freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 8:15pm:



rubbish.

Repeating it won't make it correct, no matter how many times you say it

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 8:13pm:


Well, Effendi, you have failed to explain it so that it makes sense.  Try again.

Think about this.

If you agree to do something for valuable consideration, you cannot renege without consequences.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 9:12pm:


Correct. 

But they can sign up their consent......that is...NO rape.  You know......an essential element of rape is lack of consent.  What better proof of consent can you get than one evidenced in writing?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 9:38pm:


We're not firing them for their religious beliefs; we're firing them because they made a public statement brought the organisation into disrepute.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 10:09pm:


No. I don't think there is any contention whether Folau was expressing his religious views. They merely pretend that citing some other technical reason means it was nothing to do with his religious views (eg Auggie).

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 11:11pm:


Nazism wasn't a religious belief - it was a social structure.... your point may be somewhat valid, but your comparison is faulty...

Anyway - there is no 'freedom from religion' - there IS however, freedom from  religious control for those who want it... we are a society governed by secular law - not by religious law and observance...

That's why the blokes who whipped a fellow Muslim for being an adulterer, drinker and smoker were tried and found guilty and punished...  you cannot assault a person or otherwise punish them HERE because you think he/she did wrong by your religious belief...

Israel Folau punished nobody .... he basically said that by his rules they were punishing themselves.... you don't have to agree, but you have to respect his right to a view that has not passed the point of someone else's nose...

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2019 at 8:30am:


and yet being a 'trekkie' is considered by many to be a religion

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2019 at 8:30am:


And suppose they did? Sorry FD, you don't get to decide what is and what isn't someone's "religious view". Otherwise, if it were up to you, Islamic beliefs wouldn't be considered "religious beliefs". There is obviously a fundamental contradiction in defending the principle of people's right to "religious beliefs", while at the same time acting as the arbiter of what constitutes religious beliefs in the first place. And no, simply using the copout "oh I don't think even nazis/trekkers/pastafarians etc would contend that their views are religious views" doesn't cut it. You yourself constantly resort to morally equating nazi views with Islamic religious views -  which even you feel compelled to at least give the pretense are legitimately "religious" (ie gandalf should have the right to say jews are mindless collective). So you can't have it both ways.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2019 at 8:30am:


Thats the point FD - its open to interpretation - *BY* the people who actually inserted the clause and asked Folau to sign. Surely that is their perogative, morally if not legally. They even went to the trouble of warning him that this was being interpreted as a breach before they sacked him. Folau shouldn't have any reason to complain after such clarification - whether he agreed with the interpretation or not. Its not his perogative to dictate how his employer should interpret their own conditions of employment.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2019 at 8:30am:


It is not reasonable to dictate that the manner in which someone conducts themselves publicly should be off-limits to employers in their terms of employment. It is even less so when the defence is the completely subjective and completely arbitrary distinction of "religious beliefs".