Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 ... 33
Send Topic Print
Folau vs Yassmin (Read 9558 times)
Ye Grappler
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44323
Mid-North Coast NSW
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #360 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:13pm
 
Abu wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:14pm:
Gnads wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 12:43pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 1:42pm:
Ye Grappler wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 1:38pm:
So now people are going to flood to stay away from Rugby because Israel Folau said that sinners would burn in hell?


No, the sponsors are the ones they are worried about.

QANTAS is their main backer I believe, and they were said to be putting pressure on RA.



Joyce denies that.

And it's not "Qantas" ... it's Joyce.

Why should he be able to hide behind the company logo & assert influence on RA to deal with Folau?

Afterall Joyce is just an employee of the company.


No, dear, Joyce is appointed by the board.

And I believe this decision was discussed by the board.

But that's irrelevant. The team is the team. Why should sponsorship have anything to do with who they select to play? This was RA's decision.

Without Folou, apparently their best player ever, they should expect to lose sponsorship too. After all, Folou, as every schoolboy knows, is the reason they win.

A devil's choice, innit?


Better I take Zud Afrique in the Rugby championship first match then?
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44549
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #361 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 8:17am:
John Smith wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:11pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:48pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Does that mean he was not fired for his religious views John? In other words, are you telling a lie, or just giving us meaningless obfuscation?


He was fired for breaching his code of conduct FD.

Do you need me to repeat it for you again?


Let me try to dumb it down for you. Was Folau fired for expressing his religious views?



Let me try to dumb it down for you. He was fired for breaching his code of conduct.


Why do the homofascists act like this? A simple yes or no will suffice John, if you are not too scared of being honest for once. Was Folau fired for expressing his religious views?


Is that why you never answer questions FD? you're a chicken sh1t homo fascist?  Grin Grin Grin

I've answered your question, multiple times. If you don't like the answer that's your problem. Not mine.
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:

I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44549
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #362 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:19pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:26pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:11pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:48pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Does that mean he was not fired for his religious views John? In other words, are you telling a lie, or just giving us meaningless obfuscation?


He was fired for breaching his code of conduct FD.

Do you need me to repeat it for you again?


Let me try to dumb it down for you. Was Folau fired for expressing his religious views?



Let me try to dumb it down for you. He was fired for breaching his code of conduct.
And the fact that Joyce threatened to pull QANTAS sponsorship.


that's been my argument all along homo.

I've asked you the question several times, but each time you ran away without answering. We'll try again. If you has a business, and an employee of yours posted something on social media that could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, would you take action against him?
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:

I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12021
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #363 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:20pm
 
Abu wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 4:20pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
The law forbids firing people for their religious views.


Which is subtly, but crucially different to firing for a) expressing those views and b) the medium in which they are expressed. If Folau's boss had asked him about what he thought about gays and Folau answered that he believed they were going to hell - then that is obviously very different to an unprompted broadcasting of that view on a platform viewed by millions.

You talk about a slippery slope, well how more slippery can you get when you make the broadcasting of any kind of hate speech - up to and including incitement of violence - a completely protected activity under the law - so long as it is done under the cover of "religious beliefs"?

So I think you are wrong - I don't believe the broadcasting of any sort of speech under the cover of "religious beliefs" has to be completely off limits to employers in their conditions of employment. The law will understand the nuance between holding a religious belief on the one hand, and how they go about broadcasting those beliefs on the other. Obviously no one would argue if a muslim was sacked by RA for posting "it is my sincere Islamic belief that all jews should be rounded up and gassed forthwith" to his millions of followers - nor would there be any argument when he is arrested for the same thing.




FD's not defending religious speech, G, he's defending hate speech.

Remember, when Yassmin Tweeted something as harmless as lest we forget refugees, FD defended the rape and death threats that followed - to the letter.

For FD, a tinted Muslim woman comparing the plight of refuges to Australians killed in foreign wars deserved everything she got, whether she was expressing her religious views or not.

