omnipotent beings discussion

Loobs said:
Correct. The new testament is a mutant load of garbage that's been rewritten throughout time to suit the Church's agenda. Most of Christmas is stuff done a long time ago to appease the pagans. Easter likewise is timed to coincide with spring crops and more paganism. It's pretty much all bull**** other than a few of the commandments which are good rules to live by...
Click to expand...
And the four horsemen are the seasons. Death is winter.
 
yokahontas said:
He was using the huge social media following he has, purely due to his sporting career, to propagate beliefs at odds with his employer’s code of conduct.

I don’t even have a social media following to speak of (family and friends, that’s it), but you can bet your arse if I posted bigoted material, at odds with my employer’s code of conduct, and in violation of the social media policy I’ve received training on, they could sack me too. And whether I posted such material at work, while wearing uniform, yada yada...would have absolutely zero bearing.
Click to expand...

It was on his private social media account. And again he wasn't at work when he posted. Therefore it's got nothing to do with his employer. Talk about a lynch mob.
 
highlandeagle said:
It was on his private social media account. And again he wasn't at work when he posted. Therefore it's got nothing to do with his employer. Talk about a lynch mob.
Click to expand...
Except his social media account is public not private... and for the record you do NOT have to be at work when you post something to be dismissed by your employer...

Answer me this HE, why should Church schools be able to dismiss teachers that state opinions which don't conform with religious beliefs but RA should not be able to dismiss Izzy for the same thing?

Is it that religious discrimination has a higher moral equivalence? Does the word of God enshrine the right to be bigoted?
 
Last edited:
frank stokes said:
Except his social media account is public not private...

Answer me this HE, why should Church schools be able to dismiss teachers that state opinions which don't conform with religious beliefs but RA should not be able to dismiss Izzy for the same thing?

Is it that religious discrimination has a higher moral equivalence? Does the word of God enshrine the right to be bigoted?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. When your not at work your not at work. Double standards from the religious schools. Personally don't care for religion. To me it's all about free speech.
 
highlandeagle said:
They shouldn't. When your not at work your not at work. Double standards from the religious schools. Personally don't care for religion. To me it's all about free speech.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't feel his free speech has been infringed but fair enough that you feel it has.... I do feel that the ground swell effort to silence and suppress his actions now that he is not a RA employee is over-the-top and has a certain 'lynch' mob feel to it...

people have the right to think what they like about him but he also has the right to speak about his religious beliefs within the extent of the law and fight for his legal rights - and if a bunch of people want to pay for that, good luck to him...
 
Cliffymagic said:
Good to see the australian christan lobby putting up 100 grand for poor Izzy. Not like they could use that cash for anything better! Fmd.
Click to expand...
The homeless people of Sydney could do with a couple of extra blankets and some warm food in winter

Guess they miss out again while Folau's solicitors and PR company purchase several more investment properties
 
highlandeagle said:
It was on his private social media account. And again he wasn't at work when he posted. Therefore it's got nothing to do with his employer. Talk about a lynch mob.
Click to expand...

And, I’ll say again - I could do the same thing, on my private social media accounts (which are actually private, unlike the publicly accessible accounts famous people use to spruik their sponsors’ products etc - people like Folau generally have two sets of social media accounts, one anyone can follow and one that’s locked down to family and friends like a normal person) - and my employer could still sack me, for violating a social media policy and code of conduct I’m well aware of. Whether I made the post at work, on a work computer, or while wearing my uniform is irrelevant; it’s a bad look for the organisation I work for, that plenty of people know I work for, and that can be identified by various photos etc on my accounts. Ergo, they can sack me for it if I get caught. And I’m well aware they can.

The same applied for my previous employer - do you reckon the guys being sacked over the ‘Jedi Council’ scandal had anything to do with them using Defence computers, or engaging in the disgusting behaviour at work/while in uniform? Most were Reservists, and were most definitely not on the clock when they were bedding the women they were adding to their tallies, and doing cute little book reports on for their mates. Still got kicked out of the Army for it though.
 
highlandeagle said:
They shouldn't. When your not at work your not at work. Double standards from the religious schools. Personally don't care for religion. To me it's all about free speech.
Click to expand...
But he never lost his right to free speech, in fact his message is still there and has been seen by far more than he would have originally thought. He has not been censored. But freedom of speech does not give you immunity to any consequences.
Consider this scenario:
Izzy works in a local retail store. One day an openly gay couple enter the store and Izzy, being the good Christian he is, tells them that they will go to hell unless they repent. The couple are shocked, inform friends, family and the media and Izzy is immediately sacked to prevent further damage to the business (duh). But let's say Izzy is smart enough not to say that to people while he is working, so he instead let's them know their fate when he sees them in the supermarket later. The couple identify him from the store earlier and the result is the same.
This is a commercial decision not a legal or even moral one. He damaged the brand and they had to act.
The difference and argument from the actual case is that he hasn't directly confronted anyone, BUT his social media account is setup to be seen by as many people as possible, if you walked into a busy supermarket and yelled the same thing you would likely offend someone, even if it wasn't intended for them.
 
Zimbalist said:
So instead of virtue signalling, take some blankets and food out to the streets tonight. Then you can tell us all about how righteous you are in the morning mate.
Click to expand...
Wow

All I suggested was that people would be better off donating clothes and food to the homeless instead of donating money to Folau's legal fees and I get attacked

Last time I post here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 295 (members: 13, guests: 282)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
13
Guests online
282
Total visitors
295
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom