keep politics out of the game

[manly al]

What I’m trying to do is get to the root of the issue so real conversation can occur & hopefully compromise can be reached, much like many other issues previously prohibited by the church e.g. divorce, female priests, etc.

As we are probably all aware, there are many outdated views that are no longer applicable (nor accepted) in modern society that various holy texts promoted - owning slaves, raping & beating your wife if she misbehaves, etc.

The Quran & it’s associated haddiths forbids homosexuality (among other things) & the most fundamental of its followers (notably in Saudi Arabia) are happy to hold public executions each week of Muslims who break this “rule”.

How many steps removed from that attitude are we when someone’s “mumble mumble religious beliefs mumble n that” allows them to discriminate against homosexuals without actually coming out & saying so?

Your use of “discriminating” & “not accepting” are interchangeable IMO. If there is even the subtlest of difference between these 2 terms, surely the people standing behind their religious beliefs should be able to articulate exactly why they either discriminate or do not accept homosexuals?

This is the biggest problem IMO - these people are hiding behind “religious beliefs” in discriminating/not accepting homosexuals yet will not explain their reasoning why.

Are they blindly following something their church & the bible has told them or do they genuinely disagree with the existence of homosexuals?

This method of discriminating against/not accepting homosexuals is not tolerated anywhere else in society - there are laws prohibiting it e.g. when interviewing a candidate for a job or promotion, selection on a sporting team, etc.

Let’s get the conversation started so the real reasons can be articulated (usually fear-based) & education can take place so better understanding & ultimately acceptance, can occur.

That's well articulated , objective , . Guess like many transitional and particularly social issues over time and based more on rationality , more accepted norms gradually evolve but in many instances obviously take time to become the mainstream outlook . I am more referring to the " take time aspect " and the more hardline positions and attitudes that usually can be reconciled but not an automatic given . And yeah , in many cases , a pretty fine line between acceptance and or non acceptance and some possible or perceived or associated discriminatory overtones . And rightly or wrongly many institutions or belief systems are very indoctrinated and strident with their set views to the point of being very obstinate and unwavering . Barriers can be broken down but again not always a given , usually governed by how much freedom a general society has to express themselves and agitate for changes

 

[47MVEagle]

Did the club break the law in it's promotion of an ideal---No

Have the players did anything illegal---No

Do the players have the right not to participate in a promotion due to Religious Beliefs---probably with a high degree of certainty yes, also based on the clubs actions and acceptance of the players not doing so.

Would the club promote a religious group in the same manner considering that too would be an ideals based promotion----probably not and i would agree with this stance also.

Would players boycott a game promoting a religious group on the jersey---high degree of certainty yes and i would agree with this stance also.

So the players basically did nothing wrong and were probably well within their legal rights to boycott the game, the club did nothing wrong legally in promoting an ideal, the club didn't "force" the players to promote the ideal or threaten to sack based on their views or actions so where is the problem other than the stupidity of a club going down the path of preaching and pushing ideals.

You can't make people have the same views, it's not illegal to have different views, where is the "acceptance" of different views in this case---it's all think like us, promote like us, you are wrong and outdated if you don't think like us.

Not once have the players threatened anyone with opposing views to them or did anything illegal towards the LGBTQ+ community, so where is the problem here.

If the club is not happy with the players stance, pay them out(probably legal ramifications if they did so) or don't resign said players when their contract is up----good luck with that mentality and effectively pushing away a huge number of players wishing to sign with the club if Manly continues to go down this non neutral path of promotion.

The club can still promote "inclusivity" or "LGBTQ+" in a manner that shows the clubs stance without bringing the players into the equation. For example a company can promote RUOK day or Cancer awareness yet the employees don't have to promote it or wear uniforms promoting the day while still going about their work duties that they are paid to do.

Turning up to the workplace has nothing to do with your ideals or views or sexuality, you are paid to perform a role and that is it. The players are paid to perform as a Rugby League player and promote the brand for awareness reasons in the market place not it's ideals.

You’re still stuck at the stage of trying to justify what happened with the use of verbal technicalities & whataboutism.

You also once again display your inability to understand a clearly explained point with your comparison of religious beliefs to sexuality.

NEXT.

 

[47MVEagle]

How many steps removed are we away from discriminating against religion without actually coming out and saying so? (works both ways and it appears to be happening in the Essendon case)

That is why you keep the promotion of ideals out of the workplace and treat everyone equally along with base employment on performance factors not viewpoints or ideals.

Do you think men should still be allowed to beat their wives & own slaves?

Should the law still punish adulterers with stoning?

 

[Woodsie]

Do you think men should still be allowed to beat their wives & own slaves?

Should the law still punish adulterers with stoning?

No ... because they are actions .. not beliefs.

I know you have difficulty with concepts ... but try really really hard to grasp the difference ... and the significance of the difference between actions and beliefs.

 

[47MVEagle]

No ... because they are actions .. not beliefs.

I know you have difficulty with concepts ... but try really really hard to grasp the difference ... and the significance of the difference between actions and beliefs.

Oh look, it’s the blawhard with his feigned intelligence & predictable insults.

Get yourself a dog to kick or a crossword book if you want to argue semantics & feel superior, instead of taking cowardly potshots from the sidelines.

I’m sure the overly-verbose Technical Coach can speak for himself.

Come back to me when you’ve got something worth discussing, petal.

 

[Woodsie]

Oh look, it’s the blawhard with his feigned intelligence & predictable insults.

Get yourself a dog to kick or a crossword book if you want to argue semantics & feel superior, instead of taking cowardly potshots from the sidelines.

I’m sure the overly-verbose Technical Coach can speak for himself.

Come back to me when you’ve got something worth discussing, petal.

Thanks for that well balanced and insightful response ..

Now that you have confirmed that the meaning of words is beyond both your understanding and interest.

However, if you genuinely think that the difference between an action, and a belief ... is just semantics ..

Then I believe you have a first rate chance of suing the education dept for both the return of all the school fees your parents wasted ... and for what appears to be gross negligence.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Words beliefs and actions are all related.
Why else do you think corporations pay megabucks to have their name and message attached to sport?Ords

 

[Woodsie]

Words beliefs and actions are all related.
Why else do you think corporations pay megabucks to have their name and message attached to sport?Ords

Yes, but actions can be illegal and punished accordingly ...

Beliefs are not illegal.

To think that a society can legislate against them is an Orwellian nightmare writ large.

 

[47MVEagle]

Thanks for that well balanced and insightful response ..

Now that you have confirmed that the meaning of words is beyond both your understanding and interest.

However, if you genuinely think that the difference between an action, and a belief ... is just semantics ..

Then I believe you have a first rate chance of suing the education dept for both the return of all the school fees your parents wasted ... and for what appears to be gross negligence.

Aye, the blawhard blaws hard.

 

[47MVEagle]

Words beliefs and actions are all related.
Why else do you think corporations pay megabucks to have their name and message attached to sport?Ords

Sorry SER8, we have to first discuss the blawhard’s take on things (& all associated insults) before we can progress to the next stage of enlightenment <sarcasm off>

 

[47MVEagle]

Yes, but actions can be illegal and punished accordingly ...

Beliefs are not illegal.

To think that a society can legislate against them is an Orwellian nightmare writ large.

Blawhard busy building a strawman the noo..

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

To think that a society can legislate against them is an Orwellian nightmare writ large.

What legislation? Serious question, I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[47MVEagle]

What legislation? Serious question, I don't know what you mean by that.

Yeah, exactly!

It’s almost like the guy thinks someone has suggested introducing legislation to control peoples thoughts!

 

[Woodsie]

What legislation? Serious question, I don't know what you mean by that.

There is none ... thank the lord ...

What I was conveying is the that any notion .. that thinks beliefs can or should be made illegal .. is a very dangerous concept.

 

[Woodsie]

Yeah, exactly!

It’s almost like the guy thinks someone has suggested introducing legislation to control peoples thoughts!

You really don't understand what the grown ups are talking about .. do you?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

There is none ... thank the lord ...

What I was conveying is the that any notion .. that thinks beliefs can or should be made illegal .. is a very dangerous concept.

It has been proven to have been horrendously dangerous to encourage people to smoke cigarettes. Yet for a long time, it was legal.
It's not illegal to say gays are unnatural sinful and disgusting. But it is against NRL policy of inclusiveness (and against rationality when one considers sexuality is not a choice not to mention what consenting adults do in private should be no-one's business).

Is your argument that inclusiveness should not be promoted by sport, because that is unfair on those who don't want everyone welcome?
This discussion has been going on for months but still comes down to this, doesn't it?

 

[Woodsie]

It's not illegal to say gays are unnatural sinful and disgusting.

If in the saying, the comments cross a boundary and are deemed to be a hate speech, then that would definitely be illegal .. however, just believing such thing, however repugnant, is not illegal.

And for the record, I have not heard any of the 7 saying anything derogatory about anyone.

Is your argument that inclusiveness should not be promoted by sport, because that is unfair on those who don't want everyone welcome?

Again, please don't put words in my mouth.

I am All for inclusiveness, I don't consider that to be a "political" value ... but designing a campaign that excludes up to 50% of your players and a great swath of your supporters seems to be a very curious way to go about it.

I know you believe writing "inclusivity" on a Gay pride jersey suddenly makes it a symbol for all ... but once again it simply divided and excluded. Right or wrong, the fact that different interpretations eventuated is proof of it being a flawed idea.

Rather than the resultant demonisation of people with a different set of beliefs, wise people should be consulting, educating and designing a plan that really does get everybody on board ... and does include everybody.

Then we can all have a group hug and celebrate the greatest game of all.

 

[47MVEagle]

There is none ... thank the lord ...

What I was conveying is the that any notion .. that thinks beliefs can or should be made illegal .. is a very dangerous concept.

Yeeeeeeeah you’re gonna have to explain how on earth that idea even entered the conversation buddy, because I certainly never mentioned it.

 

[47MVEagle]

You really don't understand what the grown ups are talking about .. do you?

See my previous reply.

 

[47MVEagle]

Oh look, back to arguing the technicalities & should haves & shouldn’t haves of the situation.

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

How about opening minds & encouraging discussion & education of people who disagree with homosexuals’ very existence instead of trying to make yourself look clever arguing semantics & hypotheticals?

You know, like how society has progressed from owning slaves, beating wives & stoning adulterers?