I'm not looking for an argument, but the person and article you raised is not necessarily the issue you seem to think it is in my opinion.
Intolerance is definitely an OLD TOPIC.
My point of 'old topic' is that this person has been cut from the squad years ago. This person's plight is old news.
Did the media create the issue of her being excluded because of her religious beliefs?
Has anyone else been shown to have been excluded for religious beliefs? Nobody that I'm aware of other than THIS person. Ever, within my memory. And SHE isn't the one claiming bigtory, the article does, other sports writers do. The closest SHE comes is acknowledging the risk in turning down an invite to play - that's how it works with any job, in any profession.
By the way, did you look at the other media that pushed the 'dropped for religious reasons' concept? Christian news outlets. There's an agenda there. Why didn't any non-Christian media pick this up? Aside from Hinkle, we don't know the religion of any other players, so we can't say the squad is excluding intolerant Muslims, or if other Christians are on the squad.
Neither Hinkle, nor you, bring up the race aspect of bigotry...though the article does. It doesn't say she was left off by race, but that dropping her hurts the squads diversity. This is a media angle to push buttons. Looking at the squad there are 3-4 players of color on the squad now. Is race an issue in player selection, or talent? Does it merit mention, or is the article (which is full of Christian opinions on the religious basis for exclusion) simply trying to push it's angle for attention despite a lack of substance to support it?
MR is all against "excluding" people unless they don't fit her preference.
Now you bring MR into it. I personally don't agree with MR's grandstanding and agenda pushing, but MR didn't exclude Hinkle. Why are you framing it as such? She's not part of this decision. Are you concerned that MR isn't fighting for Hinkle to be on the team, that she lacks outrage at the left back being dropped? Perhaps we should recognize it is the coach's decision to put the best players on the field who give the team the best chance to win. Players are supposed to play.
The quotes from the same people who called her "homophobic" also said "there isn’t a better pure tactical fit available than
Hinkle.”
Again, who is speaking? Sports writers (SBNation, Buzzfeed), not exactly the experts on who is best at a position. They are, however, charged with making headlines and getting eyeballs, stirring discussion. I've yet to hear anyone in a position of actually evaluating talent say anything about Hinkle's talent level being 'the best' at the position The coach, Ellis (known lesbian), made the decision and it is her job to evaluate the talent. I can infer, from Hinkle's collegiate days at Texas Tech (not a known power house) she may not be 'the best'. That she even got 8 caps, and that she plays professionally, tells me she is damn good, but not necessarily 'the best'.
So team chemistry only matters when you are excluding a talented player who is NOT gay? If the situation were reversed, there would be outrage, but because the person not included is not gay, then it's no big deal.
I'm not sure where you're trying to take this. We know for a fact there are several gay players on the squad - the media ensures we know who, and there is of course the spotlight they (MR, the goalie's girlfriend) are given to voice their outrage about whatever irks them. We know the coach is gay. But how many other players are not gay and made the squad because of their talent? How many gay players were excluded because of their lower level of talent? The bar for exclusion is 'who is the best, who can help us win'. Trying to paint the bar as 'who is gay, or supports gay rights' is a myopic view that discredits those who earned their position, and inflates those who missed out to more importance than they warrant.