What a waste of rugby talent

First topic message reminder :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50455162

No way back for Folau now.

That would be illegal.

And his employer would be required to pay compensation and apology for doing so?

Depends on of it went to court and what the judgement was. Dont think theres ever a definite pu punishment is there?

Well compensation and an apology would represent an illegal act in the eye of the courts no?

So what we can say, with absolute certainty, is by the law of Australian land what the ARU did was wrong...

If that was the judgement we could. It wasnt though was it. Hence we come back to that incorrect fact you posted.

A judgement wasn't needed, the ARU knew they couldn't win and conceded...

So they acknowledge themselves that what they did was wrong, like I said he was always going to win, and the ARU knew that!

And let's be honest, castle does love to alienate her own organisation, and apologise on their behalf, it's a pity for the ARU's finances that she allowed a sponsor to dictate who could work for her

So no judgement was made and a settlement reached. Youd now acknowledge that fact you posted was incorrect. Excellent. Youd also acknowledge that Folau has now signed a correct whoch with clauses he can be released if he breaches as well? Excellent. He can if he so wishes go on to post and say more homophobic things of course but he shouldn't imagine that consequences don't apply to him. It is a waste and a shame for rugby union as he was a fantastic full back but just too unprofessional even for australian rugby. Let's see if he manages to get back on track but as I said before I doubt he will for long.

So religious views equal unprofessionalism?

You see, your calling this guy a name, when his actions of promoting gay rights contradict the name you call him, this could be considered as you attacking a protected class, on the basis of his religion, or is it his skin?

Your an absolutist, which means you havnt considered the ramifications of organisations being able to sack people for their religious views. In attacking Folau for his 'everyone is going to hell without repenting' poster (and yes, the majority of the planet is included in that poster) you are either:

Blindly following the mob, or

Concentrating your energy on a religious and racial minority.

Interestingly, you keep refusing to answer whether you would like the Birmingham anti LGBT curriculum all sacked...

Go on, tell everyone you want them all sacked, for the exact same sentiment as Folau!

I think deliberately going against your signed agreement with your employer on more than 1 occasion is unprofessional yes. He was homophobic so there it is. It's based on the fact hes homophobic. He can easily be religious and have held into his union career. Vunipola has.
I havent seen you ask me about the Birmingham LGBTQ curriculum: I dont know the case.

I've asked 4/5 times...

And you havnt seen the news over the last 6 months?

Mass protest of a Birmingham school by majority Muslims to stop children learning about lGBT issues...

They all need consequences? They are all homophobes?

You've attacked an Australian racial minority, should I consider you racist 'so there it is'? It's an idiotic argument, made by someone who can't seem create a counter argument.

Recently a poll found that 52% of British Muslims disagreed with homosexuality, do you think 52% of Muslims should receive your 'consequences'?

Oh that. Yes they're all homophobes. I'd imagine if they were in jobs which required a code of conduct as Folau was and they've been identified to their employers like a standard NHS contract they'll have been disciplined. If you think its racist to call out homophobia then ok. You could report these posts as a starter for ten then the mods would say they disnt go against the rules of the forum and we would go from there. For your last sentence if there are muslims in positions of employment where it was against the rules yes I'd imagine there would be consequences.

Well isn't that an interesting post...

Firstly, your happy to call a large group of protesters, from a wide range of communities, who are all fighting for control of their children's education homophobes.... You've officially diluted the weight of the word, and it means nothing coming from you from here on in.

Secondly, it's interesting you use Terms of service as an argument, it seems Folau's posts weren't in contradiction of Instagram's or Twitter's, so they've deemed it not hate speech. Consider how left leaning they are!

As I've said a hundred times, when two protected classes clash, it gets messy, and is very complex. You might not critically analyse the ramifications of an ARU victory, especially on the LGBT community, but others do!

Well the dragons have made him sign clauses to try and ensure he doesnt post or preach any more homophobic comments. I'm sure we're all hoping he doesnt and thus provides good entertainment to the league fans.

That response had, in no way anything that could be considered a coherent thought...

You disagree with Twitter and Instagram in not removing his post, or accounts?

You don't think setting a precedent of companies being able to fire employees based on wrongthink would inevitably negatively effect the LGBT community?

Let's use another example, the US army's rules mean trans soldiers cannot fight on the front lines, I mean hey, those trans soldiers signed the contract right?

Twitter is generally a mess. Companies can write codes of conduct for employees. I think trump was wrong in enacting that. It was being challenged havent seen any more than that. In this case though Folau has agreed and signed the contract with the dragons. If he is homophobic again would any of be that surprised.

So if trans people sign up for the US military they deserve not to be allowed on the front line...

And you've just become anti trans within a dozen posts, see how easy your argument negatively effects communities such as the LGBT

Its anti trans to say I dont agree with Trump banning trans people from the us military. Wow life comes at you quick sometimes. Think you need to get some shut eye after that one so I'll log off for the night to allow you some time to compose yourself and return to the topic of Folau!

I'm not sure anything is being achieved in this thread now. Again I would stress the lesson of forgiveness and for some understanding to be offered to everyone. Folau has moved halfway around the world to rebuild his career. Using him and this as a reason to 'debate' other things like Trump or far right is the internet at its worst. Dave and 7 1/2 Folau doesn't need defending nor chastising any more really, does he?

Its been a while since we've had a forum captain policing what others discuss

That's me told.

What some folk might be forgetting is that in employment certain characteristics are protected by law, sexual orientation for example. In addition to that certain employees can come under more scrutiny for not having a particular conduct, athletes for example, but also other occupations like public and civil servants.

Obviously religious beliefs is another protected characteristic and whilst I can respect a person's beliefs, I don't think Folau was really discriminated against. He was let go for breaching his code of conduct, and for discrimination - I'm not offended by what he said and I don't think anyone should be that offended, but I'm straight so I can't pretend to know how others would feel. It's dealt with as far as I'm concerned, and Folau has since sought to start over on the opposite of the world.

Once you can acknowledge all of that then there's nothing left to argue about really.


Folau should reform in my opinion, most 'Christians' done so long ago, and of course all this could be avoided then.

You are right, Mikey.  Enough has been said.  There is nothing left to argue.  No seriously, I was going to joke with you by telling you Common Sense is frowned on in these parts and that your dose of it is most unwelcome!


..... but..... I had to go and read your last line........

....and I ask myself (and you) What is a 'Christian'?  And how does one of them reform?

Still things to be argued about, unfortunately.

Well there are churches that accept people for who they are, and others that do not but they are few. And we know Christianity spent a few hundred years reforming, as has society in the last 60 years or so. Such words do have the protentional to open up more worm cans but the last bit was just my opinion and I don't think anyone should be hurt by it .

I shall leave it there, Mikey.

Now someone please, for the Love of God! - close this here Folau thread down!

Why is there a need to close this thread down, there's been nothing wrong with spirited debate...

I disagree with a lot that has been said, but I will always fight for the right for people to say it!

Carry on, Dave. I'm just being histrionic for the heck of it.

So where do you personally draw the line at freedom of speech dave. Sorry expression.

Just catching up.

It was about 3 pages ago (who is counting?) where Dirtydave showed us exactly the bigot he is. Can’t believe everyone missed it. Classic Trumpism.

I personally draw the line?

As in, where would I draw the line between saying something offensive?

Where do I believe the UN's human rights code for freedom of expression line is?

Or

What is my personal view on freedom of speech?

Not sure why youre still conflating the US's constitutional freedom of speech, whith the UN's human rights declaration, do you really not understand the difference?

Cyril

Did you just claim me a bigot? Could you please explain why you think I'm a bigot, or take the opportunity to apologise?

I’ll save the time and just call you a bigot. No apology. Just that. You and Folau are bigots. He’s a rugby player and that. You are just that.

For the mods, I’m going to leave it there. Thanks.

FTR

3 pages ago I hadn't commented hahaha or does that make me a bigot, not commenting yet? Lol

3 pages ago you are the last comment, aren't you?

I'm not making a bigot point, just a numerical one. Though I could be wrong as I can't keep up with the swing of subject matter in this thread.

So where do you personally draw the line morally dave. You've ignored or side stepped it for a while. Where is your line? Seeing as you want to talk wider than Folau and not specifically to the point of the thread.

No fly, that was 2 pages ago... you must be a bigot now too lol

Where is my moral line? In what regards, please answer the question above! Are you asking me about my personal speech morality code?

Or the US constitutional right of freedom of speech?

Or the UN's human rights code of freedom of expression?

You have to be more specific, so I can answer!

No just your own personal line. Pretty straight question. In terms of the line where you think a perosnal expression is too far in a public place let's say in the street in hearing passers by what is ni longer suitable for free expression?

There are tons of things that are not acceptable in the street, in fact I'd argue a lot of what's acceptable is contextual...

If we consider the street, I'd avoid being provocative at all, and that line would differ whether I was with friends, or my young daughter.

I'd be far more offensive in the pub, than I would be in a classroom, or a church.

It's a very complex issue, and to take an absolutist side would be stupidity!

Let me ask you a question, do you believe the police should be contacting civilians for tweets, that have broken no law, or even Twitter terms of service?

So you're bot willing to give any line then? I think most people would day theres line in any sphere and different lines for different situations indeed I've said so on here. You seem now to be acknowledging that you would draw lines based on different situations at different times. Fairly reasonable I'd say but please feel free to correct me. So given that if you had signed a contract saying that a loan had been drawn youd still be free to break that contract but would presumably know there would be a condition to that decision.

In answer to that question I dont know. Dont know the law well enough for that.

Dirtydave, you’re Welsh, yes? Post about Rugby and take this to the Off-Topic section? You’ll have more fun there.

And this is where it gets spotty...

Signing a contract means nothing if the contract is in contradiction with different pieces of legislation.take this example, the ICCPR, Folau's case rested on the area that the ARU were in contravention of it...

Apparently the ARU finally agreed.

So, when I say Folau was always going to win, it's because legally and morally he is allowed to regurgitate any religious claptrap he likes, and that's the price we have to pay to allow Muslims to pray, Sikhs to wear their turbans, and Christians to stand in the street telling us we're going to hell.

You deny freedom of religion for one, you risk persecution because of religion for all.

So you believe that the contract he has signed with the dragons is illegal then dave. He is of course allowed to say what he wants however even with the act you cited (in part) you'd surely now (eventually) acknowledge the limits as stated within the same act? The legalities are set out and lawyers will argue to and fro I'm sure. What's your moral line dave?

I don't know whether the contract was illegal, but looking at the ambiguity of the contract wording, the wording of the ICCPR, and the fact that the ARU apologised and paid out, it's fair to say he was going to win.

What limits are stated? You seem to be twisting yourself in knots, if the contract is in contradiction with the law of the land, then signing it means little, and the ARU, as they found out opened themselves up a discrimination lawsuit.

My moral line has been explained to you, it's contextual and isn't a black and white topic, if you believe it is then you are misunderstanding the entire argument!

Oh apologies, your talking the new contract...

I don't know the law of the land, and havnt looked into legislation it could be in contravention of, however as he's already set a precedent, I think the contract would have to be far smarter than the ARU's, and Folau would open himself up to an intention issue if he repeated the same acts.

Nope. I'm talking about the dragons contract. Nothing previous. Keep up. Pay attention. 'So you believe that the contract he has signed with the dragons is illegal then Dave's

You have still not defined any lines you feel that freedom expression goes to. I'm assuming you have a line? If you dont just say so: if you do what is your line?

Ah fair enough in your follow up. We're not legal experts and as the previous hasn't been found illegal the chances are this one won't and any loophole s have been closed. Still leaves open the question of your moral line.

I've answered above, keep up lol

How many times, my line is contextual!!! My line with my daughter would be far less than my line in the pub! There is no biological switch that stops you saying things.

It's not a binary choice, to think so is ignorant.

As I've already acknowledged above. You've jumped what your line is so to go back to specifics for Folau what do you believe the limits to hos freedom of expression is: let's leave your daughter out of it as you're the only one who has brought her into this discussion.
In summary for the new contract we would all presumably be happy that Folau is no longer able to be homophobic?