Don't wish to dispute any of your statements, but would rather wish only to point out the most-efficient argument:
The onus is upon the claimant to prove his thesis.
So the people demanding that someone wear such a jersey must first prove that NOT wearing it is somehow bigoted.
They, in turn, would then probably retort, "But why don't you want to wear it?"
The correct response to such a question is ALWAYS, "Why SHOULD I wear it?"
"To show that you are not a bigot!"
"But how does wearing such a jersey show that I am not a bigot - and why do I even have to, suddenly, show that I am not a bigot? Why should I have to prove anything?"
If they don't take recourse to any other ultimately fallacious arguments, they will reply, "When someone asks you do something to prove that you aren't a bigot, you are then obliged to do so - otherwise, not doing it proves you are a bigot."
That is, of course, an absurd assertion - but, just for fun, one could then produce a "necrophile pride" t-shirt and demand that they wear it.
Regards,
It's the same principle used when arguing with a liberal. They always try to maneuver you into a position where you have to explain yourself to them, or convince them of something. That's the point of accusations and 'dueling questions'. Once you have to try to convince them, they're in your six, and you've lost.
As you said, as soon as they accuse you of something, the correct response is "convince me". Usually they will either reply with another question, or make one or two lame statements followed by a question. This is them trying to get in your six. Never let them. Always make them have to convince you. (And PS, never let them do either one.) More people need to learn this.