Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 33
Send Topic Print
Folau vs Yassmin (Read 30577 times)
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #75 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 7:20am
 
Cant be Choo Choo.  If that were the case, most here would have been fired including yourself.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #76 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:02am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


I think people should have the right to be offended, and should have the right to determine with whom they wish to associate.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91862
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #77 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:30am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


No, it means they have a right to not have hate speech preached to their kids.

Rugby Union has been trying to eradicate homophobia within its ranks for years. They warned Folou the first time he preached against the hommers.

Nothing to do with religion. Folou is free to post publicly about the Lord, and does. The Union is saying he doesn't have the right to spread homophobia while he's on the team.

But I'm curious. Do you support the Muselman preaching against the hommers too?

That's a question.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 27649
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #78 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:20am
 
They don't just preach against hommers Karamel.

They preach against all non- Muslims .....

seems they hate everyone equally that isn't one of them.
Back to top
 

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47062
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #79 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:38am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:30am:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


No, it means they have a right to not have hate speech preached to their kids.

Rugby Union has been trying to eradicate homophobia within its ranks for years. They warned Folou the first time he preached against the hommers.

Nothing to do with religion. Folou is free to post publicly about the Lord, and does. The Union is saying he doesn't have the right to spread homophobia while he's on the team.

But I'm curious. Do you support the Muselman preaching against the hommers too?

That's a question.


Are you saying Folau's sacking had nothing to do with religion because it was really about ahte speach?

Auggie wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:02am:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


I think people should have the right to be offended, and should have the right to determine with whom they wish to associate.


Does that include sacking people because of their religious views?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47062
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #80 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:39am
 
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:06pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:05pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:02pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:01pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:00pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:58pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:52pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 7:05pm:
It occurs to me that Yassmin is the perfect example of how freedom of speech is supposed to work, while Folau is the perfect example of how to stick your head in your rectum, create a mountain out of a molehill, and turn a man into a martyr for freedom of speech over a banal and familiar opinion.

Yassmin was rightly mocked for saying stupid things, misappropriating public funds to line her own pockets, lying about Islam, and getting hysterical about the criticism she rightly deserved. Despite having plenty of perfectly legal reasons to fire her, the ABC stood by her and refused. But she wilted under the glaring reality of what people think of her. It seemed to take her by surprise. Being an ugly black female Muslim of apparently limited intelligence and perception, she was probably accustomed to being a protected species at the ABC and SBS. She ran away from freedom of speech, while the usual apologists were trying to turn the public mockery of her into an attack on free speech, as though she should be able to do and say stupid things without anyone noticing.

Folau ran towards freedom of speech. Rather than subject him to public criticism for his opinion, the homofascists did the cowardly thing and conspired behind the scenes to make him lose his job - a move that is likely to turn out to be illegal. Then they followed this up with celebrating gofundme pulling his campaign. Both propelled Folau into the spotlight, massively increased public support for him, and allowed him to raise $2million in 2 days. Now he is likely to win the case or get a favourable settlement, all under the public eye. He said something stupid and the homofascists turned him into a hero of free speech for it.

The two cases could not be more different, yet somehow the usual apologists are now trying to use Yassmin to accuse those who support freedom of speech of hypocrisy. Perhaps they should go back and look at what was actually said - their own hysterical claims that criticising Yassmin infringed on her freedom of speech, and their hypocritical backflip on Folau.


The difference between these two situations is the morality of their ideas. Folau expressed a repugnant view, whilst Yassmin expressed a non-repugnant view. Sure, the latter may not be true but if we're going into the realm of objective morals, then it is clear that Yassmin's views are objectively more moral than Folau's.


Do you think that is relevant when it comes to freedom of speech?


It's relevant in some cases and to a certain extent.

In this situation, I personally have no compunction with Israel Folau being fired. He says gays would go to hell when they die. He should be happy that he won't go to hell then.


Is it relevant in this case?


Yes.


Should the law take morality into account in deciding who can get fired for their religious views?


When it comes to the issue of homophobia, yes.


Does whether Folau was telling the truth have any impact on this morality of yours?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13523
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #81 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:43am
 
Folau is a bedwetter that has never given 100% for RA.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #82 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 10:17am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:43pm:
Ah, one person called for her sacking. The "very same" people now defending Folau?


It wasn't one person FD, there was a chorus of calls for her sacking, including a petition that went out:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/yassmin-abdelmagied-abc-activists-vil...

And that was just for the single line tweet: "lest we forget (Manus, Nauru, Syria Palestine)"

Were they the same people defending Folau? I don't know, and I never said they were. What I am interested in though is where were the people who are standing up for Folau now on freedom of speech grounds when this attack on someone's freedom was happening. People like you FD. If you think its so terrible for someone's job to be threatened for exercising their freedom of speech, where were you when all these liberal politicians were calling for Yasminn's contract with the ABC to be terminated - just for that single tweet?

Also, I'll take a punt and guess that neither Abetz or Barnaby Joyce (among all the others in the article calling for Yasminn's head) will be saying its ok for RA to terminate Folau's contract. What do you reckon?
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
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 79568
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #83 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 10:18am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:39am:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:06pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:05pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:02pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:01pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:00pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:58pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:52pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 7:05pm:
It occurs to me that Yassmin is the perfect example of how freedom of speech is supposed to work, while Folau is the perfect example of how to stick your head in your rectum, create a mountain out of a molehill, and turn a man into a martyr for freedom of speech over a banal and familiar opinion.

Yassmin was rightly mocked for saying stupid things, misappropriating public funds to line her own pockets, lying about Islam, and getting hysterical about the criticism she rightly deserved. Despite having plenty of perfectly legal reasons to fire her, the ABC stood by her and refused. But she wilted under the glaring reality of what people think of her. It seemed to take her by surprise. Being an ugly black female Muslim of apparently limited intelligence and perception, she was probably accustomed to being a protected species at the ABC and SBS. She ran away from freedom of speech, while the usual apologists were trying to turn the public mockery of her into an attack on free speech, as though she should be able to do and say stupid things without anyone noticing.

Folau ran towards freedom of speech. Rather than subject him to public criticism for his opinion, the homofascists did the cowardly thing and conspired behind the scenes to make him lose his job - a move that is likely to turn out to be illegal. Then they followed this up with celebrating gofundme pulling his campaign. Both propelled Folau into the spotlight, massively increased public support for him, and allowed him to raise $2million in 2 days. Now he is likely to win the case or get a favourable settlement, all under the public eye. He said something stupid and the homofascists turned him into a hero of free speech for it.

The two cases could not be more different, yet somehow the usual apologists are now trying to use Yassmin to accuse those who support freedom of speech of hypocrisy. Perhaps they should go back and look at what was actually said - their own hysterical claims that criticising Yassmin infringed on her freedom of speech, and their hypocritical backflip on Folau.


The difference between these two situations is the morality of their ideas. Folau expressed a repugnant view, whilst Yassmin expressed a non-repugnant view. Sure, the latter may not be true but if we're going into the realm of objective morals, then it is clear that Yassmin's views are objectively more moral than Folau's.


Do you think that is relevant when it comes to freedom of speech?


It's relevant in some cases and to a certain extent.

In this situation, I personally have no compunction with Israel Folau being fired. He says gays would go to hell when they die. He should be happy that he won't go to hell then.


Is it relevant in this case?


Yes.


Should the law take morality into account in deciding who can get fired for their religious views?


When it comes to the issue of homophobia, yes.


Does whether Folau was telling the truth have any impact on this morality of yours?


So supporting Islam with all it glaring faults is more moral than making a claim that sinners will go to Hell?
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
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #84 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 10:56am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:30am:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


No, it means they have a right to not have hate speech preached to their kids.

Rugby Union has been trying to eradicate homophobia within its ranks for years. They warned Folou the first time he preached against the hommers.

Nothing to do with religion. Folou is free to post publicly about the Lord, and does. The Union is saying he doesn't have the right to spread homophobia while he's on the team.

But I'm curious. Do you support the Muselman preaching against the hommers too?

That's a question.


To be fair, FD disagreed with my view that muslims holding up a placard saying "behead those who insult the Prophet" should be charged for incitement, and defended their right to do so. So credit where credit's due. On the other hand, I've always felt that such platitudes prove to be rather convenient when it comes to lumping in all the mainstream teachings of Islam with the ideology of the extremists: since its a bit difficult to call for beheading placards to be banned, but not the Quran itself - if your modus operandi is that they are both identical.

Ultimately, the problem with this, and all the other tired debates including Yasmmin etc, is that it has been completely engulfed in the same old tired partisan culture war. And the reality is, any attempts to separate it from the culture war - whether its FD's "its only about freedom" side, or the opposing "its only about contract law" side - are doomed. Why? Because RA itself wrapped itself in the culture war cloak to begin with - by painting this as a homophobic thing - as opposed to, say, an "atheist-hobic" thing. If you look at his tweet, he lumped in not only gays, but atheists in with such undesirables as drunks, thieves and liars. So why not say he was discriminating against not only gays, but also atheists (who are a far bigger population than gays)? We all know the reason - because attacking homophobia, not 'atheist-phobia' is what fuels the culture war.

As you say K, RA has been campaigning for years to stamp out homophobia. This is right and proper, but it undeniably makes RA right in the vanguard as a partisan player in the culture war. And as such, it is inescapable that they will attract a veritable army of enemies in any case like this - the usual suspects. And it will never matter much what the contract actually says. So its simply futile to try and claim, as many have, that this is only an issue of contract law. Yet at the same time, RA's actions can easily be justified on contract law grounds - as despite what FD has tried to claim, the specificity of the tweet (ie lumping gays in with undesirables like liars and thieves), combined with the specificity of the contract clause (thou shalt treat people with dignity and respect - including specifically regarding sexual orientation) - means that RA are on solid legal grounds.
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
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47062
At my desk.
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #85 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 1:25pm
 
Quote:
Were they the same people defending Folau? I don't know, and I never said they were. What I am interested in though is where were the people who are standing up for Folau now on freedom of speech grounds when this attack on someone's freedom was happening. People like you FD. If you think its so terrible for someone's job to be threatened for exercising their freedom of speech, where were you when all these liberal politicians were calling for Yasminn's contract with the ABC to be terminated - just for that single tweet?


I'm not sure if getting her fired was even on the radar here back then. The ANZAC tweet had nothing to do with religion, and Yassmin gave plenty of good, legal reasons for the ABC to fire her. At the end of the day, they did not.

Quote:
Also, I'll take a punt and guess that neither Abetz or Barnaby Joyce (among all the others in the article calling for Yasminn's head) will be saying its ok for RA to terminate Folau's contract. What do you reckon?


You would pass the first test of showing they are the same people, but the situations are still not the same. Yassmin was not fired for her religious views. She was not even fired. She ran away.

Quote:
To be fair, FD disagreed with my view that muslims holding up a placard saying "behead those who insult the Prophet" should be charged for incitement, and defended their right to do so. So credit where credit's due. On the other hand, I've always felt that such platitudes prove to be rather convenient when it comes to lumping in all the mainstream teachings of Islam with the ideology of the extremists: since its a bit difficult to call for beheading placards to be banned, but not the Quran itself - if your modus operandi is that they are both identical.


They are not identical. One is a book. The other is a placard with the condensed message. But you will run into big trouble if you want to ban the placard but not the book.

Quote:
Ultimately, the problem with this, and all the other tired debates including Yasmmin etc, is that it has been completely engulfed in the same old tired partisan culture war. And the reality is, any attempts to separate it from the culture war - whether its FD's "its only about freedom" side, or the opposing "its only about contract law" side


I did not claim it is only about freedom. I am saying that freedom trumps the employer's interest in micromanaging the personal life of their employees. It is only the homofascists that try to pretend there is only one issue here, with various forms of "he was not sacked for his religious view, he was sacked for homophobia, contract terms etc".

Quote:
And it will never matter much what the contract actually says.


That's what the law says. If your contracts violates employment, it does not matter what it says.

Quote:
So its simply futile to try and claim, as many have, that this is only an issue of contract law. Yet at the same time, RA's actions can easily be justified on contract law grounds - as despite what FD has tried to claim, the specificity of the tweet (ie lumping gays in with undesirables like liars and thieves), combined with the specificity of the contract clause (thou shalt treat people with dignity and respect - including specifically regarding sexual orientation) - means that RA are on solid legal grounds.


Again, I have never argued this was relevant legally.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #86 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 4:06pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 1:25pm:
I'm not sure if getting her fired was even on the radar here back then.


And I wonder why not? You have proven yourself willing to get on your moral high horse over all sorts of cases regarding alleged individual attacks on freedom. Here we had an employee of the ABC expressing their freedom of speech, followed by a deluge of outrage from members of the government no less - you know the people who control funding and board appointments to the organisation that she worked for - directly calling for her sacking. Clearly a case of someone's employment undergoing undue pressure because of her views. This should have been right up your alley FD.

Quote:
The ANZAC tweet had nothing to do with religion


Irrelevant. The issue is freedom of speech, not religion.

freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 1:25pm:
I am saying that freedom trumps the employer's interest in micromanaging the personal life of their employees.


freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 1:25pm:
Again, I have never argued this was relevant legally.


So what are you actually arguing then FD? For the law to be changed?

Do you actually take issue with RA having the right to dictate the terms of their contract to Folau - when it can include sacking for religious views? Or is your only issue that the 'homofascists' haven't come clean and admitted that he was sacked for his religious views?
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
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #87 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 6:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:39am:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:06pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:05pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:02pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:01pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:00pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:58pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 7:52pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 2019 at 7:05pm:
It occurs to me that Yassmin is the perfect example of how freedom of speech is supposed to work, while Folau is the perfect example of how to stick your head in your rectum, create a mountain out of a molehill, and turn a man into a martyr for freedom of speech over a banal and familiar opinion.

Yassmin was rightly mocked for saying stupid things, misappropriating public funds to line her own pockets, lying about Islam, and getting hysterical about the criticism she rightly deserved. Despite having plenty of perfectly legal reasons to fire her, the ABC stood by her and refused. But she wilted under the glaring reality of what people think of her. It seemed to take her by surprise. Being an ugly black female Muslim of apparently limited intelligence and perception, she was probably accustomed to being a protected species at the ABC and SBS. She ran away from freedom of speech, while the usual apologists were trying to turn the public mockery of her into an attack on free speech, as though she should be able to do and say stupid things without anyone noticing.

Folau ran towards freedom of speech. Rather than subject him to public criticism for his opinion, the homofascists did the cowardly thing and conspired behind the scenes to make him lose his job - a move that is likely to turn out to be illegal. Then they followed this up with celebrating gofundme pulling his campaign. Both propelled Folau into the spotlight, massively increased public support for him, and allowed him to raise $2million in 2 days. Now he is likely to win the case or get a favourable settlement, all under the public eye. He said something stupid and the homofascists turned him into a hero of free speech for it.

The two cases could not be more different, yet somehow the usual apologists are now trying to use Yassmin to accuse those who support freedom of speech of hypocrisy. Perhaps they should go back and look at what was actually said - their own hysterical claims that criticising Yassmin infringed on her freedom of speech, and their hypocritical backflip on Folau.


The difference between these two situations is the morality of their ideas. Folau expressed a repugnant view, whilst Yassmin expressed a non-repugnant view. Sure, the latter may not be true but if we're going into the realm of objective morals, then it is clear that Yassmin's views are objectively more moral than Folau's.


Do you think that is relevant when it comes to freedom of speech?


It's relevant in some cases and to a certain extent.

In this situation, I personally have no compunction with Israel Folau being fired. He says gays would go to hell when they die. He should be happy that he won't go to hell then.


Is it relevant in this case?


Yes.


Should the law take morality into account in deciding who can get fired for their religious views?


When it comes to the issue of homophobia, yes.


Does whether Folau was telling the truth have any impact on this morality of yours?


He wasn't telling the truth, so that's a red herring.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91862
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #88 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 6:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 9:38am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:30am:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


No, it means they have a right to not have hate speech preached to their kids.

Rugby Union has been trying to eradicate homophobia within its ranks for years. They warned Folou the first time he preached against the hommers.

Nothing to do with religion. Folou is free to post publicly about the Lord, and does. The Union is saying he doesn't have the right to spread homophobia while he's on the team.

But I'm curious. Do you support the Muselman preaching against the hommers too?

That's a question.


Are you saying Folau's sacking had nothing to do with religion because it was really about ahte speach?

Auggie wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:02am:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


I think people should have the right to be offended, and should have the right to determine with whom they wish to associate.


Does that include sacking people because of their religious views?


I asked you a question, FD. Do you want to have a go?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91862
Gender: male
Re: Folau vs Yassmin
Reply #89 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 7:05pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 10:56am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 8:30am:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:30pm:
Auggie wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:14pm:
Do you think people should have a right to freedom from religion?


Yes. That's what it means to be a secular society.


So what does it mean? That people have a right to not hear religious views they find offensive?


No, it means they have a right to not have hate speech preached to their kids.

Rugby Union has been trying to eradicate homophobia within its ranks for years. They warned Folou the first time he preached against the hommers.

Nothing to do with religion. Folou is free to post publicly about the Lord, and does. The Union is saying he doesn't have the right to spread homophobia while he's on the team.

But I'm curious. Do you support the Muselman preaching against the hommers too?

That's a question.


To be fair, FD disagreed with my view that muslims holding up a placard saying "behead those who insult the Prophet" should be charged for incitement, and defended their right to do so. So credit where credit's due. On the other hand, I've always felt that such platitudes prove to be rather convenient when it comes to lumping in all the mainstream teachings of Islam with the ideology of the extremists: since its a bit difficult to call for beheading placards to be banned, but not the Quran itself - if your modus operandi is that they are both identical.

Ultimately, the problem with this, and all the other tired debates including Yasmmin etc, is that it has been completely engulfed in the same old tired partisan culture war. And the reality is, any attempts to separate it from the culture war - whether its FD's "its only about freedom" side, or the opposing "its only about contract law" side - are doomed. Why? Because RA itself wrapped itself in the culture war cloak to begin with - by painting this as a homophobic thing - as opposed to, say, an "atheist-hobic" thing. If you look at his tweet, he lumped in not only gays, but atheists in with such undesirables as drunks, thieves and liars. So why not say he was discriminating against not only gays, but also atheists (who are a far bigger population than gays)? We all know the reason - because attacking homophobia, not 'atheist-phobia' is what fuels the culture war.

As you say K, RA has been campaigning for years to stamp out homophobia. This is right and proper, but it undeniably makes RA right in the vanguard as a partisan player in the culture war. And as such, it is inescapable that they will attract a veritable army of enemies in any case like this - the usual suspects. And it will never matter much what the contract actually says. So its simply futile to try and claim, as many have, that this is only an issue of contract law. Yet at the same time, RA's actions can easily be justified on contract law grounds - as despite what FD has tried to claim, the specificity of the tweet (ie lumping gays in with undesirables like liars and thieves), combined with the specificity of the contract clause (thou shalt treat people with dignity and respect - including specifically regarding sexual orientation) - means that RA are on solid legal grounds.



Good points, G, and you're right. FD has always defended Muslim free speech.

He just wants to ban them altogether.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 33
Send Topic Print