Israel Folau

123457

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,219
    I guess it makes sense you don’t understand what discrimination actually means in practice.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    nickice wrote:
    nickice 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.
    He didn't say anything about what his beliefs are regarding everyone being sinners so in respect I would say that bit had been added by you.

    He did repost a piece listing a subset of society as being sinners among them were homosexuals. It appears quite clear to me that he has discriminated by separating some groups from the whole of our species as being at risk of punishment. But I'm not involved in law at university (still don't know what your involvement in law is. Backroom law or teaching law? Curious but don't have a right to force you to give more info. Also no intention of using what you say against you wrt occupation. There's enough other stuff you post that I disagree with :wink:)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,219
    “We’re all sinners but imma focus on minorities”

    Yeah yeah mate.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    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.


    I think if someone is being denied (either directly or indirectly) something at work on the basis of their sexuality, that is an obvious case of discrimination. If there is a concerted campaign against someone on the basis of their sexuality, that is harassment so I'd also think that would be covered. Just to say it, even one time, I don't think so.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    “We’re all sinners but imma focus on minorities”

    Yeah yeah mate.

    The orginal post by Israel Folau didn't focus on minorities. It was just that part that was chosen to condemn him for.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Discrimination isn't only physical.

    I'm with Rick on this one that you don't really understand what discrimination means in practise, despite your credentials.

    That said, I wouldn't want to wager one way or another if it went to appeal.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,219
    nickice wrote:
    “We’re all sinners but imma focus on minorities”

    Yeah yeah mate.

    The orginal post by Israel Folau didn't focus on minorities. It was just that part that was chosen to condemn him for.

    *woosh*
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Discrimination isn't only physical.

    I'm with Rick on this one that you don't really understand what discrimination means in practise, despite your credentials.

    That said, I wouldn't want to wager one way or another if it went to appeal.

    I'm not an employment lawyer but it's unlikely that saying gay people are sinners is automatic discrimination. There are situations where it could be if it's part of a campaign of harassment, for example.
  • haydenm
    haydenm Posts: 2,997
    nickice wrote:
    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.


    Good point, I missed that when you posted it. Bit like Farron saying something like 'I'm really sorry if you disagree but according to my beliefs gays are sinners and will go to hell'. In that case I have a bit more sympathy for him, I know he would also have that view of me living outside of marriage with my OH. That said, I can see why Australian rugby don't want him saying that sort of thing as an ambassador for the sport
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    nickice wrote:
    nickice 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.
    He didn't say anything about what his beliefs are regarding everyone being sinners so in respect I would say that bit had been added by you.

    He did repost a piece listing a subset of society as being sinners among them were homosexuals. It appears quite clear to me that he has discriminated by separating some groups from the whole of our species as being at risk of punishment. But I'm not involved in law at university (still don't know what your involvement in law is. Backroom law or teaching law? Curious but don't have a right to force you to give more info. Also no intention of using what you say against you wrt occupation. There's enough other stuff you post that I disagree with :wink:)

    He later clarified his comments in a blog post. He can't be discriminating. Legally, this is simply not discrimination. If he were refusing to work with, employ, serve someone on the basis of their sexuality, that would be discrimination.

    I teach law. Mainly European law and International law but my real interest is in Environmental law.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    HaydenM wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    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.


    Good point, I missed that when you posted it. Bit like Farron saying something like 'I'm really sorry if you disagree but according to my beliefs gays are sinners and will go to hell'. In that case I have a bit more sympathy for him, I know he would also have that view of me living outside of marriage with my OH. That said, I can see why Australian rugby don't want him saying that sort of thing as an ambassador for the sport

    Oh I can see why he's embarrassed them but, like I said, a more proportionate response would be to release a statement clarifying that they disagree with his views. And when you say, 'ambassador' do you mean official. I've never really been down with the idea of sports people being role models (for anything outside actually playing the sport)
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Whether you like it or not, official or not, these people are ambassadors for a whole range of things.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Whether you like it or not, official or not, these people are ambassadors for a whole range of things.

    They shouldn't be, though. Excuse the generalisation, but they're mostly not very bright and are famous because they excel at one particular thing.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Well it's not their choice as to whether they are ambassadors or not.

    He chose to have a social media account, made it public and accepted followers. He's not a child.

    Famous people come under greater scrutiny. Welcome to the realities of modern life.

    Regular people also get fired from their jobs for posting inappropriate, legal things on social media.

    Ignorance is not a defence, but I'm sure you knew that.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    Whether you like it or not, official or not, these people are ambassadors for a whole range of things.

    They shouldn't be, though. Excuse the generalisation, but they're mostly not very bright and are famous because they excel at one particular thing.

    Yeah, it's better to have 'low profile' ambassadors who don't represent their country and who nobody's ever heard of... :roll:
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Are top level rugby stars thick? It strikes me that there's more of a need for intelligence than in football so there's less liklihood of outright dummies in rugby.

    It is of course a common view that sportspeople are not bright in a wide range of sports. I can't remember but there's a former world champ in one of the lighter categories from England back a decade or so who had a reputation for being really very bright. I think he got a nickname along the lines of the professor on account of his intelligence. Gave a very good post fight interview because of it despite having gone 10 rounds of boxing. I also think there's some clever players in the England side. I doubt there's much difference in other national sides. I also don't think religion rules out intelligence neither. This aussie is likely to be at least average intelligence.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Are top level rugby stars thick? It strikes me that there's more of a need for intelligence than in football so there's less liklihood of outright dummies in rugby.

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... rs-9560935
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    Whether you like it or not, official or not, these people are ambassadors for a whole range of things.

    They shouldn't be, though. Excuse the generalisation, but they're mostly not very bright and are famous because they excel at one particular thing.

    Yeah, it's better to have 'low profile' ambassadors who don't represent their country and who nobody's ever heard of... :roll:


    I meant they shouldn't be considered to be ambassadors...rolling your eyes indeed
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Are top level rugby stars thick? It strikes me that there's more of a need for intelligence than in football so there's less liklihood of outright dummies in rugby.

    It is of course a common view that sportspeople are not bright in a wide range of sports. I can't remember but there's a former world champ in one of the lighter categories from England back a decade or so who had a reputation for being really very bright. I think he got a nickname along the lines of the professor on account of his intelligence. Gave a very good post fight interview because of it despite having gone 10 rounds of boxing. I also think there's some clever players in the England side. I doubt there's much difference in other national sides. I also don't think religion rules out intelligence neither. This aussie is likely to be at least average intelligence.

    isn't that true of everyone you know nothing much about? kind of how averages work! that is, assuming intelligence fits into a normal distribution anyway, and given it is basically impossible to measure intelligence you can probably make it fit any distribution you like!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    edited April 2019
    Would be interesting to see what would happen if someone said that anyone who believes Jesus is the son of god will go to Hell unless they repent/convert to [insert other religion here]
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Are top level rugby stars thick? It strikes me that there's more of a need for intelligence than in football so there's less liklihood of outright dummies in rugby.

    It is of course a common view that sportspeople are not bright in a wide range of sports. I can't remember but there's a former world champ in one of the lighter categories from England back a decade or so who had a reputation for being really very bright. I think he got a nickname along the lines of the professor on account of his intelligence. Gave a very good post fight interview because of it despite having gone 10 rounds of boxing. I also think there's some clever players in the England side. I doubt there's much difference in other national sides. I also don't think religion rules out intelligence neither. This aussie is likely to be at least average intelligence.


    I wasn't meaning him specifically. To be honest, I hate rugby. I just know that most footballers are not famed for their intelligence.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Would be interesting to see what would happen if someone said that anyone who believes Jesus is the sun of god will go to Hell unless they repent/convert to [insert other religion here]

    Well he did kind of imply that too by saying idolisers but didn't single them out.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    I meant they shouldn't be considered to be ambassadors...rolling your eyes indeed

    After 10+ pages of your tedious pedantry and obfuscation, I'm amazed it's taken me that long, to be honest.. :roll:
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I meant they shouldn't be considered to be ambassadors...rolling your eyes indeed

    After 10+ pages of your tedious pedantry and obfuscation, I'm amazed it's taken me that long, to be honest.. :roll:

    I'm just a bit more careful about making claims than you are. I usually only make them if I have some knowledge to back them up. You don't.
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Would be interesting to see what would happen if someone said that anyone who believes Jesus is the sun of god will go to Hell unless they repent/convert to [insert other religion here]

    Well he did kind of imply that too by saying idolisers but didn't single them out.

    I think he meant if the target was Christians specifically. One of the best arguments against legislation to protect minorities is that the same legislation can be used by majorites.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Chris Bass wrote:
    Would be interesting to see what would happen if someone said that anyone who believes Jesus is the sun of god will go to Hell unless they repent/convert to [insert other religion here]

    Well he did kind of imply that too by saying idolisers but didn't single them out.

    oops! meant son not sun!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    Anyway, to the joy of many posters, I don't think I'm going to post on bikeradar any longer. I spend too much time getting into debates when I should be working.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    I think in the interests of this thread you should make 6 more posts to take your total to 666

    either that or it would be fitting if you all kissed and made up!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    nickice wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    nickice wrote:
    I meant they shouldn't be considered to be ambassadors...rolling your eyes indeed

    After 10+ pages of your tedious pedantry and obfuscation, I'm amazed it's taken me that long, to be honest.. :roll:

    I'm just a bit more careful about making claims than you are. I usually only make them if I have some knowledge to back them up. You don't.

    More obfuscation. I have backed up - or am able to back up - everything I say. Without digging up two-year old threads with no relevance to the current topic. Apparently, you have form for that... :roll: :roll:
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    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.

    In 2014 the cladding was not at the required B standard for buildings over 18m. Grenfell tower was refurbished in 2016. The cladding was not to code and therefore not approved for use. In engineering taking a old set of results and using this to gain approval is not very honest.