Israel Folau
Comments
-
Funny! You guys have people pegged right. No b point getting into an argument with them.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Let me guess.
Someone is doing something which disadvantages well known minorities with a history of being discriminated against and NickIce is defending the discriminator, right?
The usual free speech when it suits to be discriminatory.
FWIW my take is he can say what he wants save for inciting stuff but if his job requires him to keep a lid on it then either says it and loses his job or he shuts up about it.
If I said the same in my job I’d lose it since it’d hurt my ability to do my job properly.
Yet another example of Rick Chasey being disingenuous. People see through you now.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:You do know what a guess is right?
I'm just surprised you haven't called me a bigot yet. It's usually your go-to word.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Wouldn’t have thought it bothered you that much.
Free speech and all that.
It's lazy debating. You usually use it when you've run out of other arguments. Feel free to call me it all you like (though if it were under our real names it would be defamation) like I've seen you do with several other posters. It just makes you look bad. I've challenged you several times to provide evidence of my bigotry. Still waiting...0 -
I’m not debating you when I call you or anyone else out.
If it were me I’d be more curious about why I was being called out for it.
I’ve been called out for some stuff I said on here and now I’ve changed how I think about it.
You do have a tactic of being demanding of others to read or prove things and getting all superior if your demands aren’t met. You also take people down various rabbit holes you are more familiar with and when people trip of over a detail you get all superior as if that somehow proves your point.
Either is a smokescreen to rather more basic issues.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I’m not debating you when I call you or anyone else out.
If it were me I’d be more curious about why I was being called out for it.
I’ve been called out for some stuff I said on here and now I’ve changed how I think about it.
You do have a tactic of being demanding of others to read or prove things and getting all superior if your demands aren’t met. You also take people down various rabbit holes you are more familiar with and when people trip of over a detail you get all superior as if that somehow proves your point.
Either is a smokescreen to rather more basic issues.
It's only you that does it. And you don't call anyone out. You just call them a bigot and move on. Or you say something like, 'you're a bigot and you should think about why that is'. In fact, I can't think of anyone else in my life (I think there might have been one more on here a while ago but I can't be sure) who has ever called me a bigot (and that includes other internet forums). Maybe YOU should think about why that is. The obvious answer is, Rick, that I'm not a bigot (and the other people you accuse of being bigots most likely aren't either). Once again, show me the evidence of bigotry...
And I tend to comment on matters I actually have some knowledge of. I don't mind if others don't have so much knowledge but what does bother me are dismissive types who already think they know it all (you are the prime example of this). How awful to ask for proof or that someone does a bit more research when someone states an opinion. Maybe I should just call them bigots instead? That would be the easy option. Sound familiar?0 -
nickice wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?
If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?
You're allowed to be a Christian but only if you ignore the parts that don't fit with the progressive viewpoint. Which isn't really a Christian. So you're not really allowed to be one. Not that I am one but just saying.
This is just nonsense.
You can think whatever you want.
Aside from inciting hatred and or violence you can say anything you want. It won’t land you in jail.
Your job however is different.0 -
nickice wrote:wongataa wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.
Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.
Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).
Free speech means you can say what you like. It DOES NOT mean you cannot face any repercussions for what you say. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for saying something unpleasant.
Do you want to live in a world where expressing your personal opinion in your own time, in what has effectively now the public square, is only allowed if it's compatible with the current morals of society?
Again, this is a straw man argument as you can say whatever you want aside from inciting violence or hatred.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?
If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?
You're allowed to be a Christian but only if you ignore the parts that don't fit with the progressive viewpoint. Which isn't really a Christian. So you're not really allowed to be one. Not that I am one but just saying.
This is just nonsense.
You can think whatever you want.
Aside from inciting hatred and or violence you can say anything you want. It won’t land you in jail.
Your job however is different.
So he can be a Christian but can't expect to keep his job? I disagree with what he said but it's not even controversial in Christianity. In other words, it's not some obscure reading of the Bible. Nobody was affected by it. I'm an atheist and I'm not complaining. In certain countries admitting that can land you in serious bother (with the law and/or in society).0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:wongataa wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Well I'll preface this by saying I don't necessarily disagree with his sacking and I wholly disagree with his views.
Yes it is suppressing thought or at least expression of those thoughts. If by speaking his views he is punished - which I think most would accept has happened - then that is going to act as a disincentive for others to express any similar views they hold.
Arguing otherwise is like saying you can say what you like, you'll be stuck in prison with hard labour for it but we'll let you have access to twitter so we aren't suppressing anything (I've used an exaggerated analogy but the logic stands).
Free speech means you can say what you like. It DOES NOT mean you cannot face any repercussions for what you say. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for saying something unpleasant.
Do you want to live in a world where expressing your personal opinion in your own time, in what has effectively now the public square, is only allowed if it's compatible with the current morals of society?
Again, this is a straw man argument as you can say whatever you want aside from inciting violence or hatred.
Firstly, hate speech is free speech and the fact we even have laws outlawing 'inciting hatred' is shameful. Secondly, it's all very well saying that we still have free speech as we won't go to jail or be prosecuted (we don't actually as the Nazi pug guy found out) but if you make the cost of holding certain opinions (opinions that don't incite hatred) so high, you are effectively limiting free speech. I have a feeling he'd win a religious discrimination case here and I'm sure this will all be quietly put to bed. It seems like it's all posturing by the rugby authority in Australia anyway.0 -
nickice wrote:I disagree with what he said but it's not even controversial in Christianity. In other words, it's not some obscure reading of the Bible. Nobody was affected by it.
It patently is controversial - given that gay clergy seem to co-exist in christianity with the likes of Folau, Vunipola and other religious fascists - all of whom claim christianity as the basis for their faith.
And to say that 'nobody was affected by it' is bizarre, like you're in denial or something.0 -
Homosexuality being a sin is uncontroversial in Christianity. As it is in Judaism and as it is in Islam. You will find people who try to reconcile it with their religion but it would be much more controversial to say it's not a sin. At best, modern Christians will say it's up to God to decide (I think we can all agree that this is the best option)
If we accept freedom of religion, we have to accept that people will have opinions like this. If we gradually push out people who express commonly-held religious beliefs then we're not really allowing freedom of religion. We're not putting them in jail but we're not really alllowing them to be religious. I'm not religious but I know, from reading history, what happens when you try to force it out of society. That's not to say I particularly like or dislike having it in society but if it disappears, it should be natural.
It's not bizarre at all to say nobody was affected by it. Who was? If anything he's been thoroughly condemned for it and has been booed by fans. But sacking him? That's going to far. Any gay person I know wouldn't care what he thought and they're all well aware of the Abrahamic religious viewpoint on homosexuality in any case. Did you read his blog post? It's actually quite thoughtful. He's far from a religious fascist (ISIS are a good example of religious fascists)0 -
nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?
If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?
You're allowed to be a Christian but only if you ignore the parts that don't fit with the progressive viewpoint. Which isn't really a Christian. So you're not really allowed to be one. Not that I am one but just saying.
This is just nonsense.
You can think whatever you want.
Aside from inciting hatred and or violence you can say anything you want. It won’t land you in jail.
Your job however is different.
So he can be a Christian but can't expect to keep his job? I disagree with what he said but it's not even controversial in Christianity. In other words, it's not some obscure reading of the Bible. Nobody was affected by it. I'm an atheist and I'm not complaining. In certain countries admitting that can land you in serious bother (with the law and/or in society).
No that’s another straw man argument.
He can be Christian and keep his job. He can’t say what he said on a deliberately public platform and continue playing rugby for his nation.
Not the same thing.
And tolerating said views *does* mean people are affected by it.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Can anyone point out what he has said that isn't taught in almost all religions?
If people are allowed to be religious (i'm not suggesting they shouldn't be) then how can you say they shouldn't have these views?
You're allowed to be a Christian but only if you ignore the parts that don't fit with the progressive viewpoint. Which isn't really a Christian. So you're not really allowed to be one. Not that I am one but just saying.
This is just nonsense.
You can think whatever you want.
Aside from inciting hatred and or violence you can say anything you want. It won’t land you in jail.
Your job however is different.
So he can be a Christian but can't expect to keep his job? I disagree with what he said but it's not even controversial in Christianity. In other words, it's not some obscure reading of the Bible. Nobody was affected by it. I'm an atheist and I'm not complaining. In certain countries admitting that can land you in serious bother (with the law and/or in society).
No that’s another straw man argument.
He can be Christian and keep his job. He can’t say what he said on a deliberately public platform and continue playing rugby for his nation.
Not the same thing.
Not at all. Do you know much about Christianity? So, you can be a Christian but you can't share your beliefs? That's going to be pretty hard as spreading Christianity is supposed to be part of the religion. It's like when the French try to ban Islamic dress. Or is it just the fact he did it on instagram? Problem is that social media sites has essentially become to new public square.
Why do you think he should have been fired?0 -
He can share his beliefs. He can also be sensitive about his use of words and platform. People spread religious beliefs all the time without being fired from work and people also lose their jobs for using social media in an inappropriate manner.0
-
I work with dozens of Christians and any one of them would lose their job if they said to people who paid attention to their work what Israel said.
So yes, it’s entirely a straw man argument derived from your bizarrely narrow interpretation of what it means to be Christian.
If he was a bin man no one would give a sh!t, but he’s in a public eye and the sport’s customers are the public and so the Australian rugby lot need to make a decision about a) how he’ll work in an environment where teamwork is so important and he’ll likely have upset some within the team and b) how the public will perceive their work.
You don’t really seem to grasp that people can lose their job for all sorts of stuff.0 -
AndRick Chasey wrote:I work with dozens of Christians and any one of them would lose their job if they said to people who paid attention to their work what Israel said.
So yes, it’s entirely a straw man argument derived from your bizarrely narrow interpretation of what it means to be Christian.
If he was a bin man no one would give a sh!t, but he’s in a public eye and the sport’s customers are the public and so the Australian rugby lot need to make a decision about a) how he’ll work in an environment where teamwork is so important and he’ll likely have upset some within the team and b) how the public will perceive their work.
You don’t really seem to grasp that people can lose their job for all sorts of stuff.
You might work with Christians but evidently you don't know much about it as a religion. It's mainstream christianity to think homosexuality is a sin and it's also mainstream to try to spread the faith. And if your colleagues said they believed homosexuality was a sin, they shouldn't lose their jobs for that. At least if it's not being done in work time. Telling me other people would lose their jobs is no kind of argument.
Do you think the atheists he works with will feel uncomfortable? What about idolaters or adulterers?0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:He can share his beliefs. He can also be sensitive about his use of words and platform. People spread religious beliefs all the time without being fired from work and people also lose their jobs for using social media in an inappropriate manner.
I don't agree with what he posted but I don't think he should lose his job for it. If he were a salesmen walking into a gay bar and preaching to them while trying to make a sale, it would be a different matter.
Like I said before, we all seem to still be pretending that these kinds of beliefs are not commonplace amongst most religions. We're in a kind of limbo of respecting religion on the one hand but then finding it unacceptable when people follow the teachings of religion. I'm sure this will case will be forgotten about and he'll be quietly reinstated when he threatens them with a religious discrimination suit.
It's the campaigning for people to be fired these days that I don't like I guess. It always reeks of mob justice to me. If you're not directly affected by what someone has said then just let it go. For example, the Kevin Hart thing.0 -
nickice wrote:
AndRick Chasey wrote:I work with dozens of Christians and any one of them would lose their job if they said to people who paid attention to their work what Israel said.
So yes, it’s entirely a straw man argument derived from your bizarrely narrow interpretation of what it means to be Christian.
If he was a bin man no one would give a sh!t, but he’s in a public eye and the sport’s customers are the public and so the Australian rugby lot need to make a decision about a) how he’ll work in an environment where teamwork is so important and he’ll likely have upset some within the team and b) how the public will perceive their work.
You don’t really seem to grasp that people can lose their job for all sorts of stuff.
You might work with Christians but evidently you don't know much about it as a religion. It's mainstream christianity to think homosexuality is a sin and it's also mainstream to try to spread the faith. And if your colleagues said they believed homosexuality was a sin, they shouldn't lose their jobs for that. At least if it's not being done in work time. Telling me other people would lose their jobs is no kind of argument.
Only if they treated their gay colleagues the same as their straight colleagues. If you start saying they are all sinners, that starts to look difficult.
Ultimately you shouldn’t discriminate against minorities, or indeed anyone, regardless of your faith. That trumps anything else. That’s what you seem to be struggling with.
And before you say he’s being persecuted for his faith, he’s not, he’s chosen to stick to a discriminatory iteration and shared that in a position which makes his role as an international rugby player untenable.
Same with the cake makers. Pray to whoever. Think whatever. But you gotta serve your customers the same, regardless of that faith. You don’t have to repeat the political slogan you don’t agree with, but you still have to offer them a cake.0 -
nickice wrote:
It's the campaigning for people to be fired these days that I don't like I guess. It always reeks of mob justice to me. If you're not directly affected by what someone has said then just let it go.
You’ll have to suck that up if you like free speech so much.
It’s curious you always worry about the impact on the discriminatory loudmouth but not the target of the discrimination.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:
AndRick Chasey wrote:I work with dozens of Christians and any one of them would lose their job if they said to people who paid attention to their work what Israel said.
So yes, it’s entirely a straw man argument derived from your bizarrely narrow interpretation of what it means to be Christian.
If he was a bin man no one would give a sh!t, but he’s in a public eye and the sport’s customers are the public and so the Australian rugby lot need to make a decision about a) how he’ll work in an environment where teamwork is so important and he’ll likely have upset some within the team and b) how the public will perceive their work.
You don’t really seem to grasp that people can lose their job for all sorts of stuff.
You might work with Christians but evidently you don't know much about it as a religion. It's mainstream christianity to think homosexuality is a sin and it's also mainstream to try to spread the faith. And if your colleagues said they believed homosexuality was a sin, they shouldn't lose their jobs for that. At least if it's not being done in work time. Telling me other people would lose their jobs is no kind of argument.
Only if they treated their gay colleagues the same as their straight colleagues. If you start saying they are all sinners, that starts to look difficult.
Ultimately you shouldn’t discriminate against minorities, or indeed anyone, regardless of your faith. That trumps anything else. That’s what you seem to be struggling with.
And before you say he’s being persecuted for his faith, he’s not, he’s chosen to stick to a discriminatory iteration and shared that in a position which makes his role as an international rugby player untenable.
Same with the cake makers. Pray to whoever. Think whatever. But you gotta serve your customers the same, regardless of that faith. You don’t have to repeat the political slogan you don’t agree with, but you still have to offer them a cake.
There is no discrimination here. He doesn't have a history of discriminating against homosexuals and has actually been quite supportive of them. If he refused to play in the same team as a gay player, that would be discrimination. Can't you see the difference?
The Irish bakery won their case. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that they had not discriminated against the customer. They were free to refuse to make a cake with a political message which is what 'support gay marriage' is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-457897590 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:
It's the campaigning for people to be fired these days that I don't like I guess. It always reeks of mob justice to me. If you're not directly affected by what someone has said then just let it go.
You’ll have to suck that up if you like free speech so much.
It’s curious you always worry about the impact on the discriminatory loudmouth but not the target of the discrimination.
That has to be up there with some of the daftest things you've said. I do support free speech. I accept that sometimes that means people will say things I don't like. I'm not suggesting it should be illegal for someone to campaign for someone to lose their job but it's just mob justice to me. There is no contradiction in what I'm saying. And there is no discrimination here. At least not in the examples I've given.0 -
Ah ok so you’re criticising the mob justice?
Why offer that more attention than the much more unsavoury views of Israel?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ah ok so you’re criticising the mob justice?
Why offer that more attention than the much more unsavoury views of Israel?
Both are important (and more importantly the fact that a religious person expressing religious views has come as a surprise to everyone)0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:You can think whatever you want.
Aside from inciting hatred and or violence you can say anything you want. It won’t land you in jail.
Your job however is different.
This is so self-evidently obvious, yet so regularly ignored.0 -
No because according to nickice, religious people are obliged by their religion to spout their views damning non-conformists to hell on social media with no consideration of their position in the public eye.0
-
It's religious purity. To have to adhere to all our nothing.0
-
'Mob' justice is fine if the 'mob' are the ones you are trying to get into sport. If your employer has a set of objectives and you deliberately speak out with opposing views then why wouldn't they sack you? He's not going to prison, he's lost his job for saying things they disagree with.0
