-
This is getting so weird.
Somehow the term 'religious freedom' is not being challenged at all.
I would guess that a vast majority of people are more than happy for people to have the right to choose a faith and not be discriminated against because of that choice.
ie: you can follow whatever faith you want and we won't let that affect your employability, your other human rights etc and nor will we tolerate others singling out your faith in a discriminatory way.What is different is when that right is extended to a licence to discriminate against others based on aspects that are not their choice ie race, disability, sexuality...
Religious freedom DOES NOT MEAN a carte blanch to behave like a dick. You are all free to think what you like but don't preach that shit into the public domain where it will affect others.
-
I am surprised by those who think that the ARU having more support than Falou as win. It is a Pyrrhic victory. Congrats you only pissed off 40% of the country. *golf clap *
They were not rooted either way. There was an easy out. Just a bland condemnation and drop it. Done months ago.
-
@MajorRage You're right, didn't notice the numbers done. It's at about 90k now and not a lot of difference. Disconcerting about the Turia result, hoping that would be a lot lower as that's a pretty extreme view. Followed the main pages for the yes and no campaigns for the same sex marriage referendum, was interesting times.
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt I just went through it ... summary
Should Folau be sacked? 54% Yes, 46% No
Should Folau self fund his legal case? 66% Yes, 34% No - this blew my mind ...
Did You Donate? 82% No, 11% Yes, 6% Donated elsewhere
Should Go Fund Me have been removed .. 54% Yes 46% No
Should Maria face sanction ... 77% No, 22% Yes - Disappointed in this one honestly
Do you worry about religous freedoms ... 35% Yes 30% No 33% Not Religous
Do you support gay rights .. 79% YesThat's a disturbingly high percentage who want Maria to face sanctions.
-
Here's an example in the UK - an old disabled fella has been sacked for breaching social media policy because he shared a Billy Connolly video mocking religion.
Are people seriously OK with employers sacking people like this?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt I just went through it ... summary
Should Folau be sacked? 54% Yes, 46% No
Should Folau self fund his legal case? 66% Yes, 34% No - this blew my mind ...
Did You Donate? 82% No, 11% Yes, 6% Donated elsewhere
Should Go Fund Me have been removed .. 54% Yes 46% No
Should Maria face sanction ... 77% No, 22% Yes - Disappointed in this one honestly
Do you worry about religous freedoms ... 35% Yes 30% No 33% Not Religous
Do you support gay rights .. 79% YesThat's a disturbingly high percentage who want Maria to face sanctions.
One could argue the same about 'Do you support gay rights?' I suppose, although I personally selected 'yes' I could see the argument for saying 'no I support human rights' ie rights regardless of sexual orientation. Interestingly Maria isn't even mentioned on FB comments so I don't know where the outrage for her is coming from. Maybe journalists are feverishly voting to try and create a story.
-
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
What is different is when that right is extended to a licence to discriminate against others based on aspects that are not their choice ie race, disability, sexuality...
This is the breakdown. No one has been able to point out exactly what the discriminatory act from Folau was. He didn't single anyone out, he didn't say he refused to play with anyone who fell on that list, and based on his previous posts/quotes on the matter it seemed to be from a place of "we are all sinners". We are talking about a sport where a member of SAANZAR is picking players on skin colour, yet the descrimination we are worried about is a guy's personal opinion is that homosexuality is immoral? Really?
To most religious (or really simply personal) freedom means the ability to live ones life by a moral code free from discrimination action by others, particularly government and commercial entities.
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Rembrandt I just went through it ... summary
Should Folau be sacked? 54% Yes, 46% No
Should Folau self fund his legal case? 66% Yes, 34% No - this blew my mind ...
Did You Donate? 82% No, 11% Yes, 6% Donated elsewhere
Should Go Fund Me have been removed .. 54% Yes 46% No
Should Maria face sanction ... 77% No, 22% Yes - Disappointed in this one honestly
Do you worry about religous freedoms ... 35% Yes 30% No 33% Not Religous
Do you support gay rights .. 79% YesThat's a disturbingly high percentage who want Maria to face sanctions.
One could argue the same about 'Do you support gay rights?' I suppose, although I personally selected 'yes' I could see the argument for saying 'no I support human rights' ie rights regardless of sexual orientation. Interestingly Maria isn't even mentioned on FB comments so I don't know where the outrage for her is coming from. Maybe journalists are feverishly voting to try and create a story.
For sure. It would be interesting to know why they voted that way. Hard to believe that many people don't want gays to have rights. Maybe they conflate it with gay pride or something like that? Connection to the gay marriage debate?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
For sure. It would be interesting to know why they voted that way. Hard to believe that many people don't want gays to have rights. Maybe they conflate it with gay pride or something like that? Connection to the gay marriage debate?
In the context of the issue they likely conflate with the right to sack/arrest/ostracize those who make comments similar to Israel's as part of those "rights".
A similar result would likely come out in regards to indigenous rights in Australia. Almost all of mainstream Australia support this in general, although many would answer 'no' if they believed that included the most extreme demands/recommendations.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
What is different is when that right is extended to a licence to discriminate against others based on aspects that are not their choice ie race, disability, sexuality...
This is the breakdown. No one has been able to point out exactly what the discriminatory act from Folau was. He didn't single anyone out, he didn't say he refused to play with anyone who fell on that list, and based on his previous posts/quotes on the matter it seemed to be from a place of "we are all sinners". We are talking about a sport where a member of SAANZAR is picking players on skin colour, yet the descrimination we are worried about is a guy's personal opinion is that homosexuality is immoral? Really?
To most religious (or really simply personal) freedom means the ability to live ones life by a moral code free from discrimination action by others, particularly government and commercial entities.
True. Because he is declaring that here are a bunch of things that aren't 'best behaviour' and those that do them are bad in my eyes. Most of his list are choices and he is saying 'I think you are making a bad choice'. Sexuality is not a choice so he is discriminating against homosexuals by grouping them into that scenario.
-
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
True. Because he is declaring that here are a bunch of things that aren't 'best behaviour' and those that do them are bad in my eyes. Most of his list are choices and he is saying 'I think you are making a bad choice'. Sexuality is not a choice so he is discriminating against homosexuals by grouping them into that scenario.
To be very clear I do not support his opinion on this...
But again I don't think he is persecuting the orientation or naturally occurring feeling or attraction - simply the act. The post called for restraint from various acts irregardless of orientation or preclusion including adultery and pre-marital sex. So from his perspective everyone is tempted by varying sexual impulses and those need to be controlled.
Obviously he draws no distinction between them and I and most others do as there are compelling moral arguments against say, adultery, where there isn't for homosexuality.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
True. Because he is declaring that here are a bunch of things that aren't 'best behaviour' and those that do them are bad in my eyes. Most of his list are choices and he is saying 'I think you are making a bad choice'. Sexuality is not a choice so he is discriminating against homosexuals by grouping them into that scenario.
To be very clear I do not support his opinion on this...
But again I don't think he is persecuting the orientation or naturally occurring feeling or attraction - simply the act. The post called for restraint from various acts irregardless of orientation or preclusion including adultery and pre-marital sex. So from his perspective everyone is tempted by varying sexual impulses and those need to be controlled.
Obviously he draws no distinction between them and I and most others do as there are compelling moral arguments against say, adultery, where there isn't for homosexuality.
You are allowed to be gay but precluded from having sexual relationships?
Again, that sends a strong message that 'I think you are different to the norm' = 'You are not normal'= 'discrimination'
In all of Folau's answers and explanations after the event he has tried to point out that he means well and is trying to help people. Help them from what? Being what they are? He needs to understand that if he chooses to believe something that is clearly wrong and insulting to a group of people he shouldn't air those thoughts.. It is common courtesy.
Do you walk into a room and loudly declare 'I think fat people are really unattractive'? It is your free right to think that and even your free right to say it BUT it isn't socially acceptable AND if you are representing your employer at the time you would probably expect repercussions.
-
https://www.acl.org.au/donate_izzy
Folau raised over A$2,100,000 in 2 days now
He'll raised the full amount needed by the weekend
Excellent News
-
The first step in the Fair Work Commission process kicks off tomorrow at 9:30 am Sydney time.
9:30
Folau v Rugby Australia Ltd
C2019/3499
s.773 - Application to deal with an unlawful termination dispute
Vice President Hatcher
Fair Work Commission Terrace Tower 80 William Street East Sydney9:30
Folau v Waratahs Rugby Pty Ltd
C2019/3498
s.773 - Application to deal with an unlawful termination dispute
Vice President Hatcher
Fair Work Commission Terrace Tower 80 William Street East Sydney -
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
True. Because he is declaring that here are a bunch of things that aren't 'best behaviour' and those that do them are bad in my eyes. Most of his list are choices and he is saying 'I think you are making a bad choice'. Sexuality is not a choice so he is discriminating against homosexuals by grouping them into that scenario.
To be very clear I do not support his opinion on this...
But again I don't think he is persecuting the orientation or naturally occurring feeling or attraction - simply the act. The post called for restraint from various acts irregardless of orientation or preclusion including adultery and pre-marital sex. So from his perspective everyone is tempted by varying sexual impulses and those need to be controlled.
Obviously he draws no distinction between them and I and most others do as there are compelling moral arguments against say, adultery, where there isn't for homosexuality.
Yep, it's all about resisting those natural and very normal impulses. That certainly distinguishes it from racism. Still absurd and wrong but it's an important distinction.
-
@rotated said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
For sure. It would be interesting to know why they voted that way. Hard to believe that many people don't want gays to have rights. Maybe they conflate it with gay pride or something like that? Connection to the gay marriage debate?
In the context of the issue they likely conflate with the right to sack/arrest/ostracize those who make comments similar to Israel's as part of those "rights".
A similar result would likely come out in regards to indigenous rights in Australia. Almost all of mainstream Australia support this in general, although many would answer 'no' if they believed that included the most extreme demands/recommendations.
I think a better question in this context would be if homosexuality should be illegal or whether it's a sin. That would erase any ambiguities.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
They were not rooted either way. There was an easy out. Just a bland condemnation and drop it. Done months ago.
I disagree this was an 'easy out'. Let's entertain the hypothetical scenario that they did that and he kept playing.
Firstly he would have already lost a considerable amount of support from local fans (plenty of whom were calling for his head when he put the tweet out, before RA acted). There's a chance he gets booed at games, and there is a cloud hanging over his head.
On top of that, the chances of him doing it again would be almost 100%. And then again, and again. At each stage the condemnation and pressure only intensifies, on both Israel and RA.
It would become a constant distraction. If he's picked in the Wallabies, he gets booed (Quade style) in other arenas around the World. It's a talking point for media everywhere, and it's a disclaimer every time he scores a try or does something great. 'Nice try, but remember he hates the gays'.
Just imagine the narrative if Nigel Owens gets appointed to a Wallaby game, for instance.
So not only would RA wear short-term criticism for a 'bland condemnation' (which probably would also have pissed off about 40% of the country golf clap), but the thing would hang like a millstone around their neck for the next four years, intensifying every time he posts similar sentiment.
And yes much of it would be media-driven sensationalism, but there's only so long that you can resist that before it impacts on both the game on a macro level, and the Tahs/Wallabies more specifically.
In short, the only course of action they could have taken was not to re-sign him, as RS said above. Once that die was cast, I think they were rooted either way.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions