Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 
Send Topic Print
Folau vs Yassmin (Read 12607 times)
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71201
Gender: female
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #480 - Aug 7th, 2019 at 7:34pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2019 at 3:44pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
Gandalf would you consider it fair for any company to fire you based on what you posted here about the Banu Qurayza?


Based on what i actually posted - no, based on the racist words you shoved down my throat and pretended I said - probably - provided of course I willingly signed a contract in effect saying I wouldn't be racist like that, and after they had warned me that they considered those words racist and in breach of my contract.

freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
I am yet to see any serious disagreement on here about what is a religious belief. There is pretty much constant disagreement on the meaning of hate speech.


Suffice to say I don't think anyone would disagree that calling on jews to be gassed in ovens is hate speech. Its also perfectly plausible that it could also be a religious belief. A person's religious belief is literally what the person claims it to be - as no one is in any position to say otherwise. While we all disagree on what constitute unacceptable hate speech, I think I can safely nevertheless say that we all agree that such speech exists. And if it does exist, and if 'religious belief' can be absolutely anything, then it is undeniable that this apparently sanctified, untouchable thing you call "religious belief" - can, and no doubt does, include hate speech. At that point, we are left with no other choice but to accept that 'religious belief' is not always the sanctified, untouchable privilege you make it out to be.

Since your only argument seems to be the need to uphold the sanctity of religious beliefs, you would presumably be ok if RA had said "thou shalt not smear gays - unless its an expression of 'religious belief', in which case its quite alright" - yes? Which is of course laughable.


That may be so, G, but what if your employer discovered your views on executing gays who do it Mardi Gras-style?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36988
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #481 - Aug 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2019 at 3:44pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
Gandalf would you consider it fair for any company to fire you based on what you posted here about the Banu Qurayza?


Based on what i actually posted - no, based on the racist words you shoved down my throat and pretended I said - probably - provided of course I willingly signed a contract in effect saying I wouldn't be racist like that, and after they had warned me that they considered those words racist and in breach of my contract.

freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
I am yet to see any serious disagreement on here about what is a religious belief. There is pretty much constant disagreement on the meaning of hate speech.


Suffice to say I don't think anyone would disagree that calling on jews to be gassed in ovens is hate speech. Its also perfectly plausible that it could also be a religious belief. A person's religious belief is literally what the person claims it to be - as no one is in any position to say otherwise. While we all disagree on what constitute unacceptable hate speech, I think I can safely nevertheless say that we all agree that such speech exists. And if it does exist, and if 'religious belief' can be absolutely anything, then it is undeniable that this apparently sanctified, untouchable thing you call "religious belief" - can, and no doubt does, include hate speech. At that point, we are left with no other choice but to accept that 'religious belief' is not always the sanctified, untouchable privilege you make it out to be.

Since your only argument seems to be the need to uphold the sanctity of religious beliefs, you would presumably be ok if RA had said "thou shalt not smear gays - unless its an expression of 'religious belief', in which case its quite alright" - yes? Which is of course laughable.


Did you actually say that they were literally a mindless collective with literally no individual personality whatsoever?

Does your contract have to single out this particular form of racism, or would the usual clauses cover it?
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71201
Gender: female
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #482 - Aug 7th, 2019 at 8:07pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2019 at 3:44pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
Gandalf would you consider it fair for any company to fire you based on what you posted here about the Banu Qurayza?


Based on what i actually posted - no, based on the racist words you shoved down my throat and pretended I said - probably - provided of course I willingly signed a contract in effect saying I wouldn't be racist like that, and after they had warned me that they considered those words racist and in breach of my contract.

freediver wrote on Aug 6th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
I am yet to see any serious disagreement on here about what is a religious belief. There is pretty much constant disagreement on the meaning of hate speech.


Suffice to say I don't think anyone would disagree that calling on jews to be gassed in ovens is hate speech. Its also perfectly plausible that it could also be a religious belief. A person's religious belief is literally what the person claims it to be - as no one is in any position to say otherwise. While we all disagree on what constitute unacceptable hate speech, I think I can safely nevertheless say that we all agree that such speech exists. And if it does exist, and if 'religious belief' can be absolutely anything, then it is undeniable that this apparently sanctified, untouchable thing you call "religious belief" - can, and no doubt does, include hate speech. At that point, we are left with no other choice but to accept that 'religious belief' is not always the sanctified, untouchable privilege you make it out to be.

Since your only argument seems to be the need to uphold the sanctity of religious beliefs, you would presumably be ok if RA had said "thou shalt not smear gays - unless its an expression of 'religious belief', in which case its quite alright" - yes? Which is of course laughable.


Did you actually say that they were literally a mindless collective with literally no individual personality whatsoever?

Does your contract have to single out this particular form of racism, or would the usual clauses cover it?


No, FD, that's what you said, remember? Mindless Collective, no individuality whatsoever, so unfair.

G said it when he quoted you.

We discussed this one for about 6 months a couple of years back. It was all fleshed out and quoted. You must have forgot again, you silly thing.

Shurely shome mishtake, eh? I do hope you haven't caught the old boy's stool disease.

Miam miam, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19290
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #483 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm:
Does your contract have to single out this particular form of racism, or would the usual clauses cover it?


Depends what "the usual clauses" actually say. What is your point here exactly?

What matters here is that Folau signed a contract saying he wouldn't dis people for their sexual orientation. He then proceeded to do just that by saying gays are sinful for being gay and clearly implied they are in the same moral boat as rapists and thieves.
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
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36988
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #484 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:21pm
 
My point is that you would fall foul of the same clause - if Jews went on the same sort of victimhood trip that gays and Muslims do. Fortunately for you and your racist ilk, they don't.

The contracts mostly all say the same thing on this. They are copied and pasted. Plenty of mine have been copied and pasted with the typical copy and paste errors. My previous one didn't even bother updating the references properly.
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71201
Gender: female
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #485 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:24pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:13pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 7th, 2019 at 7:59pm:
Does your contract have to single out this particular form of racism, or would the usual clauses cover it?


Depends what "the usual clauses" actually say. What is your point here exactly?

What matters here is that Folau signed a contract saying he wouldn't dis people for their sexual orientation. He then proceeded to do just that by saying gays are sinful for being gay and clearly implied they are in the same moral boat as rapists and thieves.


More than that, G, Folou had been "counselled" on RA's non-discriminatory message. Folou took a public stance against his employer's values.

The latest High Court decision on public servants, of course, destroys Folou's case entirely. Imagine, employees can now be sacked for anonymously questioning their employer's policies.

If anything goes against FD's cherished ideal of Freeeedom, it is this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71201
Gender: female
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #486 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:29pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:21pm:
My point is that you would fall foul of the same clause - if Jews went on the same sort of victimhood trip that gays and Muslims do. Fortunately for you and your racist ilk, they don't.

The contracts mostly all say the same thing on this. They are copied and pasted. Plenty of mine have been copied and pasted with the typical copy and paste errors. My previous one didn't even bother updating the references properly.


Jews have been on a victimhood trip since the birth of Zionism in the 18th century.

They have every right to too. They still face varying degrees of discrimination around the world.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19290
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #487 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 1:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 12:21pm:
My point is that you would fall foul of the same clause - if Jews went on the same sort of victimhood trip that gays and Muslims do. Fortunately for you and your racist ilk, they don't.


Laughable. How do you reckon Friedrick Toben would go getting a job at the Simon Wiesenthal centre of something similar - even if he was the most qualified candidate in the world? If I had really said the things about jews you claim I said, then it would simply be a waste of time me applying for any job at any organisation thats even remotely jewish. To say that for any candidate they wouldn't trawl through all their online profiles looking for evidence of anti-semitism, and that if they found one it wouldn't adversely affect their candidacy (and rightly so) - is the height of absurdity.

Quote:
The contracts mostly all say the same thing on this. They are copied and pasted. Plenty of mine have been copied and pasted with the typical copy and paste errors. My previous one didn't even bother updating the references properly.


Which is why they warned him first. It would be understandable that Folau might think the contract that he signed was full of meaningless virtue signalling that no one really cared about, or were even aware of. Still, the high profile public campaigns RA did specifically about equal rights for gays - campaigns which funnily enough Folau himself participated in - should have been a red flag for him.

Or perhaps he did know, and went ahead anyway - perhaps even because he knew he would become a martyr for the cultural warriors, not in spite of it.
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
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 101447
South Island of New Zealand
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #488 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 2:10pm
 

"The Federal Circuit Court has today ordered representative rugby union player Israel Folau to enter into mediation with Rugby Australia and the NSW Waratahs before his unfair dismissal claim goes to trial on February 4 next year.

"Chief Judge Will Alstergren, sitting in Melbourne, set down a timetable for the case, which is based on a claim that his sacking breached religious protections in the Fair Work Act.

"Folau will argue that his social media accounts were unconnected to his employment as a professional rugby player, and primarily used to lawfully communicate religious content in accordance with his faith."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 27619
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #489 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 2:35pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 2:10pm:

"The Federal Circuit Court has today ordered representative rugby union player Israel Folau to enter into mediation with Rugby Australia and the NSW Waratahs before his unfair dismissal claim goes to trial on February 4 next year.

"Chief Judge Will Alstergren, sitting in Melbourne, set down a timetable for the case, which is based on a claim that his sacking breached religious protections in the Fair Work Act.

"Folau will argue that his social media accounts were unconnected to his employment as a professional rugby player, and primarily used to lawfully communicate religious content in accordance with his faith."


Standard procedure.  Contrary to schmedia reports, this is not a win for RA.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.

A racist bigot said "implying brown is not as bad as black."  Link
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 
Send Topic Print