It took Sanitarium an awfully long time to finally dedicate a series of its Weetbix collector cards to the World Cup-winning Black Ferns. My colleagues at Fair Go covered it in depth, and when it was finally announced that Weetbix would publish a Black Ferns series, most of us assumed that would be that.

But a fascinating story in the Herald revealed the best-known women’s rugby player in the World will not be appearing in the trading card series, becuase Ruby Tui insisted on appearing on the cards with a rainbow flag.

Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the church’s official stance opposes same-sex relations. But what’s remarkable about the reporting this week is that when Ruby Tui made the request to appear with a rainbow flag, it wasn’t necessarily Sanitarium that shut it down. According to reporting from Gregor Paul, the company was open to discussing the issue and it was actually New Zealand Rugby that blocked the plan, not wanting to set a precedent in allowing a player to use a commercial proposal to advocate for a personal cause.

If this it true, it’s remarkable. Because last I checked, rainbow rights aren’t just a personal cause.

New Zealand Rugby has signed up to the Pride Pledge, a public committment to diversity and inclusion. The organisation’s diversity and inclusion strategy specifically names rainbow communties as one of its targetted groups. And of course, many of the Black Ferns team are openly members of the rainbow community.

If Ruby Tui had wanted to appear with the logo of a specific political party, of course that would be different. If she’d insisted on wearing branding for a personal company, that would be different too.

But surely if a player’s personal cause directly overlaps with the broadly-stated and celebrated cause of the organisation they’re representing, then it’s no longer just a personal cause.

I’m glad we live in an age where players feel they can make a stand. I admired Sonny-Bill Williams for his decision not to wear logos from sponsors in industries he opposed. In Ruby Tui’s case, she’s ultimately leaving money on the table and making a principled stand. We’d all like to think that for an issue or a cause we cared about, we’d have the integrity to do the same thing.

We don’t know what would have happened if Ruby Tui and Sanitarium had properly discussed her request. Given it’s owned by the church, there’s good reason to believe Sanitarium might ultimately have opposed Ruby Tui’s appearance. I wonder what might have happened if other players had followed Ruby’s lead and insisted on holding rainbow flags. Sanitarium might have found itself in a very tricky position indeed.

But that’s on Sanitarium.

And if the reporting this week is accurate and it was ultimately New Zealand Rugby that stepped in, it adds a very different dynamic to the whole situation. I think it says something about the character and priorities of the organisation. Sure, we’re all for rainbow rights, until it impacts our bottom line.