-
@JC said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
Courtney lawes has now come to the defence of Billy Vunipola and to my mind makes the most sense of any of the shitlebrity tweets etc.
"I don’t have a faith like yourself my brother so I don’t share the same views in this matter but I do believe you should be able to voice your own opinions and beliefs as you see fit. To everyone getting worked up about these post I ask you if you don’t believe in the same things as them then what do these statements matter to you? Can we not disagree with someone without calling them a bigot or a homophobe or every other name under the sun?"
“And by the way If you’re going to say you’re accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with.”
Disagree 100%.
Foley is staying thst in his view, they are going to suffer in eternity. His view. He believes he’s going to paradise and non believers, who
Follow their own true feelings, will suffer eternally.A sporting organization selling a product cannot carry this. Right to be sacked,
So you don’t believe in religious freedom?
Why wouldn’t I?
-
I guess the situation really is that the ARU don't believe in freedom of religion, and that is the consequence of sponsors who also don't..and that is at least in part due to extremist protesters & the twitterati that don't and aren't shy about saying it
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
I guess the situation really is that the ARU don't believe in freedom of religion, and that is the consequence of sponsors who also don't..and that is at least in part due to extremist protesters & the twitterati that don't and aren't shy about saying it
I think it’s just more about acceptance of the LGBT community. They feel Folaus post is against that principle.
-
@MajorRage If I try and turn it on its head. Folau isn't standing against freedom of sexuality. He is just giving a warning about what he believes will happen to them when they die (assuming literal hell rather than metaphorical), there is no force involved. . Extremist protesters, sponsors and ARU are however attempting to use force (as in removal of income) to stop Folau from speaking his beliefs.
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
@Machpants said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel yeah but our only Muslim rugby player is coming out and saying 'as long as your good to others, I like you' not 'burn in hell faggot' So bringing up other religions and anti Christian stuff not entirely relevant. If SBW posts about the "Qur’an (4:16) demands unspecified punishment for men guilty of lewdness together unless they repent", then he'd lose his job too. Btw that's the only mention of homosexually being forbidden in the Qur'an, all the fundamentalist stuff from the Muslim world is based on their culture more than scripture. Your also need four eye witnesses before you could be punished, tricky one that!
Ofa just converted to Islam, so we have two Muslim All Blacks now.
Something tells me he'll struggle to fast during Ramadan
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage If I try and turn it on its head. Folau isn't standing against freedom of sexuality. He is just giving a warning about what he believes will happen to them when they die (assuming literal hell rather than metaphorical), there is no force involved. . Extremist protesters, sponsors and ARU are however attempting to use force (as in removal of income) to stop Folau from speaking his beliefs.
I think that is a real stretch. Folau can speak his mind, he won't get imprisoned or beaten (now that's real force). But he has to accept there are consequences for his actions, just like the rest of us do in everyday life
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt for the second time.
Previously warned. Which for me is a big factor.
And according to the Fitzimmons article his standard contract had no social media clause as it was a standard clause. But there were accompanying documents with the new contract which in essence warned him and his management what would happen if he did it again, and he simply ignored them. He brought this on himself
-
Well it's going to be an interesting court case if it comes to that. From what I can tell most people are outraged not by what he said so much as a more extreme interpretation of what he said. I think the ARU made this mistake also rather than follow process.
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan The devil will be in what those details are exactly. Would paraphrasing a bible verse fit? He seems happy enough to stand on principle.
It will. The ARU would look stupid if they offered up a contract for Folau to sign that didn't have something in it to warn him off these social media outbursts. Especially after the first time.
Folau can't be naive enough or stupid enough not to realise exactly what he is doing. There are thousands of verses in the bible and yet he picks up on the same theme as last time? He is entitled to speak his mind, and I am entitled to place him on a level similar to Brian Tamaki and other peddlers of intolerant religion
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage If I try and turn it on its head. Folau isn't standing against freedom of sexuality.
Well given Adulterers and Fornicators raised his ire I would say he is.
An important distinction that seems to have been missed in the rush to lynch him has been is he started from his narrow view of sexuality (between a married man and woman only) and views everything outside of that as a sin in equal measure. I don't think he has singled out homosexuals, or started with the goal of persecuting them specifically and using the bible to justify it.
Subtle difference, but a big one IMO.
-
It’s an employment issue when you hold the wrong views. Pocock has a lot of strong political convictions that he shares with the public, but they are politically-correct views, and one suspects he won’t suffer a dime’s loss for promoting any of them. He’ll more likely be patted on the head and promoted as a “courageous” role model.
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@JC said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
Courtney lawes has now come to the defence of Billy Vunipola and to my mind makes the most sense of any of the shitlebrity tweets etc.
"I don’t have a faith like yourself my brother so I don’t share the same views in this matter but I do believe you should be able to voice your own opinions and beliefs as you see fit. To everyone getting worked up about these post I ask you if you don’t believe in the same things as them then what do these statements matter to you? Can we not disagree with someone without calling them a bigot or a homophobe or every other name under the sun?"
“And by the way If you’re going to say you’re accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with.”
Disagree 100%.
Foley is staying thst in his view, they are going to suffer in eternity. His view. He believes he’s going to paradise and non believers, who
Follow their own true feelings, will suffer eternally.A sporting organization selling a product cannot carry this. Right to be sacked,
So you don’t believe in religious freedom?
Why wouldn’t I?
Is that a yes or a no?
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt for the second time.
Previously warned. Which for me is a big factor.
And according to the Fitzimmons article his standard contract had no social media clause as it was a standard clause. But there were accompanying documents with the new contract which in essence warned him and his management what would happen if he did it again, and he simply ignored them. He brought this on himself
But contractual terms that try and enforce an abrogation of a legal right such as religious freedom (which, from what I can see, is firmly entrenched at state and federal level and has been affirmed by numerous court cases) are not enforceable. They can’t legally ask him to set aside a human right.
ARU will lose in court, I’ll wager a chocolate fish on it.
-
@JC in this day and age, it seems both sides are incredibly stupid.
Folau for posting what he did and not expecting any blow back, and ARU for moving the way they have and not expecting him to fight it, when all signs point to them losing.
After his last time, was he issued with a written warning, if he was and given explicit directives about his actions, and warned not to do this again, despite nothing written into his contract about it, can this be enforced?
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in The Folau Factor:
It’s an employment issue when you hold the wrong views. Pocock has a lot of strong political convictions that he shares with the public, but they are politically-correct views, and one suspects he won’t suffer a dime’s loss for promoting any of them. He’ll more likely be patted on the head and promoted as a “courageous” role model.
No I'm sorry this is just bullshit.
Pocock got arrested when he chained himself to a bulldozer a few years ago. While some people called him 'courageous', the ARU actually sent him a warning letter - similar to the one they sent to Folau last year.
You know what he did then? He pulled his head in. He's been pretty silent on the political front lately, and as a result he's faced no repurcussions from the ARU.
And when he has made statements, they are general statements that are inclusive and not related to any minority groups. Because he knows the ARU policies and knows he has to abide by them.
Folau's actually been pretty vocal on religious issues for a long time. His insta is full of posts about Jesus, and nobody has really cared. Until he started involving a minority group, which he's been told numerous times is against ARU policy.
I feel like a broken record on this, but there's a bit of rubbish flying around this thread and I think some things bear repeating.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
You know what he did then? He pulled his head in. He's been pretty silent on the political front lately, and as a result he's faced no repurcussions from the ARU.
I think this is where this is going to pivot on - legally, how much can ARU control their employees in their social appearances? The fact that Pocock pulled back doesn't necessarily imply that what the ARU did was legal or legit.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions