Oooh. I'd love that!
Poll added - Sea Eagles Everyone in League jersey
- Thread starter SeaEagleRock8
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
- Status
You are 100 % correct with the facts there feathered friend
The players did not play because they were not allowed to wear the Manly Maroon and white Jersey that represents inclusiveness .
The indiscriminate Legendary Maroon and white Jersey that all Manly players and Manly People wear to the game and welcome to our spiritual home ground and compete against every race and gender .
The Maroon and white Jersey that our club embraced the well known great gay athlete Ian Roberts
Lets talk about respect for all people shall we because all lives matter
How would Ian Roberts feel if the club had not consulted him or his coach and his team mates about promoting world peace at Easter time with a crucifixion on the Manly Jersey
How would the other races and Genders feel ?
I tell you How Ian Roberts and his Team mated would feel . They would feel hijacked Just like all the woman would feel as their Nrl Womans round was hijacked by our clubs ignorance and arrogance to focus just on their own money marketing innovation that divided players and fans
On top of the clubs arrogance and ignorance our chairman has come out on tv and lied to the Manly people and the NRL people about players have soften on their stance on playing in the rainbow colours .
I doubt very much This would have happed under Max Delmege the premiership winning record 40 to nil Manly owner
EXCLUSIVE: Manly 7 fuming about claim they will soften their stance on “pride jersey”. A representative of the group contacted me to say “they don’t backflip on religious beliefs” and to suggest they would fold on their stance is “totally untrue”
@9NewsSyd
@NRLonNine
Last edited:
ManEagle
Just a Man and his Eagle
I actually agree with Fitler, the shock and horror of it.I tend to agree with Fitler here..
The 'bigger' uniform problem NRL must address
'The league need to come down on this'wwos.nine.com.au
I said earlier in the year in regards to the black abysmal offering and again this week,
There should be 2 things you just don't fk with
Your club name and your club colours ie. jersey
I don't mind the special jerseys that stay true to the design. Like the Dragons Anzac jersey that has red poppies for the V, or the Bunnies Women in League with pink instead or red stripes. However ones like that black Pointsbet T-shirt of ours are a complete waste of time and do devalue the strip.
Yes, straight after sacking the people who signed a bunch of bigots to play NRL without reminding them one of the NRL's core beliefs is 'we are inclusive'
Wow ... help mods ... BringBackthebiff has taken over Ser8's account ..
What a red necked backhand racist anti christian rant ...
How come in your New world order .. "Inclusive" ... means Only those that agree with you ...
Last edited:
Random adjectives there, looks like I hit a nerve? God will be pleased you are fighting so hard for him, he’ll save you a spot in Heaven for this (pity they only play rugby up there)
Meanwhile why don’t you contact Clive Palmer? He’ll probably put you on a ticket alongside Izzie as candidates for next election (but get in quick, he might be off to jail soon).
Meanwhile back on planet Earth… ‘we are inclusive’ means we don’t persecute some sections of the community. Too complicated for you? doesn't sound anti-Christian to me.
You for some reason demand the right to persecute some sections of the community, because of Jesus and God. This is what you love about democracy, the right to persecute minorities?
Do you read the crap you write ... ?
Only an ole petticoat wearing commie ... could possibly accuse the person defending freedom ... as being the persecutor ...
And NO ... you are not inclusive ... you are the actual and ideological opposite ... your call to ban "bigots" ... or as they are also known ... people who disagree with you ... is frightening ...
You and Paul Kent are peas in a pod. If you say something loudly enough and aggressively enough and often enough ... it is still false. But keep going, knock yourself out, righteousness is on your side.
Red Pill
Enthusiastic Amateur
From my observations you appear to like to persecute/ judge those whom you feel are the persecutors. I see some hypocrisy there i.e. inclusiveness only for those who agree with your moral code, like it is absolute or something?. You appear to critique religion based upon a perceived dogma when you’re ultimate response is just another form of dogma. Yes I know you will likely say your moral position is the most appropriate and what else could there be
To me you appear to project one of the most sanctimonious moral presences on the forum… I am happy to see @Woodsie challenge you…like this.
My moral code? I was talking about the NRL's core beliefs, No. 1 of which is 'we are inclusive'.
If you agree with Woodsie that this means we have to allow persecution of some sections of society, good for you! to me it is an absurdity to say that.
However both of you will be pleased to know that there are plenty on your side.
Pauline Hanson!
Bob Katter (yep, bushfires are caused by gay marriage)
You guys and Clive Palmer can have your moral code and good luck with it. In this instance I'll simply side with the NRL
edit - or as Woodsie might say, the petticoat wearing Commie NRL, lol
Red Pill
Enthusiastic Amateur
I expected such a reply which makes me feel better about speaking up..
Fighting intolerance with just another form of intolerance will not get anybody anywhere. It will not solve anything.
Meanwhile back in Australia ... we have these laws called anti-discrimination laws ..
IF you are aware of any forms of persecution performed by the 7 against any sections of the community .... I implore you to contact the police immediately ... Although outside your bridge club, I can't see too many rational people believing that failure to wear a jersey constitutes "persecution"
Or was this just more hysterical emotive ranting of the outdated demi-Gods of ideology ....
Of course ...
But but but ... they said they wouldn't wear a rainbow jersey ... what in the name of Jesu's sacred foreskin is the consequences of that ....
Going to bed without supper ....
Although I think one old dear is calling the police and crying persecution ...
I mean I don't know the ins and outs of their contracts but I would say the consequence would and should have been a contractual issue
You're being ridiculous and insulting now Woodsie. People were hurt in this. For the first time in NRL history, more than half a team refused to play in a season defining game. Both sides are clear, though one side is certainly driven by bigotry. It's been two weeks now and still you're stirring a pot that, with each stir, causes hurt. I wish you would just stop.
Weighing in on the matter is the Principal of Brydens Lawyers and Chairman of the West Tigers, Lee Hagipantelis.
In an interview on SEN Breakfast with Vossy & Brandy on Tuesday, Hagipantelis acknowledged the sensitivity of the matter before going on to say: “A number of comments were made overnight which caused me some concern, of course, allegations of the boys being homophobic and the like. People need to be very careful with that.”
“But there was also criticism of the boys being prepared to wear a jumper bearing the name of a gambling company but not wearing the pride jumper. None of us are qualified and nor is it appropriate to be casting any aspersions judging someone’s cultural or religious beliefs,” he added.
Speaking on the legal repercussions, Hagipantelis said the Manly players cannot be compelled to play nor would their employment be at risk if they object on religious or cultural grounds that are legitimately and honestly held.
“The playing contract signed by the NRL players with the club provides lawful authority for the club to direct not only where the boys play but also what they wear. As long as the lawful direction is reasonable,” Hagipantelis said.
“You can’t expect them to play in a clown’s outfit for example but you do expect them to play in a certain strip. Would it be reasonable to expect them to play in a pride jumper? Absolutely, I think we would all agree with that.
“On the other hand, the boys have objected on cultural or religious grounds. Now there are numerous pieces of anti-discrimination legislation which provide that you can not discriminate against someone on the basis of their cultural or religious beliefs.
“If these boys are stood down or they refuse to play themselves, they cannot be compromised or prejudiced so far as their employment is concerned otherwise that would be clearly unlawful.”
Its disappointing when someone who is clearly literate insists on playing dumb, its hard to imagine what motivates you to play these games.
But as for your rank dishonesty in misrepresenting my comments - that is worse than when you play dumb! Yes it seems to have gained you a new disciple in Mr Red Pill, but don't i actually post enough controversial statements for you to argue with?
Do you really have to make up fictitious ones? Aside from attrracting the likes of Mr Red Pill (and congratulations on that) what possible motive do you have for coming on a footy forum and making garbage like this up? Its puzzling.
Specifically, when - exactly - do you say I called for the banning of bigots? I note you were terribly frightened by that (alleged) call, so I'm sure it made a big impact on you and you can find it again instantly!
Sorry Budgie .. but I am not stirring the pot ... I responded to a post by old dear ... I am happy to move on ...
And I would never defend their bigotry .... nor agree with it .... but whilst democracy is flawed .... the freedoms it offers are not ...
IT is a fundamental fact ... that no good will ever come from the loss of freedom. ... to either side of the argument ..
precisely. Also a contractual issue doesn't mean dismissal as @Woodsie seems to think. The reality is that you don't get to claim religion as your reason and hide behind that to avoid persecution if you are cherry picking the things your religion forbids. If it comes to a tribunal situation they err on the side of the employee but they may be called upon to prove why this is an issue over say alcohol or gambling.
Either way I don't quite understand why we are talking about this in this thread or even why we are talking about it at all.
@Woodsie if you want to continue debating the matter that we should all just let go of then find a sounding board and converse with them, don't just drag it into any thread you can
- Status
Staff online
-
JethroStar Trekkin' across the universe
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
7 | 6 | 1 | 54 | 14 |
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 59 | 12 |
|
7 | 5 | 2 | 36 | 12 |
|
8 | 5 | 2 | 39 | 11 |
|
8 | 5 | 3 | 64 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | 73 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 8 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 8 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | -14 | 8 |
|
8 | 4 | 4 | -60 | 8 |
|
8 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 7 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -55 | 6 |
|
8 | 3 | 5 | -55 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -29 | 4 |
|
7 | 1 | 6 | -87 | 4 |
|
7 | 1 | 6 | -136 | 4 |
