Israel Folau

Ben6899

I'm just shocked that someone who "works in law" isn't sharp enough to understand that what is legal and what your employer finds acceptable are not necessarily the same thing.

haydenm

The difference between the two is that one is affecting someone else (saying gay people should burn in hell), and the other one doesn't (being religious but not pointing out the bit where you think gay people should burn in hell). I don't think anyone is saying you can't be religious and a sportsperson, that would be discrimination

nickice

I'm against most legislation that treats people as groups. It lumps in all minorities together even if some minorities are opposed to other minorities.

john80

HaydenM wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.

That’s his choice that he made.

So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.

What?

No. You don’t understand.

The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.

Why can’t you understand that?

If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.

I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.

So we have a situation where you have a right to hold religious views however if you communicate them to the wider public you are free to do so but then lose your job. Maybe it is time we openly said that under the equality act that religion whilst being a protected characteristic is less protected that a sexual orientation or race characteristic to give two examples.

Spend a minute reading the discrimination section of the equality act having previously read the defined characteristics and you will see just how difficult it is for religion to comply without actually changing their views.

Exactly. (Edit: if they happen to offend people and your employer doesn't like it)

I think as an international sportsman he just needed to take into account the values that his employer are trying to uphold. He can share his faith if he wants but his employer thought it associated them with things they don't agree with and sacked him. They are trying to hold up sports people as role models and get more people into sport. If he worked for a company with religious/homophobic values then he wouldn't have been sacked.

If he was not angling for a better pay packet as others have said then in the UK he would be able to claim for discrimination under the equality act as his employer has just discriminated against him for holding a religious view and communicating that belief. He was not discriminating against people who are gay. He was just stating the often held view that God will judge them that most religious groups have.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

I'm just shocked that someone who "works in law" isn't sharp enough to understand that what is legal and what your employer finds acceptable are not necessarily the same thing.

Are you suggesting I'm lying? I'm shocked that someone isn't sharp enough to see that at no point did I say the two were the same.

nickice

HaydenM wrote:

The difference between the two is that one is affecting someone else (saying gay people should burn in hell), and the other one doesn't (being religious but not pointing out the bit where you think gay people should burn in hell). I don't think anyone is saying you can't be religious and a sportsperson, that would be discrimination

To be fair, he didn't say they should it's just what he thinks will happen. In his rather warped thinking, he's trying to save them.

nickice

If he was not angling for a better pay packet as others have said then in the UK he would be able to claim for discrimination under the equality act as his employer has just discriminated against him for holding a religious view and communicating that belief. He was not discriminating against people who are gay. He was just stating the often held view that God will judge them that most religious groups have.

Well, exactly. I hope he does sue them. I think it would be beneficial for everyone.

haydenm

john80 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.

That’s his choice that he made.

So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.

What?

No. You don’t understand.

The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.

Why can’t you understand that?

If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.

I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.

So we have a situation where you have a right to hold religious views however if you communicate them to the wider public you are free to do so but then lose your job. Maybe it is time we openly said that under the equality act that religion whilst being a protected characteristic is less protected that a sexual orientation or race characteristic to give two examples.

Spend a minute reading the discrimination section of the equality act having previously read the defined characteristics and you will see just how difficult it is for religion to comply without actually changing their views.

Exactly. (Edit: if they happen to offend people and your employer doesn't like it)

I think as an international sportsman he just needed to take into account the values that his employer are trying to uphold. He can share his faith if he wants but his employer thought it associated them with things they don't agree with and sacked him. They are trying to hold up sports people as role models and get more people into sport. If he worked for a company with religious/homophobic values then he wouldn't have been sacked.

If he was not angling for a better pay packet as others have said then in the UK he would be able to claim for discrimination under the equality act as his employer has just discriminated against him for holding a religious view and communicating that belief. He was not discriminating against people who are gay. He was just stating the often held view that God will judge them that most religious groups have.

Yes, and his employer didn't like it and sacked him because they are presumably trying to get more people into sport. This is a slightly separate argument to whether they are legally entitled to sack him, and I can't answer that as I'm not an australian lawyer.

Ben6899

nickice wrote:

Are you suggesting I'm lying?

No. It's just that "work in the law" is the only description I have at my disposal. Are you Queen's Council? A Paralegal? Maybe you polish the floors at the Old Bailey?

nickice wrote:

I'm shocked that someone isn't sharp enough to see that at no point did I say the two were the same.

You didn't say it outright, but you're not really convincing anyone that you know the difference.

john80

We have had the religious B&B owners fall foul of the law for not wanting gay people to stay. Wonder when the gay B&B owners will fall foul of the law by not letting religious people stay. I actually support the legislation but don't generally agree with the public hanging that we all go in for for pretty minor nonsense. This guy to put in in perspective has faced a higher punishment than the morons that designed and fitted flammable cladding to a high rise resulting in 72 dead. Hardly proportionate is it.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

nickice wrote:

Are you suggesting I'm lying?

No. It's just that "work in the law" is the only description I have at my disposal. Are you Queen's Council? A Paralegal? Maybe you polish the floors at the Old Bailey?

Arse

nickice wrote:

I'm shocked that someone isn't sharp enough to see that at no point did I say the two were the same.

You didn't say it outright, but you're not really convincing anyone that you know the difference.

Because I don't believe it.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

nickice wrote:

Are you suggesting I'm lying?

No. It's just that "work in the law" is the only description I have at my disposal. Are you Queen's Council? A Paralegal? Maybe you polish the floors at the Old Bailey?

Arse

nickice wrote:

I'm shocked that someone isn't sharp enough to see that at no point did I say the two were the same.

You didn't say it outright, but you're not really convincing anyone that you know the difference.

Because I don't believe it.

Ben6899

nickice wrote:

ars*

What?

nickice wrote:

Because I don't believe it.

Because you don't believe what?

nickice

john80 wrote:

We have had the religious B&B owners fall foul of the law for not wanting gay people to stay. Wonder when the gay B&B owners will fall foul of the law by not letting religious people stay. I actually support the legislation but don't generally agree with the public hanging that we all go in for for pretty minor nonsense. This guy to put in in perspective has faced a higher punishment than the morons that designed and fitted flammable cladding to a high rise resulting in 72 dead. Hardly proportionate is it.

Commercially, those that discriminate will be the ones who lose out.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Being fired is a very high price to pay. One that most people wouldn't want.

That’s his choice that he made.

So he effectively can't share his opinion..If your claim is that he's allowed to share something but must accept the harsh consequences, you might also argue that people are free to incite violence.

What?

No. You don’t understand.

The criteria for jobs is very different to laws.

Why can’t you understand that?

If I told a client who was gay he was a sinner I would be sacked instantly and rightly so, since, aside from the discrimination I was showing, it would cost the firm business.

I’ve let people go for lying. The lie he made wasn’t against the law - he’s entitled to lie if he wants - but it wasn’t good business so I sacked him.

So we have a situation where you have a right to hold religious views however if you communicate them to the wider public you are free to do so but then lose your job. Maybe it is time we openly said that under the equality act that religion whilst being a protected characteristic is less protected that a sexual orientation or race characteristic to give two examples.

Spend a minute reading the discrimination section of the equality act having previously read the defined characteristics and you will see just how difficult it is for religion to comply without actually changing their views.

Exactly. (Edit: if they happen to offend people and your employer doesn't like it)

I think as an international sportsman he just needed to take into account the values that his employer are trying to uphold. He can share his faith if he wants but his employer thought it associated them with things they don't agree with and sacked him. They are trying to hold up sports people as role models and get more people into sport. If he worked for a company with religious/homophobic values then he wouldn't have been sacked.

If he was not angling for a better pay packet as others have said then in the UK he would be able to claim for discrimination under the equality act as his employer has just discriminated against him for holding a religious view and communicating that belief. He was not discriminating against people who are gay. He was just stating the often held view that God will judge them that most religious groups have.

In what way is calling gays sinners not discrimination?

nickice

It was an arsehole thing to say- "polishing floors at the old Bailey'. If you must know, I work at a university.



Because you don't believe what?


I don't believe that legal freedom of speech and freedom of speech at work are the same things. I do, however, believe that in the future the case law of the US Supreme Court will move towards protecting freedom of speech on social media and that, Israel Folau would have a case for religious discrimination against the rugby authorities. I don't think it'll come to that as they'll almost certainly back down.

nickice

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

It is by any normal definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+discrimination

If you still disagree the debate is not worth having anymore if you can’t use common language correctly.

Ben6899

nickice wrote:

It was an arsehole thing to say- "polishing floors at the old Bailey'. If you must know, I work at a university.



Because you don't believe what?


I don't believe that legal freedom of speech and freedom of speech at work are the same things. I do, however, believe that in the future the case law of the US Supreme Court will move towards protecting freedom of speech on social media and that, Israel Folau would have a case for religious discrimination against the rugby authorities. I don't think it'll come to that as they'll almost certainly back down.

Nothing wrong with polishing floors at the Old Bailey. It wasn't meant as the insult you saw it as.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

It is by any normal definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+discrimination

If you still disagree the debate is not worth having anymore if you can’t use common language correctly.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."


I disagree that saying gays are sinners (especially if you believe as Israel Folau does, that we are all sinners) meets this defintion. If you treat gay people differently then you have a case. But simply saying their sinners? I doubt it.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

nickice wrote:

It was an arsehole thing to say- "polishing floors at the old Bailey'. If you must know, I work at a university.



Because you don't believe what?


I don't believe that legal freedom of speech and freedom of speech at work are the same things. I do, however, believe that in the future the case law of the US Supreme Court will move towards protecting freedom of speech on social media and that, Israel Folau would have a case for religious discrimination against the rugby authorities. I don't think it'll come to that as they'll almost certainly back down.

Nothing wrong with polishing floors at the Old Bailey. It wasn't meant as the insult you saw it as.

Ok, sorry I took it the wrong way. I tend to think the worst of people when a certain other poster gets into the debate.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

It is by any normal definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+discrimination

If you still disagree the debate is not worth having anymore if you can’t use common language correctly.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."


I disagree that saying gays are sinners (especially if you believe as Israel Folau does, that we are all sinners) meets this defintion. If you treat gay people differently then you have a case. But simply saying their sinners? I doubt it.

How is calling a well known minority immoral anything other than prejudicial? Particularly in the context of focusing on them specifically.

shirley_basso

john80 wrote:

We have had the religious B&B owners fall foul of the law for not wanting gay people to stay. Wonder when the gay B&B owners will fall foul of the law by not letting religious people stay. I actually support the legislation but don't generally agree with the public hanging that we all go in for for pretty minor nonsense. This guy to put in in perspective has faced a higher punishment than the morons that designed and fitted flammable cladding to a high rise resulting in 72 dead. Hardly proportionate is it.

The cladding passed the requisite tests and was approved for use, unfortunately.

Also it's unhelpful whataboutery.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

It is by any normal definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+discrimination

If you still disagree the debate is not worth having anymore if you can’t use common language correctly.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."


I disagree that saying gays are sinners (especially if you believe as Israel Folau does, that we are all sinners) meets this defintion. If you treat gay people differently then you have a case. But simply saying their sinners? I doubt it.

How is calling a well known minority immoral anything other than prejudicial? Particularly in the context of focusing on them specifically.

It's the word 'treatment" that is key for me here.

nickice

Shirley Basso wrote:

john80 wrote:

We have had the religious B&B owners fall foul of the law for not wanting gay people to stay. Wonder when the gay B&B owners will fall foul of the law by not letting religious people stay. I actually support the legislation but don't generally agree with the public hanging that we all go in for for pretty minor nonsense. This guy to put in in perspective has faced a higher punishment than the morons that designed and fitted flammable cladding to a high rise resulting in 72 dead. Hardly proportionate is it.

The cladding passed the requisite tests and was approved for use, unfortunately.

Also it's unhelpful whataboutery.

I think he has a point that certain offences (not in this case as it wasn't an offence) are relently pursued by authorities when in the great scheme of things, they're relatively minor. There have been several high profile cases.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

It is by any normal definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+discrimination

If you still disagree the debate is not worth having anymore if you can’t use common language correctly.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."


I disagree that saying gays are sinners (especially if you believe as Israel Folau does, that we are all sinners) meets this defintion. If you treat gay people differently then you have a case. But simply saying their sinners? I doubt it.

How is calling a well known minority immoral anything other than prejudicial? Particularly in the context of focusing on them specifically.

It's the word 'treatment" that is key for me here.

Because calling out a specific minority as immoral isn’t treating them differently to people who are not in the minority?

Give over. Clutching at straws.

Everyone can see it is. People get funny when the discrimination is written in bibles and has been taught as religiousness.

Unfortunately for folk like him, the state and rules that govern, though they may have their roots in religion, are very much secular, and it rightly focuses on people’s actions themselves and not the provenance of them.

I don’t care why people discriminate against minorities for the purposes of calling it out. They shouldn’t do it. End of.

shirley_basso

Well if Folau appeals then this may become one.

Otherwise it's a plonker not backing down over his archaic religious viewpoint which he can hold if he wants but shouldn't be sharing on social media, especially not unprovoked and certainly not given his high profile position.

I sort of understand the nuance you are trying to suggest, but ultimately, the way the post reads badly (see page 2/3 of this thread) and it comes across as discrimination in the way Rick suggests so rightly he has been sacked.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

In what way is calling gays sinners discrimination?

Because the term is literally a way to distinguish between moral and immoral.

Do you need those defined for you too?

That's still not discrimination.

It is by any normal definition.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Define+discrimination

If you still disagree the debate is not worth having anymore if you can’t use common language correctly.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."


I disagree that saying gays are sinners (especially if you believe as Israel Folau does, that we are all sinners) meets this defintion. If you treat gay people differently then you have a case. But simply saying their sinners? I doubt it.

How is calling a well known minority immoral anything other than prejudicial? Particularly in the context of focusing on them specifically.

It's the word 'treatment" that is key for me here.

Because calling out a specific minority as immoral isn’t treating them differently to people who are not in the minority?

Give over. Clutching at straws.

Everyone can see it is. People get funny when the discrimination is written in bibles and has been taught as religiousness.

Unfortunately for folk like him, the state and rules that govern, though they may have their roots in religion, are very much secular, and it rightly focuses on people’s actions themselves and not the provenance of them.

I don’t care why people discriminate against minorities for the purposes of calling it out. They shouldn’t do it. End of.

No it's not discrimination. If it was said repeatedly to the same person or group of people then it may be considered workplace harassment. But that's over an extended period of time. If it's said in the context of all of us being sinners, I doubt it.