-
@jegga said in The Folau Factor:
@voodoo said in The Folau Factor:
@jegga said in The Folau Factor:
some blokes chutney ferret.
I have no idea what this means, but man the visuals are unpleasant
Every time I see an evangelical Christian or gay conversion therapy advocate in the news I expect to see them someday in the news again admitting they like to smoke pole . The more vehemently they rant they more perverted they usually turn out to be.
Guilt transference?
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam your gay cousin who knows the whole situation and has a bit more right leaning opinion than expected doesn’t know Joyce is gay?
Kindly don't besmirch or insult my cousin based on my writing a recollection on a forum. Not fair man
Bsmirch? Unfair? What you talking about?
Your cousins view point is made up of straight people taking on behalf of gay - which I actually agree with.
Hardly a big deal / insult to point that one of the two people criticised for being offended on behalf of the gay community when being straight is gay, is it?
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Siam your gay cousin who knows the whole situation and has a bit more right leaning opinion than expected doesn’t know Joyce is gay?
Kindly don't besmirch or insult my cousin based on my writing a recollection on a forum. Not fair man
Bsmirch? Unfair? What you talking about?
Your cousins view point is made up of straight people taking on behalf of gay - which I actually agree with.
Hardly a big deal / insult to point that one of the two people criticised for being offended on behalf of the gay community when being straight is gay, is it?
Apologies, I misinterpreted "knows whole situation" (nobody can) and " more right leaning than expected" ( by whom? wierd assumption that all gays are left leaning ) and that a slight syntax error in a non quote (and all other Heteros...) doesn't necessarily indicate ignorance of Joyce's sexuality. As we all know Joyce is gay because he told us. Many times
Seems your sentence writing is just as vague, or more than mine. I don't know who my cousin is "taking" on - he's just expressing an opinion of his and his beloved. I don't know what his view point is made up of, that's up to him.
What was the point of your sentence again? To point out my cousin doesn't know Joyce is gay? Wrong but Cool thanks for adding to the discussion
-
If you want to make a big deal of this - no problems. I have nothing better to do and we are long overdue a stoush.
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
Apologies, I misinterpreted "knows whole situation" (nobody can) and " more right leaning than expected" ( by whom? wierd assumption that all gays are left leaning )
Somebody with a passing view on the situation may not necessarily know that AJ is gay - for sure. Your posts suggests some what more than that. Suggesting that the LGBT movement tends to be more left leaning is hardly a view that I'm isolated in, or weird.
and that a slight syntax error in a non quote (and all other Heteros...) doesn't necessarily indicate ignorance of Joyce's sexuality. As we all know Joyce is gay because he told us. Many times
Yes it does. Thanks for making my point for me.
Seems your sentence writing is just as vague, or more than mine. I don't know who my cousin is "taking" on - he's just expressing an opinion of his and his beloved. I don't know what his view point is made up of, that's up to him.
Fair cop, I missed an l. Should be talking. Maybe that makes it somewhat more combatitive.
What was the point of your sentence again? To point out my cousin doesn't know Joyce is gay? Wrong but Cool thanks for adding to the discussion
Well if somebody was telling me their point of view that David Lammy and other white people have no right to speak on behalf of black people, I'd probably point out the issue with their argument to them.
No problems, always happy to add to discussions.
-
@voodoo said in The Folau Factor:
For me though this just keeps coming back to the employment issue. You tell your employer you're going to behave in a certain way then you don't, them you double down, then you're on pretty thin ice.
Not sure there was ever proof positive he signed anything to that effect over and above that standard contract, and even if it were the ARU would still need to follow due process in terminating his contracting.
-
@MajorRage all cool.
For the record, no mention of people's right to speak on behalf, more the cherry picking of one group in Apostle Paul, Corinthians paraphrased quote when 90 odd% of the population were referred to.
In short, treating homosexuals as a separate group in need of protecting. Promulgating differences were exactly what homosexuals fought (and won) against.
Not everyone sees the need for special treatment to satisfy virtue signalling from those seemingly unaffected by the same ficticious slur.
Bemoan Folau for denigrating all the people referred to, not just one group because they "need" our help...in 2019
According to my kin, not all gays want privileges bestowed upon them to satisfy a deluded sense of common guilt relating to crimes largely committed before we were born.
Good chatting Rage. It's clear we agree fundamentally and sorry for my earlier misunderstanding (of your sloppy point 😋)
p.s you're dead right about my sloppy use of the phrase " and all other heterosexuals - my bad. And I actually don't know what " syntax" means. Just thought it looked good there! 🙃
-
@voodoo said in The Folau Factor:
@rotated I don't think he did sign anything extra, but he did publicly state he wouldn't repeat his past efforts, then did so anyway.
Are you referrning to the quote:
"After we'd all talked, I told Raelene [Castle] if she felt the situation had become untenable – that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn't be worked through – I would walk away from my contract, immediately,"
In which case you may have an argument, however there is also a strong case that the ARU made no effort to 'work through' the sitaution. Also it's a slippery slope when we start legally terminating people on broad platitudes they may have said a year ago.
Apparently the Tele is saying $8m settlement now? How the hell can RA afford that??!!!
Virtue isn't terribly cheap these days. How on earth did the ARU manage to pay out over double what was remaining on his contract. Purely self inflicted. Dumb.
-
@Rembrandt I wondered if they'd secured some extra funding via sponsors to help them settle this? I'm sure it would grate but perhaps they figured a settlement was the safer/faster/cheaper (eek) option.
Either way it's shitload of $$ - wonder where the leak came from... if that figure is accurate of course
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
$8m makes sense. Didn't they up the request to $14m a few days ago? Sounds like Folau had them over a barrel and scared them into submission.
Yeah. $8m may be high. But I doubt I couldn't see Folau settling for a penny less than his contract.
-
@Paekakboyz @rotated Maybe the firefighters union chipped in, given that god will surely now put all the fires out?
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@voodoo said in The Folau Factor:
@rotated I don't think he did sign anything extra, but he did publicly state he wouldn't repeat his past efforts, then did so anyway.
Are you referrning to the quote:
"After we'd all talked, I told Raelene [Castle] if she felt the situation had become untenable – that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn't be worked through – I would walk away from my contract, immediately,"
In which case you may have an argument, however there is also a strong case that the ARU made no effort to 'work through' the sitaution. Also it's a slippery slope when we start legally terminating people on broad platitudes they may have said a year ago.
He also said this whilst under his previous contract (which was nearly up). He was on an entirely new 4 year contract when the latest issue blew up.
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt I wondered if they'd secured some extra funding via sponsors to help them settle this? I'm sure it would grate but perhaps they figured a settlement was the safer/faster/cheaper (eek) option.
Certainly would be interesting to see. I mean if a certain sponsor was to be implicated in Folau being fired without due process then it might be in their interest to see this go away. Guess we'll never know for sure.
-
Castle has got to go, dismal handling of this, and yet another example of get woke go broke.
-
I can't see how anyone really 'wins' here. RA loses their best player and endures a protracted, public legal stoush with a bill of unknown nature at the end (though the $8m figure is ridiculous).
Folau loses his career, and in some part his position in Wallaby folklore.
As much as his backers may cry victory, they don't get what they actually wanted - a circus in the High Court, where religious freedom in the workplace can be tested in the public spotlight. They wanted the photo of their cohort on the steps of the court, fists raised, fighting for their beliefs against their woke oppressors.
But now it all fizzles out, and they don't get the legal test case they were desperate for.
The only people with any small glimmer of good news are rugby fans, who get to move on from this mess and forget it all ever happened.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions