Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rugby Australia is set to terminate Folau's contract. Do you agree or disagree and why?" Yes.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"His life ruined in many other ways now." why is it ruined he has is faith family and friends and millions in the bank I'd swap places with him tomorrow just appreciate other people's _iews | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is it ok for religion to be openly homophobic but not for a religious person to be" Define homophobic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever his personal beliefs, he would have signed a contract worth a lot of money which he knew would be broken if he said anything like this. He got away with it before and has insulted his own captain( David Pocock) More importantly for England , Billy Vunipola is in the s)£t now for backing him- he is going to have to retract his comments very quickly." I think that unfortunately Billy will probably have damaged his career too. In all fairness, they are only repeating what their religions have taught them. The issue lays with the religions rather than the individuals. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever his personal beliefs, he would have signed a contract worth a lot of money which he knew would be broken if he said anything like this. He got away with it before and has insulted his own captain( David Pocock) More importantly for England , Billy Vunipola is in the s)£t now for backing him- he is going to have to retract his comments very quickly. I think that unfortunately Billy will probably have damaged his career too. In all fairness, they are only repeating what their religions have taught them. The issue lays with the religions rather than the individuals. Cal" I disagree. The individuals are following this religious idealogy. Why should their responsibility be negated because they follow a religion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is it ok for religion to be openly homophobic but not for a religious person to be Define homophobic." "Kill the gays by order of god" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you're going to ban the bible and Koran etc. I think it's a bit rich to treat the followers of those religions like this. After all they say we're all going to hell, gay, straight or whatever. Unless you. "Opt in"." Yet we give them tax exemption and extra legal privileges. Its very bizarre | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable?" I think that you're getting caught up in the difference between freedom of speech and inclusivity. Theyre different things, especially for a world sport organisation looking to bring people together. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable?" Man says gays are going to burn in Hell. "Well, I'm not convinced he's homophobic..."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is that most people who subscribe to a religion do so because they were indoctrinated as a child. The preachings are delivered as fact and supported by the parents... the people who a child believes above all others. So when these people grow up, they "know" that what they've been told is "true" and will continue to indoctrinated their own children. Personally I find it mind-blowing that anyone still believes in any type of god/spirit/magic etc... Cal" I completely agree and think there should be an age of consent for religion, allowing a young person to grow and make their own mind up, and not being forced into their parents beliefs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We're all entitled to a personal opinion but most recognise if our opinion goes against our employers ethos yet voice them publicly, we'll be in trouble." Agree. But has he brought the game into disrepute or his club / nation? Or just shown himself up? Surely we as an intelligent species can cope with someone else's opinion no matter how much we don't agree with it. Would the same have happened if he was a gay rugby player saying all heterosexual people are wrong and should burn in hell? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I strongly believe that everyone has the right to their sexual orientation, straight, gay, bi, trans or any other. However when someone speaks their mind against one they are pilloried, is this fair? Does he not have the right his _iews? However upsetting for some they may be. Bein persecuted for your sexuality is 100% wrong but surely everyone has the right to voice their _iews. PS I don't agree with his _iews or thoughts one iota but I do believe he should be allowed to have them and voice them." When you have sponsorship deals you are bound quite strictly to uphold the values of your sponsor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I strongly believe that everyone has the right to their sexual orientation, straight, gay, bi, trans or any other. However when someone speaks their mind against one they are pilloried, is this fair? Does he not have the right his _iews? However upsetting for some they may be. Bein persecuted for your sexuality is 100% wrong but surely everyone has the right to voice their _iews. PS I don't agree with his _iews or thoughts one iota but I do believe he should be allowed to have them and voice them. When you have sponsorship deals you are bound quite strictly to uphold the values of your sponsor. " Ok so he should lose his deals, but his career? After all _iews and opinions are just that, not actual facts. Even though they may be distasteful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the contract termination was the right way to go.. He's been previously warned about spreading what can be classed as hate speech on social media and decided to ignore that warning. Rugby is for all shapes, sizes and creeds, however when, as a top level player, start making a portion of those people feel targeted and hated it stops it being for anyone as it brings about a stigma. Yes he can believe anything he wants to believe, however if he's interpreting the bible in that manner he should also bear in mind that things suck as tearing clothes, getting tattoos, masturbation, and gossiping are also classed as sins. And I'm pretty sure he's not going to be condemning anyone who does those to hell any time soon? Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one but no one needs to see it. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable?" Free speech is fine. It comes with a responsibility though. It's not a free pass to say whatever the heck you like without sanction. And an acceptance that if your "free speech" crosses the line there's a price to pay for your entitlement. Many don't "get" that.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable? Free speech is fine. It comes with a responsibility though. It's not a free pass to say whatever the heck you like without sanction. And an acceptance that if your "free speech" crosses the line there's a price to pay for your entitlement. Many don't "get" that...." There are no free speech laws in the uk. Thats a purely american thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I strongly believe that everyone has the right to their sexual orientation, straight, gay, bi, trans or any other. However when someone speaks their mind against one they are pilloried, is this fair? Does he not have the right his _iews? However upsetting for some they may be. Bein persecuted for your sexuality is 100% wrong but surely everyone has the right to voice their _iews. PS I don't agree with his _iews or thoughts one iota but I do believe he should be allowed to have them and voice them. When you have sponsorship deals you are bound quite strictly to uphold the values of your sponsor. Ok so he should lose his deals, but his career? After all _iews and opinions are just that, not actual facts. Even though they may be distasteful." Without the deals he has no career. Clubs are also sponsored and cannot afford to continue without them. Dont know why your saying facts there it is a fact he said these things. Thats all the people with millions of dollars on the line care about | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think anyone who believes that there is a mythical being/God/Deity up in the sky is slightly unhinged in the first place, does he really believe that Hell is an existing place or is he metaphoricaly speaking? If it's metaphorical then he obviously doesn't believe in his own comments. " Says the couple who's profile name paraphrases two characters from the bible.   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you're going to ban the bible and Koran etc. I think it's a bit rich to treat the followers of those religions like this. After all they say we're all going to hell, gay, straight or whatever. Unless you. "Opt in". Yet we give them tax exemption and extra legal privileges. Its very bizarre " Completely hypocritical. Either ban the lot or let individual followers say whatever they like. Doesn't make sense to "hate the player, not the game. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable? Free speech is fine. It comes with a responsibility though. It's not a free pass to say whatever the heck you like without sanction. And an acceptance that if your "free speech" crosses the line there's a price to pay for your entitlement. Many don't "get" that.... There are no free speech laws in the uk. Thats a purely american thing. " This is very true. We seem to be discussing an Australian from the stand point of British _iews with reference to American laws. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Totally agree. People seem to equate free speech with speech being consequence free. No one stopped him from speaking or posting on social media. He was given a second chance last year, and issued with a new contract. You make your bed, you lie in it. He’s been given an opportunity and done it again. It’s not like he hasn’t been warned. A member of the general public would be pilloried and fired if they used social media to spread _iews that were hateful towards an oppressed minority. That an influential sportsman, whose _iews could potentially influence or embolden people in the street to spread that same message, or push a young LGBT kid (who’s already being bullied) over the edge, is held to the same or higher standards is totally correct. He’s not just expressing his religious _iews, he’s saying a bunch of people don’t deserve to exist and that they will suffer eternal damnation simply for being who they are. If a footballer posted on instagram that they were pro sexual assault, or an NFL player that they felt all non white players should be banned from the sport, would we all be so keen to defend their freedom of speech? We already accept that slander and defamation laws exist.... You can’t just go around saying anything you want about someone without facing the consequences. That doesn’t curtail free speech, it just impose consequences on said speech. How is this any different?" Well said. I think that a lot of people misunderstand or misuse the term freedom of speech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"it is an awkward one.... we might know like what he said, i dont agree with it.. but i would argue he is entitled to freedom of speech... is not like we didn't know his _iews, because he had "previous" for his _iews on this and had been repremanded by rugby australia before... so his _iews haven't changed! is his international career over... probably... will someone him on.. yep, i would have said some club in the northern hemisphere, either union or league, will take a change on him... so look for him to end up in france the interesting question is what do saracens and england do with billy vunipola for supporting his _iews?" I agree, his Australian career is over but his playing career isn't. I expect BV will be sanctioned behind closed doors and we'll see a statement of some sort in a few days after the furore has died down a little. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you're going to ban the bible and Koran etc. I think it's a bit rich to treat the followers of those religions like this. After all they say we're all going to hell, gay, straight or whatever. Unless you. "Opt in". Yet we give them tax exemption and extra legal privileges. Its very bizarre Completely hypocritical. Either ban the lot or let individual followers say whatever they like. Doesn't make sense to "hate the player, not the game. "" I agree with you to a certain degree. The defence of "the sky man said its OK" is ridiculous. If he'd stated that "all gays are evil" without the religious association then he'd be hanging from a tree about now. Does the prescence of a religious association make the statement more acceptable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever his personal beliefs, he would have signed a contract worth a lot of money which he knew would be broken if he said anything like this. He got away with it before and has insulted his own captain( David Pocock) More importantly for England , Billy Vunipola is in the s)£t now for backing him- he is going to have to retract his comments very quickly. I think that unfortunately Billy will probably have damaged his career too. In all fairness, they are only repeating what their religions have taught them. The issue lays with the religions rather than the individuals. Cal" It sits with both! Everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions - religious back ground or not!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless you're going to ban the bible and Koran etc. I think it's a bit rich to treat the followers of those religions like this. After all they say we're all going to hell, gay, straight or whatever. Unless you. "Opt in". Yet we give them tax exemption and extra legal privileges. Its very bizarre Completely hypocritical. Either ban the lot or let individual followers say whatever they like. Doesn't make sense to "hate the player, not the game. " I agree with you to a certain degree. The defence of "the sky man said its OK" is ridiculous. If he'd stated that "all gays are evil" without the religious association then he'd be hanging from a tree about now. Does the prescence of a religious association make the statement more acceptable? " Religious association gets you an instant undemocratic position in govenrment so why are you surprised :p | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry?" I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. " How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind?" You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. " Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups." That's possibly the most divisive response that I've ever read on these forums. Congratulations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups." I can accept you’re wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong. "
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong "It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing. "You mean I'm looking from a different perspective but seems because it's not with others it means I'm missing it? I think too many just _iew what others tell them without thinking for themselves. This isn't thinking it blind acceptance. One thing I've come across regularly is too many make wrong assumptions that because someone is willing to look elsewhere or differently at something then they must believe what they see. Bizarre for many reasons, but does display that it makes others uncomfortable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fired for being stupid When will people learn that it’s ok to have your own personal thoughts/feelings - just keep them to yourself. Why do they feel they have to tell everyone on Twit or fb! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing. "Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fired for being stupid When will people learn that it’s ok to have your own personal thoughts/feelings - just keep them to yourself. Why do they feel they have to tell everyone on Twit or fb! "Same as anywhere even here on fab, people shouldn't be allowed to express themselves I guess and get rid of the forums. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew?"More lingusitical gymnastics. I was taught a long time ago that if you can't express your point with clarity then you didn't understand it yourself. Do you want to have another try at this for everyone?... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fired for being stupid When will people learn that it’s ok to have your own personal thoughts/feelings - just keep them to yourself. Why do they feel they have to tell everyone on Twit or fb!
Same as anywhere even here on fab, people shouldn't be allowed to express themselves I guess and get rid of the forums."If they're in a celebrity or high profile role they have a certain responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
You mean I'm looking from a different perspective but seems because it's not with others it means I'm missing it?
I think too many just _iew what others tell them without thinking for themselves. This isn't thinking it blind acceptance.
One thing I've come across regularly is too many make wrong assumptions that because someone is willing to look elsewhere or differently at something then they must believe what they see.
Bizarre for many reasons, but does display that it makes others uncomfortable."No. I meant what I said, not the words you then said I really meant which actually mean something else. I chose the words I used - I’m sorry if they made you uncomfortable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew?"Where have I spoken about him? I’ve spoken about you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew?
Where have I spoken about him? I’ve spoken about you. "So where have I said accepting is agreeing? If you read through what I've said, I've not implied that at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Although the extract below was in relation to parliamentary privilege,the principle I suggest applies in regard to freedom of speech in the UK. Extract from the Guardian "The lord chief justice justified his approach by referring to historical examples dating back to 1563. He quoted Sir Edward Coke, “one of our greatest judges”, who in 1593 declared to MPs: “Her Majesty granteth you liberal but not licentious speech, liberty therefore but with limitation.” Burnett concluded: “The constitutional right to freedom of speech carries with it the obligation to exercise that right responsibly.” " Theres no real right to free speech in the uk for non mps. The uk applies exemptions to the un human rights act to cover it's ability to prohibit any speech that is immoral, inciting violence, or a danger to democracy. So pretty much anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew?
Where have I spoken about him? I’ve spoken about you.
So where have I said accepting is agreeing? If you read through what I've said, I've not implied that at all."You’re right, I’ve re-read - you’ve implied that someone agreeing with consequential action being taken due to someone having a stance they disagree with constitutes them not being accepting of a person’s differing opinion. I was then saying one can accept another person is wrong. To be inclusive doesn’t mean to all agree, which perhaps you had meant and I had skim read, but you did seem to be suggesting that disagreement meant lacking in acceptance generally and I think that’s incorrect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew?
Where have I spoken about him? I’ve spoken about you.
So where have I said accepting is agreeing? If you read through what I've said, I've not implied that at all.
You’re right, I’ve re-read - you’ve implied that someone agreeing with consequential action being taken due to someone having a stance they disagree with constitutes them not being accepting of a person’s differing opinion. I was then saying one can accept another person is wrong. To be inclusive doesn’t mean to all agree, which perhaps you had meant and I had skim read, but you did seem to be suggesting that disagreement meant lacking in acceptance generally and I think that’s incorrect. "On the contrary, I was stating that it seems that one cannot disagree without a course of action taken against you. Its not whether one disagrees or not which suggests non acceptance, but it's the course of action that follows is a ban or punishment which shows non acceptance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find it a bemusement that it's those who do not believe in Hell or God who then take offense. If something doesn't exist in my mind then I can't see why it would offend me in anyway. What is then offensive about something that doesn't exist nor has any bearing upon an individual? Surely if it doesn't exist there's no argument. Then again maybe it does exist but is it the denial of it that when resurrected causes an outcry? I think you're failing to recognise the negative connotations associated with it. Whether it's real or not, denouncing a person as being less than another for their sexual orientation is a negative. Getting tied up in word play around it is just ridiculous. How can there be a none imaginary negative connotation with something that doesn't exist in your mind? You're playing rhetorical gymnastics with this topic, inferring things about homosexual community. The simple fact is that irrespective of whether hell is real or not, the fact that people consider homosexuals to be bad or to need 'saving' is insulting. I'm sure that you can understand that in those simple terms. Intellectual twister isn't required. Well if you read his full comment it wasn't singling out homosexuality, yet it's interesting that's the thing that everyone has jumped on. The one word that seems to have offended, not anything else. If you're going to say you're accepting of everyone then be accepting of everyone, not just the people you agree with. This criticism seems to be most common place in the world we live in of being open minded and inclusive.... "As long as you agree with me or us" is the unfinished part of inclusivity groups. I can accept you’re wrong.
Like I can agree with you but we'd both be wrong
It’s interesting though as you do seem to miss the point of what it means to be accepting. It doesn’t mean agreeing.
Your point then sounds contradictory with what he said about different people. Why not then accept what he says, we know most don't agree, but very clearly not accepting it as a very different _iew?
Where have I spoken about him? I’ve spoken about you.
So where have I said accepting is agreeing? If you read through what I've said, I've not implied that at all.
You’re right, I’ve re-read - you’ve implied that someone agreeing with consequential action being taken due to someone having a stance they disagree with constitutes them not being accepting of a person’s differing opinion. I was then saying one can accept another person is wrong. To be inclusive doesn’t mean to all agree, which perhaps you had meant and I had skim read, but you did seem to be suggesting that disagreement meant lacking in acceptance generally and I think that’s incorrect.
On the contrary, I was stating that it seems that one cannot disagree without a course of action taken against you. Its not whether one disagrees or not which suggests non acceptance, but it's the course of action that follows is a ban or punishment which shows non acceptance."Not at all. It depends what was said or done as to whether consequences happen, and that is as it should be. It has not the slightest bit to do with non-acceptance of another person’s words or action. I don’t think acceptance is absolution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"why are people arguing that this idiot is right or wrong,,hes wrong,this kind of behaviour belongs to the stone age" Agreed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not for anyone else to say his personal thoughts are right or wrong. I think I mentioned much earlier up the thread - I really don’t understand why people feel they have to tell everyone their own personal feelings... Be happy in yourself and your own feelings" yea just don't spout hatred
especially online it will get you in trouble | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some just look for it and see red without reading things properly. There's many a thing especially on here that people just shout homophobic and it's not. It's just people get offended if anyone criticises or expresses an opinion. It's become a nastier world in some respects and everyone is trying police it." How do *you* define what homophobia is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not for anyone else to say his personal thoughts are right or wrong. I think I mentioned much earlier up the thread - I really don’t understand why people feel they have to tell everyone their own personal feelings... Be happy in yourself and your own feelings" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s not for anyone else to say his personal thoughts are right or wrong. I think I mentioned much earlier up the thread - I really don’t understand why people feel they have to tell everyone their own personal feelings... Be happy in yourself and your own feelings "agreed,and don't spout hatred | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some just look for it and see red without reading things properly. There's many a thing especially on here that people just shout homophobic and it's not. It's just people get offended if anyone criticises or expresses an opinion. It's become a nastier world in some respects and everyone is trying police it. How do *you* define what homophobia is? " A fear of or hatred towards those of a different sexuality to oneself. I'm sure others maybe yourself will have a different definition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I for one will report ANY homophobic comments on this site,, and I dont mean to the site owners." We have a lot of biphobia on fab which is rarely if ever pulled up on and is more prolific here than homophobia. Have you and will you report that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I for one will report ANY homophobic comments on this site,, and I dont mean to the site owners. We have a lot of biphobia on fab which is rarely if ever pulled up on and is more prolific here than homophobia. Have you and will you report that?" Biphobia in what way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some just look for it and see red without reading things properly. There's many a thing especially on here that people just shout homophobic and it's not. It's just people get offended if anyone criticises or expresses an opinion. It's become a nastier world in some respects and everyone is trying police it. How do *you* define what homophobia is? A fear of or hatred towards those of a different sexuality to oneself. I'm sure others maybe yourself will have a different definition. " I think it includes prejudice against homosexual people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I for one will report ANY homophobic comments on this site,, and I dont mean to the site owners. We have a lot of biphobia on fab which is rarely if ever pulled up on and is more prolific here than homophobia. Have you and will you report that?" Can I ask why that’s necessary to point out? Taking action against one wrong isn’t negated by not taking action against all. (Not suggesting that I know if Mikki would or wouldn’t take action by the way) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some just look for it and see red without reading things properly. There's many a thing especially on here that people just shout homophobic and it's not. It's just people get offended if anyone criticises or expresses an opinion. It's become a nastier world in some respects and everyone is trying police it. How do *you* define what homophobia is? A fear of or hatred towards those of a different sexuality to oneself. I'm sure others maybe yourself will have a different definition. I think it includes prejudice against homosexual people." Phobia is a fear off, not prejudice if. However one can have different interpretations. This is where confusion and misunderstandings arise from too. Ok as we're heading off topic and feel tension arrived a bit earlier I'll leave it at that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I for one will report ANY homophobic comments on this site,, and I dont mean to the site owners. We have a lot of biphobia on fab which is rarely if ever pulled up on and is more prolific here than homophobia. Have you and will you report that?" yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some just look for it and see red without reading things properly. There's many a thing especially on here that people just shout homophobic and it's not. It's just people get offended if anyone criticises or expresses an opinion. It's become a nastier world in some respects and everyone is trying police it. How do *you* define what homophobia is? A fear of or hatred towards those of a different sexuality to oneself. I'm sure others maybe yourself will have a different definition. I think it includes prejudice against homosexual people. Phobia is a fear off, not prejudice if. However one can have different interpretations. This is where confusion and misunderstandings arise from too. Ok as we're heading off topic and feel tension arrived a bit earlier I'll leave it at that." Why is this off topic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable? Free speech is fine. It comes with a responsibility though. It's not a free pass to say whatever the heck you like without sanction. And an acceptance that if your "free speech" crosses the line there's a price to pay for your entitlement. Many don't "get" that...." This. The man is a role model, it’s part of the job. If he wants to preach, go be a preacher, who I have to say wouldn’t dare say what he’s said in public. He won’t go be a preacher because he earns millions being a sports star, who plays on a Sunday, how religious is he? Seems to pick the bits he likes from his religion; the bit where he feels he can justify his homophobia maybe? The statement was less to do with religion but his childish interpretation that makes him feel he’s untouchable because he’s a star. Ban the homophobic fucker. Maybe he’ll get a job as a priest. Oh wait, even the priesthood would chuck him out if he published that kind of hatred.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality." *taking (Sorry the typo was bugging me!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The title of the thread is missing the following, 'because of his own stupidity'.. That is essentially the issue.. Most people have terms and conditions of employment, being warned once and ignoring it is crass stupidity.. " no the issue is hes a homophobic bigoted idiot | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The title of the thread is missing the following, 'because of his own stupidity'.. That is essentially the issue.. Most people have terms and conditions of employment, being warned once and ignoring it is crass stupidity.. no the issue is hes a homophobic bigoted idiot" Indeed. Let’s not dress it up as anything other than a bigoted homophobic prat who thinks he can do as he pleases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality." I’m sure he doesn’t have a case in employment law. What he said is illegal in most civilised countries, and certInly is i. Australia and here. He published homophobic hatred, contrary to his terms and conditions and he broke the law. How can he have a car for wrongful dismissal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if a mu***m said the same thing if there would be the same reaction, or if a g*y person said offensive things about catholics. It seems like there’s a real hypocrisy about who is tolerated and who is not. Also he made a choice that his morals and values (right or wrong) are worth more than money. As long as it’s not physically hurting anyone I wish more people did that sometimes. " It would depend if they broke the law? If they were in a position of being a role model to children? If they used their status as a platform to project bile and hate. Yes they would and do get the same treatment. He didn’t make a choice, he shot his mouth off because he’s a twat. IMHO | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality. I’m sure he doesn’t have a case in employment law. What he said is illegal in most civilised countries, and certInly is i. Australia and here. He published homophobic hatred, contrary to his terms and conditions and he broke the law. How can he have a car for wrongful dismissal? " Well, on the grounds of alleged religious discrimination under national employment law; as an employee, he could argue he was sacked on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act. I’m not endorsing his actions, nor saying there shouldn’t be consequences to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The title of the thread is missing the following, 'because of his own stupidity'.. That is essentially the issue.. Most people have terms and conditions of employment, being warned once and ignoring it is crass stupidity.. no the issue is hes a homophobic bigoted idiot" I don't disagree at all with that, my point is there are people with similar and worse _iew's in workplaces and that wont change.. Education is preferable for them as quite simply you can't discipline everyone who has a _iew that is or may be offensive to another person, having managed someone with far right _iews in the public sector I told them to leave it at the door on their way in.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why is it ok for religion to be openly homophobic but not for a religious person to be" Its not but they are not employed by any organisation so cannot be fired | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable? I think that you're getting caught up in the difference between freedom of speech and inclusivity. Theyre different things, especially for a world sport organisation looking to bring people together. " Agreed two totally different things plus in all actually he is sacked for breaking his contract that he knowingly signed, has broken before, been warned and carried on breaking it. What example would be set if it wasn't adhered too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality. I’m sure he doesn’t have a case in employment law. What he said is illegal in most civilised countries, and certInly is i. Australia and here. He published homophobic hatred, contrary to his terms and conditions and he broke the law. How can he have a car for wrongful dismissal? Well, on the grounds of alleged religious discrimination under national employment law; as an employee, he could argue he was sacked on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act. I’m not endorsing his actions, nor saying there shouldn’t be consequences to them. " Actually he is sacked for breaking his contract that he knowingly signed, has broken before, been warned and carried on breaking it. What example would be set if it wasn't adhered too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality. I’m sure he doesn’t have a case in employment law. What he said is illegal in most civilised countries, and certInly is i. Australia and here. He published homophobic hatred, contrary to his terms and conditions and he broke the law. How can he have a car for wrongful dismissal? Well, on the grounds of alleged religious discrimination under national employment law; as an employee, he could argue he was sacked on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act. I’m not endorsing his actions, nor saying there shouldn’t be consequences to them. " Bearing in mind that he's Australian I'm not sure what their employment laws are. I would also add that I would imagine that there is a 'disrepute' clause in his contract, plus that he was warned before. He really won't have a leg to stand on (figuratively speaking) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This isn't a Free Speech issue. Falau signed a contract of his own free will. He broke the terms of that contract & was warned as to the consequences should he do it again. He did it again. He was dismissed. It's no different to anyone else who has a clause in their contract about bringing their employer into disrepute, it's Gross Misconduct. He's free to believe whatever he wishes, and free to express those beliefs. His employers are also free to decide that they do not wish to be associated with those _iews. Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from the consequences. People are also free to condemn those _iews, being religious does not give you a free pass to disseminate hate speech. " Exactly this ^^^ it's not a complicated issue when stripped down to facts instead of the usual media/fab sensationalism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He should be allowed say whatever he wants. But its twitter, half your followers are just waiting for you to say something bad so they can report you, the other half are going through your old posts to see if they can find something years old that can get you sacked." He chose to break his contract of employment ... no biggy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He should be allowed say whatever he wants. But its twitter, half your followers are just waiting for you to say something bad so they can report you, the other half are going through your old posts to see if they can find something years old that can get you sacked." As far as I know he is allowed he isnt facing any legal action. His employers are also alowed to fore him if it breeches his contract | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think everyone is entitled to think and believe what ever they want. Think we are far too controlling of what is and isn't allowed to be thought or believed." Everyone IS entitled to think and believe what ever they want - they're just not allowed to say it or write it. This is the 21st century. Hurt feelings are a far more worse crime than genocide, or so it seems | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As far as I know he is allowed he isnt facing any legal action. His employers are also alowed to fore him if it breeches his contract" Yes and I am saying a contract restricting your legal free speech should be illegal. He in theory should be able to say whatever he wants as long as its legal, they are only words. Arrest him when he acts or says something illegal. People above said he offended David Pocock, on his twitter he has climate change links, Support for kneeling during the American national anthem, and a few other polar politcal _iews. But they all align with globalisit liberal _iews, so thats okay, because conservative christians dont fake being offended by every tweet. But these people? are they really offended that a christian thinks homosexuality is wrong? really? Or is it used as a pretext so that he can not say his religious/political _iews, but every single liberal australian gets a free pass to spew out every single _iew they want? By doing what they did, australian rugby basically said "We find conservative christian _iews disgusting, only tweet liberal _iews while on the team or shut your fucking mouth". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think everyone is entitled to think and believe what ever they want. Think we are far too controlling of what is and isn't allowed to be thought or believed. Everyone IS entitled to think and believe what ever they want - they're just not allowed to say it or write it. This is the 21st century. Hurt feelings are a far more worse crime than genocide, or so it seems "He can say and write what he likes now as he won't be breaking his contract of employment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As far as I know he is allowed he isnt facing any legal action. His employers are also alowed to fore him if it breeches his contract Yes and I am saying a contract restricting your legal free speech should be illegal. He in theory should be able to say whatever he wants as long as its legal, they are only words. Arrest him when he acts or says something illegal. People above said he offended David Pocock, on his twitter he has climate change links, Support for kneeling during the American national anthem, and a few other polar politcal _iews. But they all align with globalisit liberal _iews, so thats okay, because conservative christians dont fake being offended by every tweet. But these people? are they really offended that a christian thinks homosexuality is wrong? really? Or is it used as a pretext so that he can not say his religious/political _iews, but every single liberal australian gets a free pass to spew out every single _iew they want? By doing what they did, australian rugby basically said "We find conservative christian _iews disgusting, only tweet liberal _iews while on the team or shut your fucking mouth"." Do you find someone saying gay people should burn in hell offensive? Because I do. And if I was an employer I would rightfully think this hurts my brand O need to fire him. I dont think liberals have a free pass to say what they want. Highlighting climaye change or some kneeling during an anthem is in no way the same thing. If David Pocock said White Police should burn in hell then by all means fire him too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think everyone is entitled to think and believe what ever they want. Think we are far too controlling of what is and isn't allowed to be thought or believed. Everyone IS entitled to think and believe what ever they want - they're just not allowed to say it or write it. This is the 21st century. Hurt feelings are a far more worse crime than genocide, or so it seems
He can say and write what he likes now as he won't be breaking his contract of employment "Your right if it is stated in his contact that he should not speak about his beliefs then that's breach of contract but is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think everyone is entitled to think and believe what ever they want. Think we are far too controlling of what is and isn't allowed to be thought or believed. Everyone IS entitled to think and believe what ever they want - they're just not allowed to say it or write it. This is the 21st century. Hurt feelings are a far more worse crime than genocide, or so it seems
He can say and write what he likes now as he won't be breaking his contract of employment
Your right if it is stated in his contact that he should not speak about his beliefs then that's breach of contract but is it? "It will be worded in a way that means anything that brings them into disrepute not specific | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find someone saying gay people should burn in hell offensive? Because I do. And if I was an employer I would rightfully think this hurts my brand O need to fire him." No, I don't find it offensive. I don't see why I would. Would you find it offensive if he said gay people should go for a long walk to mordor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think everyone is entitled to think and believe what ever they want. Think we are far too controlling of what is and isn't allowed to be thought or believed. Everyone IS entitled to think and believe what ever they want - they're just not allowed to say it or write it. This is the 21st century. Hurt feelings are a far more worse crime than genocide, or so it seems
He can say and write what he likes now as he won't be breaking his contract of employment
Your right if it is stated in his contact that he should not speak about his beliefs then that's breach of contract but is it?
It will be worded in a way that means anything that brings them into disrepute not specific "Or anything controversial etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The title of the thread is missing the following, 'because of his own stupidity'.. That is essentially the issue.. Most people have terms and conditions of employment, being warned once and ignoring it is crass stupidity.. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you find someone saying gay people should burn in hell offensive? Because I do. And if I was an employer I would rightfully think this hurts my brand O need to fire him. No, I don't find it offensive. I don't see why I would. Would you find it offensive if he said gay people should go for a long walk to mordor?" If the intention behind the message that he believes that all gay people should suffer endless torture for being gay they yes I find it offensive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone read his tweet? I've no idea what he actually said. " Don’t be crazy
It’s only the edited pertinent points offered by the mass media circus that offends folks these days
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone read his tweet? I've no idea what he actually said. Don’t be crazy
It’s only the edited pertinent points offered by the mass media circus that offends folks these days
"Ah! I did wonder! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Folau posted on Instagram: “Warning – D*unks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”. On Twitter he added: “The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free,” with a screen shot of the Tasmanian headline. It was a picture meme thing, so I've written the text. The, "Tasmanian Headline" was to do with declaring gender on official documents. " So he was just paraphrasing the bible? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Folau posted on Instagram: “Warning – D*unks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”. On Twitter he added: “The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free,” with a screen shot of the Tasmanian headline. It was a picture meme thing, so I've written the text. The, "Tasmanian Headline" was to do with declaring gender on official documents. So he was just paraphrasing the bible?" Looks like it! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Folau posted on Instagram: “Warning – D*unks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”. On Twitter he added: “The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free,” with a screen shot of the Tasmanian headline. It was a picture meme thing, so I've written the text. The, "Tasmanian Headline" was to do with declaring gender on official documents. So he was just paraphrasing the bible? Looks like it! " Best ban it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Folau posted on Instagram: “Warning – D*unks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”. On Twitter he added: “The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free,” with a screen shot of the Tasmanian headline. It was a picture meme thing, so I've written the text. The, "Tasmanian Headline" was to do with declaring gender on official documents. So he was just paraphrasing the bible? Looks like it! Best ban it." I think most , if not all on these forums would agree with you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"he's probably in the closet the poor dear." yeah counting all is money  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I strongly believe that everyone has the right to their sexual orientation, straight, gay, bi, trans or any other. However when someone speaks their mind against one they are pilloried, is this fair? Does he not have the right his _iews? However upsetting for some they may be. Bein persecuted for your sexuality is 100% wrong but surely everyone has the right to voice their _iews. PS I don't agree with his _iews or thoughts one iota but I do believe he should be allowed to have them and voice them. When you have sponsorship deals you are bound quite strictly to uphold the values of your sponsor.i wouldn't sign any deals I have a good friend in sport he won't sign any deals boots cars anything other than is club because he likes is women and a drink when he's out " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the intention behind the message that he believes that all gay people should suffer endless torture for being gay they yes I find it offensive." Well then you should hop on twitter and support him losing his job for offending you. Hopefully you will never be offended again, and all the australian rugby team will be allowed to tweet things you politically and religiously find acceptable, and everyone can be happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable? "Exactly, he's not homophobic, he's a Christian. They believe if you die in sin, or without christ, you'll go to hell. I expect Jews have a similar belief, as do muslims and Roman Catholics. It's what they believe. I see it as a warning rather than abuse. It's up to you whether you heed it or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Rugby is an inclusive sport and we do not support these _iews." Says the RFU representative. Is this then now not a contraction by excluding him or anyone from having oppossing _iews and expressing this? We're only inclusive if you adhere to our _iews? Are we taking away free speech, silencing those with a different _iew because it makes us uncomfortable? I'm not convinced as many want to believe that he is homophobic. I believe many say this in defense because they're easily offended when someone seems to challenge their lifestyle. Is it then more a reflection that maybe they aren't as comfortable with it than they seem to believe and so feel more vulnerable? Free speech is fine. It comes with a responsibility though. It's not a free pass to say whatever the heck you like without sanction. And an acceptance that if your "free speech" crosses the line there's a price to pay for your entitlement. Many don't "get" that....then it ain't free if it's got restrictions on is it" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fired for being stupid When will people learn that it’s ok to have your own personal thoughts/feelings - just keep them to yourself. Why do they feel they have to tell everyone on Twit or fb!
Same as anywhere even here on fab, people shouldn't be allowed to express themselves I guess and get rid of the forums.
If they're in a celebrity or high profile role they have a certain responsibility. "no that's something I've never understood no matter who or what is famous why look to them for responsibility me I just look at what think in sport couldn't give a shite what they say or do after | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"why are people arguing that this idiot is right or wrong,,hes wrong,this kind of behaviour belongs to the stone age" because some might think he's right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The title of the thread is missing the following, 'because of his own stupidity'.. That is essentially the issue.. Most people have terms and conditions of employment, being warned once and ignoring it is crass stupidity.. no the issue is hes a homophobic bigoted idiot" but he's entitled to is _iew if we agree or not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality. I’m sure he doesn’t have a case in employment law. What he said is illegal in most civilised countries, and certInly is i. Australia and here. He published homophobic hatred, contrary to his terms and conditions and he broke the law. How can he have a car for wrongful dismissal? Well, on the grounds of alleged religious discrimination under national employment law; as an employee, he could argue he was sacked on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act. I’m not endorsing his actions, nor saying there shouldn’t be consequences to them. Bearing in mind that he's Australian I'm not sure what their employment laws are. I would also add that I would imagine that there is a 'disrepute' clause in his contract, plus that he was warned before. He really won't have a leg to stand on (figuratively speaking) " I was referencing the Australian law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He has a case in employment law potentially for unfair dismissal, but he’s also not acted within an expectation of not taken actions that can be seen to be harassing or discriminatory on the basis of a person’s sexuality. I’m sure he doesn’t have a case in employment law. What he said is illegal in most civilised countries, and certInly is i. Australia and here. He published homophobic hatred, contrary to his terms and conditions and he broke the law. How can he have a car for wrongful dismissal? Well, on the grounds of alleged religious discrimination under national employment law; as an employee, he could argue he was sacked on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act. I’m not endorsing his actions, nor saying there shouldn’t be consequences to them. Actually he is sacked for breaking his contract that he knowingly signed, has broken before, been warned and carried on breaking it. What example would be set if it wasn't adhered too?" I know - I’m explaining his potential counter defence to the chap that thought he wouldn’t have any potential case to challenge having broken his contract. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s easy to cloak this as a free speech issue and try to claim his christian values somehow compelled him to speak truth to power, and now he’s being unfairly vilified by people who don’t even share his religion (making the threat of hellfire and damnation an easy one to ignore) but there are a few issues with this argument: First off, he hasn’t lost his freedom nor his life, simply his job. Lots of things can get you fired that wouldn’t get you arrested, and we all seem to accept professional standards exist. If you wear the national jersey, then yes, actually, you are supposed to represent the nations values, not just your own; Secondly, we’re supposed to accept the argument that ‘the bible says this, not him’ so he’s just following the bibles teachings right? He’s going old school bible (and conveniently ignoring all the far nicer teachings of Jesus) but he is right, Leviticus does back him up. Exodus 35:2 also states anyone who works on the sabbath shall be put to death, so should he submit to execution as called for by the good book, having played rugby on a Sunday? Will he be rounding up a posse to stone to death all those farmers who have planted crops side by side. As the jersey he wears is made from 2 different threads are we obligated to burn him alive or would he prefer self immolation? Leviticus 10:10 lists eating shell fish as an abomination. Leviticus 20:20 that I may not approach the alter of god if I have a defect in my site. Should the short sighted be expelled from church or do corrective lenses nullify this commandment? If I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, as I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9), and my neighbours complain (for the odour does not please them) could I lawfully argue my religious rights should trump their displeasure? Does his wife eat the crumbs from his table? Where does he stand on modern day slavery? Plenty of passages not only condone it but seem to actively encourage it. And this isn’t a riff on how awful the bible is. It’s a product of its time (when the world was infinitely more awful than it is now). He’s picking and choosing the laws of God to suit his beliefs. Why are some laws sacrosanct and others less so (or ignored all together)? It’s a selective editing to suit ones own beliefs and it stinks. If bits of it are no longer relevant and out of date, then who decides that? Who issues the amendments? And lastly, it isn’t the threat of hellfire and damnation that rankles, it’s the implication that you are somehow lesser in his eyes than other people since you were born with inclinations different to his own. It’s easy to say ‘don’t get offended’ when you aren’t the target of the offence. And it isn’t that people are more easily offended nowadays, just that they’re more willing to speak out as national cultures (the culture of Australia in his case) have changed. It isn’t that people aren’t so sure of their own worth and choices. They’re aware that they are members of society too, and have the right to speak out. It isn’t that long since the upper classes would have been outraged that their ‘lessers’ had dared to speak out and call them on their _iews. This no doubt made them likewise complain that people were easily offended, for they were simply following the customs with which they were raised. I don’t see how this issue is any different. He absolutely has the right to his beliefs as do all other people whose beliefs and opinions I disagree with. I also have the right to be offended by those beliefs (and people likewise by mine). His employer has the right to terminate his contract if he’s found to be in breach of it. If I started quoting passages from the bible (whether I believed them or not) to degrade women in the workplace (and the bible has plenty), I would be disciplined. If I continued I’d be fired. A defence based on my religious beliefs (no matter how sincerely held) simply wouldn’t fly. " Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree with what you are saying _roubleinmind, but I would question whether people read the bible and make an informed choice based on their interpretation of what they have read, or if they are told what to think from a very young age by their clergy and parents. On the other hand, by not firing him... Australian Rugby could easily be thought to have endorsed these _iews which would be a dangerous stand point. I personally think that these religious _iews are a product of his upbringing rather than something he has established for himself, but it's an unhealthy attitude to hold and he should expect to be fired for expressing it." Also very good points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians " You spoke to them all, Carter? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think that these religious _iews are a product of his upbringing rather than something he has established for himself, but it's an unhealthy attitude to hold and he should expect to be fired for expressing it." You know him? You have the right to say it’s “unhealthy attitude” ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good riddance to him, although I am sure that he has earned more than enough money to live comfortably on. Leanne x" His beliefs aside, he is an outstanding rugby player. He will play again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i think its a delicate issue.... because with all of the outrage, i think we are in danger of making a martyr of him with a certain chunk of people for holding ultra-religious _iews.... do i agree with what he said... god no, he had been warned of his conduct before... but do i think he should essentially be blackballed from sport in total for a _iew that whilst not illegal its not something we would feel comfortable with....... thats what we are in danger of doing here! he comes from a religious background, his parents are church ministers, are we surprised that people out there have these attitudes.... are we going so far the other way that people are as guilty of doing the some thing that they are accusing him of.... which is showing a sense of intolerance its getting more and more messy..... i don't like the way the RFU have dealt with the billy vunipola situation either.... they warned him about his future conduct, but billy didn't and hasn't actually apologised at all for retweeting it.... all it was was a can kicking exercise.... " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think that these religious _iews are a product of his upbringing rather than something he has established for himself, but it's an unhealthy attitude to hold and he should expect to be fired for expressing it. ------- You know him? You have the right to say it’s “unhealthy attitude” ? " Of course I've a right to say that a general condemnation of all who feel that sex beyond the society defined norm of one man and one woman is a terrible sin, is an unhealthy attitude. As an atheist, the one thing that amuses me about the righteous, is that their religious books all say that Only God may judge. So they are all committing a "sin" by assuming the will of their God. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I personally think that these religious _iews are a product of his upbringing rather than something he has established for himself, but it's an unhealthy attitude to hold and he should expect to be fired for expressing it. ------- You know him? You have the right to say it’s “unhealthy attitude” ? Of course I've a right to say that a general condemnation of all who feel that sex beyond the society defined norm of one man and one woman is a terrible sin, is an unhealthy attitude. As an atheist, the one thing that amuses me about the righteous, is that their religious books all say that Only God may judge. So they are all committing a "sin" by assuming the will of their God. Cal" Exactly this. You have the right to your say, as he has the right to his. Neither are exclusively right or wrong . Looks like he is challenging his sacking - which he has the right to do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Exactly this. You have the right to your say, as he has the right to his. Neither are exclusively right or wrong . Looks like he is challenging his sacking - which he has the right to do. " Nobody has said that he isn't allowed to have his opinions, however his employer also has their RIGHT to dismiss somebody who's _iews do not align with their values and is willing to publish this opinion. It is no different to expressing racist or sexist _iews... these would also result in the same outcome. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Exactly this. You have the right to your say, as he has the right to his. Neither are exclusively right or wrong . Looks like he is challenging his sacking - which he has the right to do. Nobody has said that he isn't allowed to have his opinions, however his employer also has their RIGHT to dismiss somebody who's _iews do not align with their values and is willing to publish this opinion. It is no different to expressing racist or sexist _iews... these would also result in the same outcome. Cal" will be interesting to follow the code of conduct re_iew he has requested. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disagree really it should of been taken no notice of he’s just a guy voicing his opinion and it’s not worth a great deal He’s brainwashed by a religious set up now folk are taking notice when we should be just ignoring it after all it’s all from a book that is full of rubbish from the start " So turn the other cheek? That allowed the meek to inherit the earth didn’t it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Exactly this. You have the right to your say, as he has the right to his. Neither are exclusively right or wrong . Looks like he is challenging his sacking - which he has the right to do. Nobody has said that he isn't allowed to have his opinions, however his employer also has their RIGHT to dismiss somebody who's _iews do not align with their values and is willing to publish this opinion. It is no different to expressing racist or sexist _iews... these would also result in the same outcome. Cal will be interesting to follow the code of conduct re_iew he has requested. "
Not as clear case as many would want us to believe. It's also interesting seeing all the hate mail, messages and other responses from those who themselves have been shouting homophobia.
Will be interesting to see what NSW law says too, not just the Rugby.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
