There will be some who will equate that asking Ivan Provorov to skate in a Pride-themed jersey Tuesday night was like forcing him to kneel during the national anthem back in 2016. That’s ridiculous, of course.

Kneeling protested systemic racism aimed at Black men in the criminal justice system of the United States. Meanwhile, warming up in a jersey with rainbow numbers and nameplates simply supported the right of LGBTQ+ people all over the world to exist without persecution. For anyone, that’s pretty simple.

So, let’s not complicate the issue. Provorov refused to warm up Tuesday night against Anaheim because he does not support the right of LGBTQ+ people to even exist. He cites his devotion to the Russian Orthodox church; in his eyes, their life is a sin. About that: Patriarch Kirill, the church’s leader in Russia and reportedly a former KGB agent, in May justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because Ukraine allows Gay Pride parades, and if Russia and other homophobic states do not oppress LGBTQ+ persons, “then human civilization will end there.”

So, because Ivan Vladimirovich Provorov is a Russian Orthodox Christian, Mr Hayes states, pretty definitively, that Ivan Vladimirovich — who has the same patronymic name as Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin! — does not believe that homosexuals should even exist, because Patriarch Kirill believes that homosexual relations are a sin. A real journalist would have recognized that; a journolist^[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading like Mr Hayes would not.

The source Mr Hayes linked does not say that Patriarch Kirill said that homosexuals have no right to exist. There is a difference between saying that something is a sin, and saying that those who engage in that sin have no right to exist.

Ahhh, but then again, Mr Hayes has never been particularly nuanced in his writing.

Though Mr Hayes is a sports columnist, writing about a particular sporting event, either Mr Hayes or one of the editors, decided that no, Mr Hayes column would not allow reader comments, not on this subject.

It’s hardly a surprise: the Inquirer did the same thing in January of 2022, when reader comments on an article about the University of Pennsylvania’s male swimmer Will Thomas, who declared that no, he was actually a female named “Lia”, were not supportive of that position, deleting all of the comments which didn’t accept the idea that Mr Thomas was actually a woman, and eventually closing comments entirely.

The Inquirer is our nation’s third oldest continuously published daily newspaper, but still believes that the government should subsidize its reporters’ salaries, but does not believe that its readers, its taxpaying readers, should be able to express an opinion which might be critical of the homosexual or transgender agendas.

The truth is that the editors at the Inquirer know that acceptance of the abnormal ends of the sexual spectrum is not as universal as they believe it should be, and that yes, that “tiny fraction of the Inquirer.com audience” isn’t all that tiny, but that’s a truth that the editors just can’t handle.