-
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.
-
@barbarian plenty of fans I know didn’t care or even know about the post and still don’t care and would rather just watch him play.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
What genius thought attacking someone for a religious belief was a winning strategy.
I think they’re blind, Baron. They live in their little bubbles, and those bubbles are echo chambers.
These are the same sorts of corporate elites who live on the coasts in America, don’t know anybody who works off the land or goes to church, and became so stupified when Trump won their heads exploded and the only plausible explanations in their brains was that the election had to be stolen. They couldn’t accept that other people had different values.
That’s why hosts on MSNBC can say with a straight face they don’t know anybody who voted for him. It’s why Ted Cruz could grill a Google exec yesterday poiting out that $1.3 mill was donated by senior Google management to Hillary and exactly $0.00 was donated to Trump.
These people don’t believe conservatives or Christians or free speech activists exist, and then believe if they actually do exist then they need to be silenced. This is the new secular orthodoxy, and anybody who deviates is a heretic.
I suspect the majority of donations to Folau’s legal fund come from Christians, but I wouldn’t be surprised if close to half come from people who are simply fed up with virtue-signalling hall-monitors and lynch mobs telling us that traditional values are beneath them.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@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.
I think you are taking the piss here mate, the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
-
RA could easily have said, “look, we don’t agree with Israel’s views, but Australia is still a free country, and rugby is a game that welcomes players from all strata of society, even Christians. If you want to ban The Bible, go at it, but that’s not our purview. We are a rugby team, and as a player Israel’s work ethic and performance have been exemplary.”
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
Just imagine the narrative if Nigel Owens gets appointed to a Wallaby game, for instance.
Or, God forbid, beer drinkers.
-
@barbarian it really comes back to my points about activists in mainstream and social media kicking off lynch mobs attacking people they disagree with. If RA is genuinely screwed either way on the basis of a tweet quoting the bible then that is pretty clear evidence of a growing problem with free speech in the west.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
What do you base that on?
The first time he did it there was a fair bit of backlash, and there was more when he did it again. The tweet itself may have been fairly isolated in the grand scheme, but the ensuing media coverage covered a far wider net of people.
I move in different circles of rugby fans in Sydney, and the majority of those people thought he should go. They didn't like the sentiment, and they didn't like the idea that he was becoming a distraction from the team and the game more broadly.
This sentiment was discussed plenty of times in pubs, on sidelines, and online so I'm confident I've got a fairly good grasp of it.
So you can come here and talk in generalities, but my lived experience is that a lot of people actually did care about this in the Sydney rugby community (which is actually fairly small). Certainly enough people for it to be beyond any sort of 'online SJW bubble' that some on here refer to.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@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.
I think you are taking the piss here mate, the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
I would agree if the game was in better shape and the Wallabies were winning, but the opposite is true. AR's back is broken and they are everyones bitch right now. I guess you can say that was selfinflicted, but the point is that AR has zero bargaining power any more. Other codes making bank and with sponsors knocking down the door don't have that excuse and their descent into wokeness is not only baffling, but will seriously bite them on the arse.
Re Foolnow, the thing is that when you're the rep for a company or organisation and paid stupid money to be that rep, your job is to maintain the existing customer base and hopefully bring more customers in. After all, that's where the stupid money comes from. Upon accepting that position, it's probably not the smartest thing to say that most of those customers are going to hell. Who, in any profession, can get away with that?
-
Fund paused now.
Questions are over how much will be required for a legal defence, an 'expert' has said $300,000.00 is all that will be required and he is being quoted all over the show..clicking on his twitter shows he might be a little biased in his assessment.
Any legal eagles here know? If the importance is to create legal precedent then they are going to want the best representation possible and if they aren't looking to settle then this could go on quite some time. What does the top lawyer in Straya charge?
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Fund paused now.
Questions are over how much will be required for a legal defence, an 'expert' has said $300,000.00 is all that will be required and he is being quoted all over the show..clicking on his twitter shows he might be a little biased in his assessment.
Any legal eagles here know? If the importance is to create legal precedent then they are going to want the best representation possible and if they aren't looking to settle then this could go on quite some time. What does the top lawyer in Straya charge?
I reckon it will be a shit load more than that. QCs charge up to $1,000 an hour.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
What do you base that on?
The first time he did it there was a fair bit of backlash, and there was more when he did it again. The tweet itself may have been fairly isolated in the grand scheme, but the ensuing media coverage covered a far wider net of people.
I move in different circles of rugby fans in Sydney, and the majority of those people thought he should go. They didn't like the sentiment, and they didn't like the idea that he was becoming a distraction from the team and the game more broadly.
This sentiment was discussed plenty of times in pubs, on sidelines, and online so I'm confident I've got a fairly good grasp of it.
So you can come here and talk in generalities, but my lived experience is that a lot of people actually did care about this in the Sydney rugby community (which is actually fairly small). Certainly enough people for it to be beyond any sort of 'online SJW bubble' that some on here refer to.
And soon as you used the phrase 'lived experience' I phased out. Such a lame phrase that means basically that you just dont want to admit that your anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal evidence.
Your anecdotal proof is just not worth alot. No more than my opinion is.
-
Apropos of nothing really:
It's becoming increasingly clear that all of us have 2 different worlds we inhabit
The screen world where we form our "worldliness " from a device
And a real world where we form our worldliness from our senses and lived* experiences.
These are very different things/places
Until the screen world accurately reflects the other one, outrage just ensues
Ps. * just for you baron....🙂
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
Apropos of nothing really:
It's becoming increasingly clear that all of us have 2 different worlds we inhabit
The screen world where we form our "worldliness " from a device
And a real world where we form our worldliness from our senses and lived* experiences.
These are very different things/places
Until the screen world accurately reflects the other one, outrage just ensues
Ps. * just for you baron....🙂
My lived experience is that Barbarian is wrong. My undead experience is that he is still wrong, and my lived inexperience is that he is still wrong. Not sure about my undead inexperience yet.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
And soon as you used the phrase 'lived experience' I phased out. Such a lame phrase that means basically that you just dont want to admit that your anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal evidence.
Your anecdotal proof is just not worth alot. No more than my opinion is.
And your opinion is 'the vast majority of fans' don't care about his tweet, without anything to back it up other than gut.
OK.
Well we may as well leave it here then, as we'll just go in circles. A pleasure, as always.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions