Rugby Australia: A Cautionary Tale

[47MVEagle]

How did Folau discriminate against gay people? He didn't deny them goods or services, he didn't single them out for mistreatment, he didn't even avoid them. All he did was post a personal religious conviction.

Does the Bible specifically state that gay people will go to Hell?

 

[47MVEagle]

That is a veeeery long bow you are drawing...

In regards to people claiming freedom of speech is all-encompassing & should never suffer consequences?

 

[eaglebuzz]

What? That he doesn't have a massive contract that limits the things he can promote in public?
Yes. He can not sign up to the contract.

The heart of the dispute (which will probably play out in court for several years now) is going to be what limitations, exactly, were placed on him? And were those limitations reasonable/reasonably articulated?

The whole "he broke his contract" meme is naive and simplistic.

 

[The '47ers]

For a generation raised on South Park and Family Guy, they certainly are offended easily

 

[eaglebuzz]

Does the Bible specifically state that gay people will go to Hell?

I don't understand the relevance of the question

 

[47MVEagle]

The heart of the dispute (which will probably play out in court for several years now) is going to be what limitations, exactly, were placed on him? And were those limitations reasonable/reasonably articulated?

The whole "he broke his contract" meme is naive and simplistic.

From an article on the ABC news site (link below quote):

"The code in part states that players must treat everyone fairly and with dignity regardless of sexual orientation, and they must use social media appropriately."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/israel-folau-rugby-australia-legal-battle/11257778

From the Professional Rugby Players Code of Conduct (link to full document below):

"not to do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult or humiliate another participant on the ground of the religion, sexual orientation, disability, race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person;"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1q6OOJvQY-8INU1UkZ1797

 

[47MVEagle]

I don't understand the relevance of the question

Ah, so you're going with it being Folau's "personal religious conviction".

I take it what you're saying is that he should be allowed to say whatever he likes under the guise of it being his "personal religious conviction" with nothing to back up his belief?

Is he allowed to say all black people will go to hell unless they repent & change their skin colour under the guise of "personal religious conviction"?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Ah, so you're going with it being Folau's "personal religious conviction".

I take it what you're saying is that he should be allowed to say whatever he likes under the guise of it being his "personal religious conviction" with nothing to back up his belief?

Is he allowed to say all black people will go to hell unless they repent & change their skin colour under the guise of "personal religious conviction"?

Whether there is nothing to back up his belief or not is a theological dispute.

I would say it should be within his prerogative to say such a thing, yes. Who would take him seriously?

 

[eaglebuzz]

From an article on the ABC news site (link below quote):

"The code in part states that players must treat everyone fairly and with dignity regardless of sexual orientation, and they must use social media appropriately."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/israel-folau-rugby-australia-legal-battle/11257778

From the Professional Rugby Players Code of Conduct (link to full document below):

"not to do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult or humiliate another participant on the ground of the religion, sexual orientation, disability, race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person;"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.redsrugby.com.au/Portals/10/Files/Coaching%20and%20Education/Re-accreditation_Code_of_Conduct.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjK_L3fucDjAhX56XMBHYOWCp4QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1q6OOJvQY-8INU1UkZ1797

Well oops, guess RA failed to follow their own code in sacking him

 

[manlyfan76]

The heart of the dispute (which will probably play out in court for several years now) is going to be what limitations, exactly, were placed on him? And were those limitations reasonable/reasonably articulated?

The whole "he broke his contract" meme is naive and simplistic.

I'd say the warning he had previously for the same thing would go a long way to articulating the exact do's and don'ts of this issue.

 

[eaglebuzz]

I'd say the warning he had previously for the same thing would go a long way to articulating the exact do's and don'ts of this issue.

Depends what was said, and whether it was fair. I doubt he would be challenging the decision if there was no chance he would win.

 

[Kevinward777]

Interestingly there is a recent case in the US where a girl has been charged & sentenced for convincing her boyfriend to go through with killing himself.

It is a slippery slope (& again, freedom of speech has been quoted as having been infringed upon in this case) but when should responsibility be considered diminished?

The girl knew the deceased intimately, knew he suffered poor mental health, knew he'd tried to kill himself previously but hadn't gone through with it.

Yet when he called & texted her during his last attempt to kill himself & showed signs of not wanting to go through with it, instead of providing support & encouraging him not to do it, she did the exact opposite & literally shamed & pressured him into killing himself.

That to me is responsibility for his death.

Wow! How in the name of anything does that correlate to what Folau posted?

 

[47MVEagle]

Whether there is nothing to back up his belief or not is a theological dispute.

I would say it should be within his prerogative to say such a thing, yes. Who would take him seriously?

So your measure of what a person should be allowed to say is simply based on whether or not anyone would take them seriously.

Cool.

I'm out.

 

[47MVEagle]

Well oops, guess RA failed to follow their own code in sacking him

Nah yeah nah you're kidding yourself mate.

 

[47MVEagle]

Wow! How in the name of anything does that correlate to what Folau posted?

Her defence on appeal is that it is within her right to freedom of speech to have told her boyfriend to kill himself & therefore she did nothing wrong.

Israel Folau is claiming his rights to freedom of speech & religion were infringed upon because he was sacked for saying gays will go to hell therefore he did nothing wrong (& is in fact the victim here).

 

[eaglebuzz]

So your measure of what a person should be allowed to say is simply based on whether or not anyone would take them seriously.

Cool.

I'm out.

I've been tolerating the non sequiturs you have been drawing from my statements because I can't be bothered disputing them but that one takes the cake.

I'm saying that we should err as much as possible on the side of free speech, and in the instance of the absurd hypothetical you posted, the sheer absurdity of the statement is precisely why it can be treated as innocuous.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Nah yeah nah you're kidding yourself mate.

I don't know I would say that it is pretty humiliating and intimidating for Christians to be sacked for posting Bible paraphrases to Instagram.

 

[47MVEagle]

I've been tolerating the non sequiturs you have been drawing from my stamens because I can't be bothered disputing them but that one takes the cake.

I'm saying that we should err as much as possible on the side of free speech, and in the instance of the absurd hypothetical you posted, the sheer absurdity of the statement is precisely why it can be treated as innocuous.

I've just realised I'm dealing with someone with a persecution complex who is more interested in using "whataboutisms" than actually discussing the subject at hand.

Quite rich coming from someone previously claiming anyone saying Folau had broken his contract was "naive & simplistic".

Read the hateful things said about Christians on here and try telling me with a straight face that they aren't orders of magnitude more hateful than anything Folau posted.

Just another person with their own agenda pushing their own barrow & not truly interested in freedom of speech.

 

[47MVEagle]

I don't know I would say that it is pretty humiliating and intimidating for Christians to be sacked for posting Bible paraphrases to Instagram.

Oh for sure, those poor, victimised Christians, they should be allowed to say gays are going to hell as much as they like, whenever & wherever they like, because it says so in the bible...oh wait...it doesnt but that shouldn't matter because it's his "personal religious conviction"

 

[manlyfan76]

I don't know I would say that it is pretty humiliating and intimidating for Christians to be sacked for posting Bible paraphrases to Instagram.

He knew what he was doing. He had done it before and been warned not to.
I highly doubt he was intimidated.
Have a look at what Tim Costello said about christisns in OZ feeling persecuted. I would call him an expert on persecution and catholics.