Likewise, FD's not defending Folou's right to spruik the message of his prophet, he's defending Folou's right to slag off the hommers.

FD hasn't defended religious freedom since "he changed his mind" in 2007. FD is now of the opinion that those who follow the religion of Islam should be banned. FD wants them asked cunning questions on their visa applications - questions designed to trip them up, agree that they support genocide, want to kill gays who do it Mardi Gras-style and tough-titties, off with their treacherous heads.

In fact, why ask them at all? They have to believe this, they're Muslims. They don't share the same values as Whitey. The purpose of the visa questions is to get them to admit that they can't live among civilised people so you can knock them back, but still maintain you believe in freedom.

FD's always been rather quiet about what to do with the ones like you; citizens who convert. He hopes you'll sneak off to fight in some foreign war so you can be banned when you try to return.

As for all other Muslim religious practices: praying, reading the Quran, visiting Mecca, giving alms to the poor, etc, FD's got that covered too. FD, you see, has redefined Islam as a terrorist political movement. Therefore, all Islamic religious expression can be banned.

You make a mistake when you assume FD shares liberal views on religious or cultural expression, G. He doesn't. Whenever you can get a straight answer out of him, he expresses views that are the very antithesis of liberalism.

FD is not defending religious expression here, he's defending the expression of hate. FD wants the freedom to bludgeon people he doesn't like, and his criteria for them is anyone who challenges the Anglo-Saxon global hegemon led by Uncle, Mother and their agents - the Saudis and Israelis in the Middle East, for example, or their puppet regimes in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

For FD, the preservation of this order is so fundamental it goes without saying. Why would you even question it? FD was happy to uphold freedom of expression and pluralism and civility until someone came along who actually challenged his world view, someone so diabolical the very sight of his name made the blood rush to FD's head.

Do you know who that ex-member is, G?



It's only hate speech for the terminally offended SJW's and the hommers..... no?
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44549
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #364 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:22pm
 
Abu wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 10:48pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Does that mean he was not fired for his religious views John? In other words, are you telling a lie, or just giving us meaningless obfuscation?


Did you ban JS for his views, FD?

Or for disagreeing with yours?



not this time ... but it's still early   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:

I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44549
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #365 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:23pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:09pm:
Abu wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:07pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 11:35am:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:48pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Does that mean he was not fired for his religious views John? In other words, are you telling a lie, or just giving us meaningless obfuscation?


He was fired for breaching his code of conduct FD.

Do you need me to repeat it for you again?


Let me try to dumb it down for you. Was Folau fired for expressing his religious views?


No.


Good work, Greggery. Now, would you like FD to answer a question?


That would be splendid.



you've more chance of winning lotto
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:

I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #366 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
The law forbids firing people for their religious views.


Which is subtly, but crucially different to firing for a) expressing those views and b) the medium in which they are expressed. If Folau's boss had asked him about what he thought about gays and Folau answered that he believed they were going to hell - then that is obviously very different to an unprompted broadcasting of that view on a platform viewed by millions.

You talk about a slippery slope, well how more slippery can you get when you make the broadcasting of any kind of hate speech - up to and including incitement of violence - a completely protected activity under the law - so long as it is done under the cover of "religious beliefs"?

So I think you are wrong - I don't believe the broadcasting of any sort of speech under the cover of "religious beliefs" has to be completely off limits to employers in their conditions of employment. The law will understand the nuance between holding a religious belief on the one hand, and how they go about broadcasting those beliefs on the other. Obviously no one would argue if a muslim was sacked by RA for posting "it is my sincere Islamic belief that all jews should be rounded up and gassed forthwith" to his millions of followers - nor would there be any argument when he is arrested for the same thing.




You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others. The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 11:35am:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 9:09pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:48pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Does that mean he was not fired for his religious views John? In other words, are you telling a lie, or just giving us meaningless obfuscation?


He was fired for breaching his code of conduct FD.

Do you need me to repeat it for you again?


Let me try to dumb it down for you. Was Folau fired for expressing his religious views?


No.


Well that's a surprise. I was expecting you to go with the meaningless obfuscation options rather than the blatant lie option. And it only took you a few pages to give a straight answer.

Is your reasoning that the technical appeal to the contract clause means he was not expressing his religious views?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44549
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #367 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:27pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others.



are you claiming RA didn't know of his religious beliefs?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:

I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #368 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:29pm
 
John Smith wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:27pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others.



are you claiming RA didn't know of his religious beliefs?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


No. If you are still confused, you should be able to figure out what we are talking about by reading the rest of the post.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 25211
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #369 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
The law forbids firing people for their religious views.


Which is subtly, but crucially different to firing for a) expressing those views and b) the medium in which they are expressed. If Folau's boss had asked him about what he thought about gays and Folau answered that he believed they were going to hell - then that is obviously very different to an unprompted broadcasting of that view on a platform viewed by millions.

You talk about a slippery slope, well how more slippery can you get when you make the broadcasting of any kind of hate speech - up to and including incitement of violence - a completely protected activity under the law - so long as it is done under the cover of "religious beliefs"?

So I think you are wrong - I don't believe the broadcasting of any sort of speech under the cover of "religious beliefs" has to be completely off limits to employers in their conditions of employment. The law will understand the nuance between holding a religious belief on the one hand, and how they go about broadcasting those beliefs on the other. Obviously no one would argue if a muslim was sacked by RA for posting "it is my sincere Islamic belief that all jews should be rounded up and gassed forthwith" to his millions of followers - nor would there be any argument when he is arrested for the same thing.




You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others. The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.


Here's what you are missing Effendi.

Employer:  Are you a Muslim?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Employer:  No worries, I'll employ you.  Start Monday at $M4 over four years.  But.....Because of the high profile your employment by me gives you and an obvious connection with me because of that, you are required NOT to spruik your Mulsim views on social Media.  Do you agree?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Do ya see, FD?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk. 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44549
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #370 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:34pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:29pm:
John Smith wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:27pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others.



are you claiming RA didn't know of his religious beliefs?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


No. If you are still confused, you should be able to figure out what we are talking about by reading the rest of the post.


lets try it


Quote:
The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.


nope, other than you pretending to interpret the law, that doesn't shed any more light on the subject.

You claimed he can't be fined for his religious beliefs unless he makes them known to others. If not the employer, then who are the 'others' you are talking about?
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:

I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #371 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:56pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
The law forbids firing people for their religious views.


Which is subtly, but crucially different to firing for a) expressing those views and b) the medium in which they are expressed. If Folau's boss had asked him about what he thought about gays and Folau answered that he believed they were going to hell - then that is obviously very different to an unprompted broadcasting of that view on a platform viewed by millions.

You talk about a slippery slope, well how more slippery can you get when you make the broadcasting of any kind of hate speech - up to and including incitement of violence - a completely protected activity under the law - so long as it is done under the cover of "religious beliefs"?

So I think you are wrong - I don't believe the broadcasting of any sort of speech under the cover of "religious beliefs" has to be completely off limits to employers in their conditions of employment. The law will understand the nuance between holding a religious belief on the one hand, and how they go about broadcasting those beliefs on the other. Obviously no one would argue if a muslim was sacked by RA for posting "it is my sincere Islamic belief that all jews should be rounded up and gassed forthwith" to his millions of followers - nor would there be any argument when he is arrested for the same thing.




You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others. The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.


Here's what you are missing Effendi.

Employer:  Are you a Muslim?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Employer:  No worries, I'll employ you.  Start Monday at $M4 over four years.  But.....Because of the high profile your employment by me gives you and an obvious connection with me because of that, you are required NOT to spruik your Mulsim views on social Media.  Do you agree?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Do ya see, FD?


Do you still think people can sign away their right not to be raped in an employment contract?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18888
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #372 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others. The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.


You are being obtuse - again.

I did not say its a simple case that you can be fired for letting those beliefs be known to others. I even gave a specific example where you shouldn't - if his boss had asked for his opinion. However it is simply absurd to say that any old hate speech should be off limits - so long its under the cover of "religious freedom" - regardless of the medium and the circumstances in which its said. We know that won't fly under the law (try shouting in the middle of a busy street that its your sincere religious belief that all jews should be gassed) - so it obviously shouldn't be a protected condition of employment.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Mr Hammer
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20922
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #373 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:58pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
The law forbids firing people for their religious views.


Which is subtly, but crucially different to firing for a) expressing those views and b) the medium in which they are expressed. If Folau's boss had asked him about what he thought about gays and Folau answered that he believed they were going to hell - then that is obviously very different to an unprompted broadcasting of that view on a platform viewed by millions.

You talk about a slippery slope, well how more slippery can you get when you make the broadcasting of any kind of hate speech - up to and including incitement of violence - a completely protected activity under the law - so long as it is done under the cover of "religious beliefs"?

So I think you are wrong - I don't believe the broadcasting of any sort of speech under the cover of "religious beliefs" has to be completely off limits to employers in their conditions of employment. The law will understand the nuance between holding a religious belief on the one hand, and how they go about broadcasting those beliefs on the other. Obviously no one would argue if a muslim was sacked by RA for posting "it is my sincere Islamic belief that all jews should be rounded up and gassed forthwith" to his millions of followers - nor would there be any argument when he is arrested for the same thing.




You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others. The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.


Here's what you are missing Effendi.

Employer:  Are you a Muslim?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Employer:  No worries, I'll employ you.  Start Monday at $M4 over four years.  But.....Because of the high profile your employment by me gives you and an obvious connection with me because of that, you are required NOT to spruik your Mulsim views on social Media.  Do you agree?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Do ya see, FD?

Are you kidding. The employer would be into trouble saying that. No workplace can demand that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 25211
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #374 - Jul 15th, 2019 at 6:08pm
 
Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:58pm:
Aussie wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:30pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 5:25pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 15th, 2019 at 2:18pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2019 at 6:41pm:
The law forbids firing people for their religious views.


Which is subtly, but crucially different to firing for a) expressing those views and b) the medium in which they are expressed. If Folau's boss had asked him about what he thought about gays and Folau answered that he believed they were going to hell - then that is obviously very different to an unprompted broadcasting of that view on a platform viewed by millions.

You talk about a slippery slope, well how more slippery can you get when you make the broadcasting of any kind of hate speech - up to and including incitement of violence - a completely protected activity under the law - so long as it is done under the cover of "religious beliefs"?

So I think you are wrong - I don't believe the broadcasting of any sort of speech under the cover of "religious beliefs" has to be completely off limits to employers in their conditions of employment. The law will understand the nuance between holding a religious belief on the one hand, and how they go about broadcasting those beliefs on the other. Obviously no one would argue if a muslim was sacked by RA for posting "it is my sincere Islamic belief that all jews should be rounded up and gassed forthwith" to his millions of followers - nor would there be any argument when he is arrested for the same thing.




You cannot fire someone for their religious belief unless they make those beliefs known the others. The law would be meaningless if interpreted your way.


Here's what you are missing Effendi.

Employer:  Are you a Muslim?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Employer:  No worries, I'll employ you.  Start Monday at $M4 over four years.  But.....Because of the high profile your employment by me gives you and an obvious connection with me because of that, you are required NOT to spruik your Mulsim views on social Media.  Do you agree?

Potential Employee:  Yes.

Do ya see, FD?

Are you kidding. The employer would be into trouble saying that. No workplace can demand that.


It was not demanded.  It was a condition the potential employee could reject or accept with eyes wide open.

Effendi:

Quote:
Do you still think people can sign away their right not to be raped in an employment contract?


I have never said I think that Effendi.   Smiley
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk. 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 ... 33
Send Topic Print