A more spineless version of the same thing:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 9:30am:

neither do I baron  although fd seems to think I do have a problem.....as far as I can tell I DIDNT MAKE HIS LIST

how about you FD   ARE YOU A SINNER according to Israel?....

come on fess up!..

what makes you believe GOD would send these fine people to HELL.....because they have human faults.....


what makes you believe that is what RELIGION is all about?......

you are saying  that if someone like Israel accepts Ivan Milat seeking god blessing    then god will allow him into heaven

but not a gay minister who has only ever helped his fellow man and doesnt see himself as a sinner.....


come on that is not RELIGION...as you say its ISRAELS  opinion of what is written in the Bible...

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 9:19am:


False equivalence.

First of all there is plenty criticism of persecution of gays. You only need to look at the recent example of Brunei which backed down from implementing the death penalty for gays due to international criticism.

Secondly Falau was sacked for breach of contract. Something that could happen to any one of us if we posted on social media posts which our employers found objectionable

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 10:50am:


That would depend what is in my employment contract.
The fact is that it's not a "technicality". Falou was repeatedly warned that his social media behaviour was unacceptable but he chose to ignore hos employers directives

Quote:


So it is clear that he is free to post what ever he wants about his religion as long as it doesn't breach his employment contract

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 9:19am:



no they're not. Here you go again, pretending they said something they didn't.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:27am:



vague? there was nothing vague in Folaus contract. They were very clear on what he wasn't supposed to post.

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:30am:


Can you quote the relevant part?

Quote:


You are confused again John. What did I claim they said?

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:23am:


What do you mean by "get away with" John? And how was he attacking people?

Auggie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:32am:


So you would accept being fired for thinking homosexuality is acceptable?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:27am:


You have missed the point that Falou was repeatedly and clearly warned that his social media behaviour was unacceptable.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:36am:


huh? I was defining virtue signalling you dope.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:39am:



rubbish.

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:23am:



Agreed
It's also enlightening that the same people were only too willing to attack and call for the sacking of Yassmin Abdel-Magied after her Anzac day post. She did actually delete the post and apologise for it but that wasn't enough.

The hypocrisy is breath taking

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:46am:



hilarious isn't it. Almost exactly the same people, arguing for the other side. 

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 12:00pm:


nice diversion but once again you are missing the point (or deliberately avoiding it)

The VERY same people who are defending Falou's freedom of speech were calling for the sacking of Yassmin Abdel-Magied after her Anzac day post

That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 12:10pm:


Probably before too.

Can you quote them? There are an aweful lot of people defending Folau.

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 2:09pm:


Yes, supporters of homofascism keep flip flopping between redefining freedom of speech to mean freedom from free speech, and turning Folau's sacking into a technicality.

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 11:43am:


You're sacked for publishing that comment in public ....

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 2:46pm:


What is?

Maybe the reality is this.  Someone signs a Contract...then breaches its terms and he does not like the outcome of his own breach.  So he becomes a 'whiny little bitch.'

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 12:00pm:



Maybe if you pay me $4m per annum to post here, that'll help clarify things for you?

Both are breaching the rules they agreed to. The bigger the reward, the bigger the consequences.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 2:46pm:



as are your dumb rules. I don't see you starting countless threads on that.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:01pm:



Don't like it, don't sign it.

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 2:55pm:


They cannot IMPOSE restrictions on religion..........othwise there would be no muslims in Australia........and the only 'whiny little bitch' is you arsie.......

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:02pm:


So far every occasion in which someone was fired like Folau was, they mounted a legal challenge and got paid out. Folau is most likely in line for a big payout. That's because illegal contract clauses cannot be enforced, even if you sign them. Not sure why we need to go over this. It has been done to death already.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 10:08am:


he's vilifying homos whilst hiding behind the cloak of religion. Just another god gobber spruiking their god gobbing muck And according to his own beliefs he is going to hell for hoarding material possessions and wealth instead of selling everything and giving to the poor. Same with the church and the other bible thumpers that all of a sudden has all of this spare money to help him fight his case. What were they doing sitting on this money when it should have been given to the needy according to Jesus's own teachings ?

All religious instruction is bullshit and should be discouraged.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:06pm:



and folau has no fundamental human right to play rugby for RA. Sacking him does not violate his human rights.

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:08pm:


Or another point.  FD asserts I have freedom of speech but not freedom to choose where I exercise that freedom.....ie here.

Hmmmmm...remarkable and exact similarity with Folau's position, yes Effendi?

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:07pm:


https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/one-unresolved-legal-question-at-the-heart-of-israel-folaus-case/news-story/387b057b25ab325d35ea494b9ed087b3

Many businesses have similar codes of conduct; there is a good chance you agreed to follow one when you signed your own employment contract.

The thing that makes this case unique is also a central part of Folau’s counterargument — his religion.

That conflict, between an employer’s right to impose standards of conduct on its workers and an employee’s right to religious expression, has never been properly tested in court.

There simply isn’t a precedent to tell us how far Folau’s rights go in this scenario.

“We don’t really have any case law specifically dealing with it, so the question for the court is going to be: is it encompassed within the protection of religion that a person is therefore able to say whatever they think, or quote from the Bible in any way that they like, publicly, in the way that he has done here?” Prof Forsyth said.

“Folau argues he’s compelled by being a Christian of the kind that he is, I’m compelled to preach the word of the Bible and the world of the Lord. That’s part and parcel of my practising of my religion.

“And unfortunately we just don’t know from case law, because there haven’t been cases on this, whether the right to practise your religion extends that far.”

You might recall the case of former SBS sport reporter Scott McIntyre, who was fired after posting a series of controversial tweets about Anzac Day in 2015.

McIntyre claimed it was an unlawful termination before eventually settling — like so many others in the same situation.

“The problem is these cases keep settling, so we don’t get a decision,” Prof Forsyth said. “Us employment lawyers are desperate for a ruling.”

He said he was “almost as certain as I can be” that Folau and Rugby Australia would end up settling as well.

“Obviously these settlements are always without any acceptance of liability and they’re confidential, but you’ve got to think about the commercial pressures they’re under,” he said of the sport’s governing body.

“How long would they want the circus to go on? From Rugby Australia’s point of view, they’re looking at the possibility of at least a few more months of this kind of publicity, and it’s not very good for their brand, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would want to settle it.

“And then there’s also, always in these cases there’s the risk they could lose. Which would be even more unhelpful. And he’s got a massive compensation claim.”

Folau is seeking $10 million in compensation, about half of which is for his lost salary, with the other half covering missed financial opportunities such as sponsorships.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:33pm:





so it has never been tested in court.

I guess they're going to test it soon enough then. I doubt folau is going to win but we'll have to wait and see.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 3:38pm:


Not me who is 'confused' Effendi.  That is always your fall-back default position when you know you are cornered.

If I have an absolute right to freedom of speech that implicitly demands I have an absolute right to exercise that freedom wherever I choose.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 4:08pm:


Exactly.  But you seek to insist that in Folau's case...it is.  (Your neighbour analogy is pure crap.

You invite people here [as opposed to the neighbour who has not invited me there] and I sign up to your Roolz to curtail my 'freedom' according to your Roolz).

Quote:


Yes....Effendi.....you 'claim' he was fired for his religious views, and yet you have never established that to be the case.

If you have a different position, now would be a great time to explain it.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 6:43pm:


Typical.  You assume your point is made when the truth is it has not been made and you have never come close to making it.  As usual, you go off on tangents and believe that the schmucks will take your assumption as the fact.  The consummate strawman.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 7:02pm:


Nope.  Next?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 7:12pm:


To the extent he merely repeated Old Testament crap...okay.  Yep.  Next?

Aussie wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 7:30pm:


That's all. Just wanted to establish that he was fired for his religious views.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 7:32pm:



which would be great if he wasn't in fact sacked for breaching his contract

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 8:25pm:


no, by 'harassing or bullying' someone because of their sexual preference. His religious views are not an escape clause in my view.

John Smith wrote on Jun 30^th, 2019 at 8:35pm:


You can make up as many alternative labels for it you want. Still doesn't change what it is.

Who did he harass an bully? Does their butthurt mean Folau was not expressing his religious views when he expressed his religious views? Why does this double speak seem to come with the territory of homofascist apologetics?

Do you think people have some kind of right to not hear opinions they dislike?

Quote:


I agree completely. But it helps.

Quote:


About half a dozen people I quoted in the first page. It seems to have scared them off. You and Aussie are normally in lockstep with them. You do realise that's what this thread is about don't you?

Who did Folau harass an bully? Does their butthurt mean Folau was not expressing his religious views when he expressed his religious views? Why does this double speak seem to come with the territory of homofascist apologetics?

He should have issued a trigger warning.

Just like I ignore Islam - I can ignore any religion that comes along - THAT is freedom from religion...

I see personalities (or lack thereof) have over-ridden discussion on this issue ..........

Raven wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 4:07pm:


Exactly.

And now he's going to waste everyone's time & money in the Federal Court just to be told that.

What a boofhead.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 4:14pm:


Nope.

He was fired because he "committed a high-level breach of the Professional Players’ Code of Conduct”.

If you can find an official document from his employer saying that they sacked him for his religious beliefs, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 4:18pm:


You think that people who breach their employer's Code of Conduct shouldn't be sacked?

Really?

Rugby Australia Code of Conduct





Rugby Australia Code of Conduct  9

3 CODE OF CONDUCT – ADMINISTRATORS, OFFICERS OF A RUGBY BODY
3.1 The safety, health and welfare of players comes first.  Be aware of, and always comply with, the Rugby AU Safety Policies and Guidelines and be alert to minimise dangerous or foul play.
3.2 Treat everyone equally regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby. 
3

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 4:42pm:

We live in a age where people are too afraid to be offended. Why anybody would getting their knickers in a twist about some god botherer telling people they are going to hell is beyond me. That's far too sensitive and alarming.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 5:06pm:

You'll eventually find out. Rugby Australia will settle out of court. QANTAS will foot the bill.

John Smith wrote on Jul 1^st, 2019 at 5:19pm:

He wasn't being rude to anybody. He was just parroting Christian doctrine.