Israel Folau
Comments
-
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.
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.0 -
I stand corrected. Does this mean convictions are likely to occur?0
-
Shirley Basso wrote:I stand corrected. Does this mean convictions are likely to occur?
If convictions do not occur then it will provide further evidence that as a society we place more importance on what people say on social media that we do about things that directly lead to deaths. UK, UK, UK shouted in the form of a football chant.0 -
Surely if someone use cladding that was not of the required standing then someone (human or legal entity) is responsible for that and charges will be brought for the loss of life?0
-
0
-
Well I'm not religious and not a homophobe either. Folau believes in God etc and as far as he's concerned being gay is wrong. That's his belief so I'm not sure we should condemn someone for their beliefs (unless they are harmful to others eg Nazism etc). So, whilst being tactless to say the least, personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest what he put on Twitter. Likewise Billy V, he's of the same belief and was bought up God fearing etc.
What I do think is there are way too many people especially online and on social media etc who actively look for offense and convey how offended they have been by often the slightest remark. I'm thinking of the numbties in some Universities who no-platform speakers because they don't agree with what they are going to say etc. Germaine Greer was no-platformed because she is of the opinion that men who have happen to identify as women are actually not women. Seems blindingly obvious to any sane person that a bloke regardless of how they may think is actually still a man. But the oh-so trendy LGBTQ+ or whatever they identify as don't agree.0 -
Chris Bass wrote:I think in the interests of this thread you should make 6 more posts to take your total to 666
..
and then stop?0 -
SurferCyclist wrote:Well I'm not religious and not a homophobe either.
Inadvertently, you may have hit upon something here. I suspect the majority of homophobes are only homophobic because of their exposure to (and continued acceptance of) various religious teachings.
Makes me wonder, are there any atheist homophobes?0 -
Imposter wrote:SurferCyclist wrote:Well I'm not religious and not a homophobe either.
Inadvertently, you may have hit upon something here. I suspect the majority of homophobes are only homophobic because of their exposure to (and continued acceptance of) various religious teachings.
Makes me wonder, are there any atheist homophobes?
loads i'd have thought, but it is because it has been the social norm to see homosexuality as being wrong (100% not my belief btw!) it was illegal until relatively recently.
gay has been used as slang for bad for a long time, saying someone is gay, or something is gay or just a throw away comment like saying "that's gay" puts the idea that being gay is wrong into people's minds, maybe without them realising it.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Imposter wrote:SurferCyclist wrote:Well I'm not religious and not a homophobe either.
Inadvertently, you may have hit upon something here. I suspect the majority of homophobes are only homophobic because of their exposure to (and continued acceptance of) various religious teachings.
Makes me wonder, are there any atheist homophobes?
Yep bound to be loads. Just like there are loads who are religious and gay (despite it being against their teachings etc).0 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48306223
He has made some interesting comments. He obviously believes this very strongly.
You almost have to admire his commitment to his religion:
"There have been many opportunities to potentially make the situation a little bit easier," said the fundamentalist Christian.
"I could go back and play the game, get everything back to the way it used to be.
"The way Satan works is he offers you stuff that could look good to the eye and makes you feel comfortable, and if you go down that path all the worries and troubles will go away.
"It is always the will of God that comes first."0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48306223
He has made some interesting comments. He obviously believes this very strongly.
You almost have to admire his commitment to his religion:
"There have been many opportunities to potentially make the situation a little bit easier," said the fundamentalist Christian.
"I could go back and play the game, get everything back to the way it used to be.
"The way Satan works is he offers you stuff that could look good to the eye and makes you feel comfortable, and if you go down that path all the worries and troubles will go away.
"It is always the will of God that comes first."
Well, the will of god is that he won't play for Australia again. Sacked.
”Our clear message for all rugby fans today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork."0 -
Indeed.0
-
The ruling basically means most religious people aren't allowed to air their beliefs publicly.
It is quite a weird time we live in - if you speak out against religion you are shot down as being a XXXXXaphobe (pick whichever religion you like) but when someone says what they believe as a result of this religion and they are fired!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
No it doesn't. It just means that an employer, which is the founding member of an equality and inclusion charity thinks that spouting drivel such as homosexuals are destined for hell, has the right to fire that employee for views which are not in line with the company values.
There are many aspects of all religions which don't go anywhere near hell or homosexuals. Welcome to chat about those.
Idiots lose their jobs all the time for spouting crap on social media. This is just a more high profile case.
Also you are welcome discuss other religion and to maturely discuss parts you don't like. Broad brushing them negatively makes you look ignorant and a xxxxxphobe.0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:No it doesn't. It just means that an employer, which is the founding member of an equality and inclusion charity thinks that spouting drivel such as homosexuals are destined for hell, has the right to fire that employee for views which are not in line with the company values.
There are many aspects of all religions which don't go anywhere near hell or homosexuals. Welcome to chat about those.
Idiots lose their jobs all the time for spouting crap on social media. This is just a more high profile case.
Also you are welcome discuss other religion and to maturely discuss parts you don't like. Broad brushing them negatively makes you look ignorant and a xxxxxphobe.
don't get me wrong - i do not support what he said in anyway and find all religions to be complete nonsense and relatively easy (for me at least) to see they are.
But who gets to decide what you are allowed to talk about from your religion - if you religion teaches that abortion is wrong, is that ok? or you shouldn't give or receive blood donations, or that evolution isn't true, or that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old, or that a prophet happened to fly to the moon, cut it in half and then join it back together? there is so much to choose from that is equally absurd or ridiculous as what he said - a lot is admittedly harmless but some of the other stuff might not be.
at some point you either say you can't talk about your religious beliefs or someone is going to have to decide what is ok or what is not ok.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
There is always a line between what is ok to talk about and what is not.
That line moves all the time depending on the audience and context.
Telling the world that god things gays are going to hell when representing a charity which promotes equality and inclusion leaves Folau the wrong side of the line.
Telling his family over evening prayers - fill your boots.0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48306223
He has made some interesting comments. He obviously believes this very strongly.
You almost have to admire his commitment to his religion:
"There have been many opportunities to potentially make the situation a little bit easier," said the fundamentalist Christian.
"I could go back and play the game, get everything back to the way it used to be.
"The way Satan works is he offers you stuff that could look good to the eye and makes you feel comfortable, and if you go down that path all the worries and troubles will go away.
"It is always the will of God that comes first."
Religious delusion at its best...0 -
Shirley Basso wrote:There is always a line between what is ok to talk about and what is not.
That line moves all the time depending on the audience and context.
Telling the world that god things gays are going to hell when representing a charity which promotes equality and inclusion leaves Folau the wrong side of the line.
Telling his family over evening prayers - fill your boots.
I'd argue that does more harmwww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Talking about divisive and non-universal religious beliefs to your friends and family = ok
Talking about it publicly when you're a public figure working for an organisation with a defined set of ethics and behaviour standards which such public outpourings breach = sackable offence.
That sounds fair and readily understood IMHO.
Those beliefs aren't universally held among all people with religious beliefs. People following a religion that's fundamentalist is different to the majority of people who follow religion. It's not a case of follow and believe in it all or you're not really following it.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Talking about divisive and non-universal religious beliefs to your friends and family = ok
Talking about it publicly when you're a public figure working for an organisation with a defined set of ethics and behaviour standards which such public outpourings breach = sackable offence.
That sounds fair and readily understood IMHO.
Those beliefs aren't universally held among all people with religious beliefs. People following a religion that's fundamentalist is different to the majority of people who follow religion. It's not a case of follow and believe in it all or you're not really following it.
I meant thst you can more easily influence your family and then the bigoted views will be passed on or if you tell your child being gay is a sin and they turn out to be gay that brings it's own problems.
as for the last point - that is easier for some religions than others based on how it is taught, how they believe it was transmitted and recorded and whether it allows reform and what or who decides how it is able to reform.
I don't really want to get into a huge religious debate though so i'll agree to disagree on this one.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
