Israel Folau

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,392
You do in your hole. If you were a libertarian you'd be defending Izzy Folau.
I didn't say I was liberatarian on all issues, I said I take a Libertarian stance on many.

However, I do take the view that the employer has the right to terminate the contract of anyone who violates it, which he has, even after a warning.

Folau is not being denied free speech, he can say whatever he wants on Twitter, as can I. If I was to take to twitter easily identified as an employee of where I work and said similar I would also be turfed out and wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Unless I was wealthy, like he is (but still felt the need to have his case funded) that is.

Poor put upon Israel, eh?

He had a choice, he was given a warning and did not comply. Do you think employers should not be able to dismiss a staff member who refuses to comply with management direction and contractual obligations? And you as per usual call me a 'lefty'?

Kind of ironic, don't you think?
 


Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
33,573
Anybody who knows Falou knows of his faith. He preaches regularly in his church and posts the sermons on line. He has been doing this for years. All RA had to do was release a staemnt saying that they in no way agree with Falou's views and his views are purely personal. That would have been that.
Asher's bakery cold have put out a statement saying that they in no way agree with Mr. Lee's cake which stated Mr. Less was in favour of gay marriage, and that Mr. Lee's views were purely personal. And that would have been that.

Is that what you mean?
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
33,573
Leviticus also says tattooing your skin is wrong. Yet Israel is covered in them.

Israel Folau, by omitting this point and other rather bizarre utterances from Leviticus show that he does have intent with his tweets.

That intent appears to be to have a go at gay people.
“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord,” Leviticus 19:28.

That's hilarious.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,392
“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord,” Leviticus 19:28.

That's hilarious.
It also proves that his claims of religious freedom are pure bollox as he cherry picked what he wanted to rail against.

Does he have any advice for farmers who don't properly corral a boisterous bull? Exodus 21:29

What about farmers who mix and match seed in the same field? Leviticus 19:19

There is the obvious one about tattoos and even advice on haircuts:

''Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. '' Leviticus 19:27

Israel-Folau-Waratahs-Super-Rugby-training-2019-PA.jpg


Looks like Israel has 'rounded the corners of your (his) head there.

That's clearly a paddling (Old Testament style most likely.)

Has he ever worn leather in some form or another? Has he played on Saturdays or Sundays?

So sorry buddy, but you are either for all Gods rules or none, pretty sure there are no exemptions?
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,516
Asher's bakery cold have put out a statement saying that they in no way agree with Mr. Lee's cake which stated Mr. Less was in favour of gay marriage, and that Mr. Lee's views were purely personal. And that would have been that.

Is that what you mean?
No. A cake would physically have to be made.

I didn't say I was liberatarian on all issues, I said I take a Libertarian stance on many.
Not on free speech that's for sure.

However, I do take the view that the employer has the right to terminate the contract of anyone who violates it, which he has, even after a warning.
This has been gone over. It wasn't in his contract. This has been pointed out numerous times. Furthermore he might well argue that any clause which gave an employer carte blanche to decide what an employee can say in social media outside of work would be considered an onerous contract clause.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,392
Not on free speech that's for sure.
Where do I support curtailing his freedom of speech? I fully support the right for him to say pretty much whatever he likes. I also support an employers right to remove an individual who refuses to comply with their rules.

As I always say, freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequence.

Go into an airport and practice your 'right' to free speech by joking there is a bomb in your backpack and see what happens.


This has been gone over. It wasn't in his contract. This has been pointed out numerous times. Furthermore he might well argue that any clause which gave an employer carte blanche to decide what an employee can say in social media outside of work would be considered an onerous contract clause.
Yes, it was actually the code of conduct that he breached. He was warned numerous times. Furthermore, his claims of religious freedom are undermined by his very specific posts which only call out very specific 'sins' but not others.

Furthermore, you have yet to comment on his blatantly hypocrisy of wearing tattoos yet deciding that its the gays who deserve Gods wrath.

It's quite clear why he targeted specific 'sins' and not others, because he's a lying ****in' loony.

So getting back to the tired old labels, seems you are the 'lefty' in this situation as you believe employees should have greater rights even if they are potentially damaging to their employer?

Going online and acting in a manner at odds with your supposed beliefs isn't practising your faith, its going online and acting like another nutball and he was treated as such so **** him and his nonsense.

Sensible people who were taught about Christianity know that the core tenet is the New Testament and its message of love, not Old Testament fire & brimstone shyte to cloak your hate in a perceived cloak of 'faith'.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,516
Where do I support curtailing his freedom of speech? I fully support the right for him to say pretty much whatever he likes. I also support an employers right to remove an individual who refuses to comply with their rules.
If you lose your job for saying things your employer doesn't like that is curtailing your freedom of speech. Defaming your employer, running them down or slagging off fellow workers are all areas where an employer could take action. But talking about religious beliefs to a 3rd party is none an employers business.


Go into an airport and practice your 'right' to free speech by joking there is a bomb in your backpack and see what happens.
That is not an equal and you well know it. Stop being disingenuous.



Yes, it was actually the code of conduct that he breached. He was warned numerous times.
Not true. Read. The. Thread.


Furthermore, you have yet to comment on his blatantly hypocrisy of wearing tattoos yet deciding that its the gays who deserve Gods wrath.

It's quite clear why he targeted specific 'sins' and not others, because he's a lying ****in' loony.

So getting back to the tired old labels, seems you are the 'lefty' in this situation as you believe employees should have greater rights even if they are potentially damaging to their employer?

Going online and acting in a manner at odds with your supposed beliefs isn't practising your faith, its going online and acting like another nutball and he was treated as such so **** him and his nonsense.

Sensible people who were taught about Christianity know that the core tenet is the New Testament and its message of love, not Old Testament fire & brimstone shyte to cloak your hate in a perceived cloak of 'faith'.

It is clear by your overwrought language you have an issue with people of faith. You really should calm down and read this thread so don't contnue to make a fool out of yourself. Libertarian my jaxie!



 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
18,657
As a Munster Rugby fan I would love to see Munster offer him a contract , he would be a great addition.

But could see the marketing and financial department having a heart attack at the suggestion as no doubt sponsors would cave to pressure not to back the club if they signed him.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,392
If you lose your job for saying things your employer doesn't like that is curtailing your freedom of speech. Defaming your employer, running them down or slagging off fellow workers are all areas where an employer could take action. But talking about religious beliefs to a 3rd party is none an employers business.




That is not an equal and you well know it. Stop being disingenuous.





Not true. Read. The. Thread.




It is clear by your overwrought language you have an issue with people of faith. You really should calm down and read this thread so don't contnue to make a fool out of yourself. Libertarian my jaxie!
The disingenuous person here is Folau himself with his blatant hypocrisy which you are incredibly willing to accept because his case puts him at odds with people and views you have a personal dislike of.

But no, I do not have an issue with people of faith, my parents are people of faith, my extended family are, I am on very friendly terms with many clerics as well. I'm not a Christian but I don't hate them either, I just happen to disagree with them on certain issues but find I have more in common with them than I have not. I may also have an issue with the actions of their hierarchy for very valid reasons but that doesn't translate into hatred for the practitioners, same as I abhor the Religion of Islam but have no problem with individual Muslims.


I do have an issue with morons who don't even understand what they claim is their own faith. I know plenty of people of faith and they don't feel the need to tell others how to act or go around judging them. People like Folau clearly missed when Jesus said 'judge not lest you be judged yourself' because it would seem making judgement's is something he wants to do so he ignore the advice of his Saviour.

But he wasn't talking primarily to a singular 3rd party, he was making a very public declaration about certain people and insulting them and their existence. The only person going to hell, based on the very views he holds are himself because he appears to be consumed by hate and not capable of love. Also, he appears to be very enamoured with money, an attribute that appears to go hand in hand with religious extremism.

Bringing your employer into disrepute is perfectly valid reason for dismissal. What he said contravened their policy of being an inclusive organisation so yeah, he got sacked, he deserved it.

If he was sacked simply for being a Christian that would be massively problematic and I would be defending him. Same goes if he was Jewish, Muslim or Hindu. He wasn't though, he sacked for being an online mouthpiece who was told and refused to listen.

Anyway, I guess I am really, really sorry my language offends, but you're not above using the old vulgarity when it suits though, are you?
 

Paddyc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
11,351
As a Munster Rugby fan I would love to see Munster offer him a contract , he would be a great addition.

But could see the marketing and financial department having a heart attack at the suggestion as no doubt sponsors would cave to pressure not to back the club if they signed him.
Not going to happen.

There's a guy in chino shorts and deck shoes who would absolutely lose his s**t if that were to happen.

1566421450099.jpeg
 

owedtojoy

Moderator
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
53,149
If you lose your job for saying things your employer doesn't like that is curtailing your freedom of speech. Defaming your employer, running them down or slagging off fellow workers are all areas where an employer could take action. But talking about religious beliefs to a 3rd party is none an employers business.
That is just a straw man. It is not a case of Folau's employer "not liking" what Folau was saying. If Folau had attacked fans of Game of Thrones, Rugby Australia might not have liked it, but it was hardly a cause of firing him. Watching TV and liking a programme is not as core to anyone's self-esteem as their sexuality.

Being Gay or Straight is not the same. There are Gay and Straight rugby players who were offended by Folau's comments - Michael Hooper, his coach Michael Chieka, other Christian rugby players like Jacob Stockdale or Ugo Monye. Gay players include Welshman Gareth Thomas, and referee Nigel Owens. But most of all there are thousands of younger players and tens of thousands of supporters.

In the view of Rugby Australia Folau was "running down or slagging" colleagues, fellow players, sponsors, sponsors' customers and supporters. He was acting in direct violation of his employers' aim of provided a diverse and secure environment for people of all sexuality.

Given that he had previously being warned, and had worked through a reconciliation process with Rugby Australia, there was no alternative for his employers.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,581
“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord,” Leviticus 19:28.

That's hilarious.
What do you find funny about that?
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,392
What do you find funny about that?
Do you not think its funny that he based his rantings upon this:

  • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
  • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
But Leviticus also includes this:

  • “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord,” Leviticus 19:28.

And he looks like this:

465e4a59c4f9140587d864b16753766a.jpg


I think its plenty funny.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,581
Do you not think its funny that he based his rantings upon this:

  • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
  • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
But Leviticus also includes this:

  • “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord,” Leviticus 19:28.

And he looks like this:
It is kind of interesting that the two Christian groups really into tattoos- the "Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Ethiopians, Western Syriacs, etc) and Ulster Presbyterians are also the Christian groups really into the Old Testament. Personally I really like both tattoos and the OT however I understand why both are rather off putting to others.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,516
That is just a straw man. It is not a case of Folau's employer "not liking" what Folau was saying. If Folau had attacked fans of Game of Thrones, Rugby Australia might not have liked it, but it was hardly a cause of firing him. Watching TV and liking a programme is not as core to anyone's self-esteem as their sexuality.

Being Gay or Straight is not the same. There are Gay and Straight rugby players who were offended by Folau's comments - Michael Hooper, his coach Michael Chieka, other Christian rugby players like Jacob Stockdale or Ugo Monye. Gay players include Welshman Gareth Thomas, and referee Nigel Owens. But most of all there are thousands of younger players and tens of thousands of supporters.

In the view of Rugby Australia Folau was "running down or slagging" colleagues, fellow players, sponsors, sponsors' customers and supporters. He was acting in direct violation of his employers' aim of provided a diverse and secure environment for people of all sexuality.

Given that he had previously being warned, and had worked through a reconciliation process with Rugby Australia, there was no alternative for his employers.
Baloney. He made a general Instagram post professing his Christian beliefs. People offended? Tough. You have no right to not be offended. He is 30 and has been playing Rugby for a decade playing alongside gay players and those who would have the opposite viewpoint to himself. He was also cheered on by fans some of whom might well be Homosexual. There is no evidence he ever attacked, made fun of or encouraged discrimination in any way towards Gays and Lesbians. Zero. This is pathetic virtue signalling.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
34,516
It is kind of interesting that the two Christian groups really into tattoos- the "Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Ethiopians, Western Syriacs, etc) and Ulster Presbyterians are also the Christian groups really into the Old Testament. Personally I really like both tattoos and the OT however I understand why both are rather off putting to others.
Muppet. Ulster Presbyterians are not into tattoos you bigoted unfunny troll.
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,975
Do you not think its funny that he based his rantings upon this:

  • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
  • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
But Leviticus also includes this:

  • “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord,” Leviticus 19:28.

And he looks like this:

View attachment 19813

I think its plenty funny.
That kind of opens up the vista of courts having to decide whether someone's beliefs conforms or not to something said in some Holy Book.

It's not a very good example anyway. Christian sects make use of the Old Testament in lots of different ways. Going by the above logic, a Christian should basically behave more like an extreme orthodox Jew, obeying the various dietary and purity laws, observe Jewish feasts (be circumcised too) etc. The Pauline wing of the early Christian Church dispensed with most of that stuff.

Folau would that argue his comment was based on a New Testament quote and that all the Jewish laws in the Torah etc. don't apply to Christians (he wouldn't exactly be alone in that approach).
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
12,392
That kind of opens up the vista of courts having to decide whether someone's beliefs conforms or not to something said in some Holy Book.

It's not a very good example anyway. Christian sects make use of the Old Testament in lots of different ways. Going by the above logic, a Christian should basically behave more like an extreme orthodox Jew, obeying the various dietary and purity laws, observe Jewish feasts (be circumcised too) etc. The Pauline wing of the early Christian Church dispensed with most of that stuff.

Folau would that argue his comment was based on a New Testament quote and that all the Jewish laws in the Torah etc. don't apply to Christians (he wouldn't exactly be alone in that approach).
I'd very much doubt any court would want to get into deciding what is and isn't 'genuine' belief as its so open to interpretation.

But I am not saying Christians should do, say or believe anything, I am simply amused at how he can pick and choose what he believes to be important and ignore what is inconvenient.

As for the New Testament, the passage that might be interpreted to be discussing homosexuality are far too vague and encompass a lot of prohibitions more explicitly than homosexuality is addressed.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
3,581
Muppet. Ulster Presbyterians are not into tattoos you bigoted unfunny troll.
Yes they are- the Auld Licht ones are not however Ulster Prods in general love their tattoos. It is something that Tea Eggs often sneer at them for.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom