yes you seems quite confused in that matter but in a non religious state, religion do not make the law whereas the leftist clique not only control the media but seems to decide which laws are right or wrong, applied or not...I am a bit confused are not all religions based on making it a globalist view.
Except that I do not agree with what RA did, but I accept they appeared to have acted lawfully.You do have to give Rob, top marks for tenacity, as the lonely voice in the wilderness.
And whether the punishment is deemed appropriate, for the infraction, or if it was used as a means to an end?Except that I do not agree with what RA did, but I accept they appeared to have acted lawfully.
The problem with Folau's case is that he thinks it is about religious expression.
Were I prosecuting RA's case, I would never use that word because it is not relevant.
It is about compliance with the code of conduct.
As this specific case is about using social media, we need to be mindful that code imposes conditions on players. Those conditions relate to respecting all those who participate, including spectators, plus maintaining a positive image of Rugby. And these conditions apply on and off the field.
Given that RA is a foundation member of Pride in Sport (an organisation committed to furthering LGBTI inclusion in sport), comments that are unsupportive - irrespective of any personal or religious beliefs - prima facie breach the code of conduct.
More generally, Folau's message was issued as a "WARNING" to people who related to any or all categories listed. Furthermore, the warning was unequivocal about their wrongdoing and suggested a dire consequence (whether true or not). Given it's not illegal to be drunk at home, or worship another being, amongst other things, it showed gross intolerance and a lack of respect for others.
We do not need to get into a debate or discussion about how Folau's comments were of Biblical proportion, because we are only concerned about the effect his message had.
The point here is that we test the outcome of using social media to the extent it is consistent with the code of conduct. It is neither practical nor necessary that the code prescribe all the circumstances that could lead to a breach as in a fashion compliance is regarded as a trivial exercise.
Given that RA is a foundation member of Pride in Sport (an organisation committed to furthering LGBTI inclusion in sport),
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So I will do something
Yes it is. He has to show that using social media is part of spreading the word of the lord.Edit: wait, spreading the word of God is a part of Christianity.
Who knows lol.
Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act alleging the termination was because of his religion and, therefore, unlawful.
The application argues that as a manifestation of his Christian religion, including regular church attendance and preaching, Folau is:
…compelled to communicate the word of God and the message contained within the Bible.
Thats where the contract takes over. Religion is one of the things coveredIt shouldn't just be confined to a "religious" defence though.
People should be able to express their opinion on any subject they like as long as it doesn't detract from them doing their job.
But that wouldn't mind a woman being in the dressing room. Tell those that are effected to grow some balls and be a man.How many Rugby players do you think would be comfortable having gays at close quarters, in the dressing rooms and showers etc ?
Who says religion is correct, or for that matter the bible is correct or has any relationship with current society.Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act alleging the termination was because of his religion and, therefore, unlawful.
The application argues that as a manifestation of his Christian religion, including regular church attendance and preaching, Folau is:
…compelled to communicate the word of God and the message contained within the Bible.
Yes yes yes. If you recall, the AFL enticed Folau over from the NRL with a massive deal ( estimated to be $6 million over 4 years). This was ridiculous money for a player that had never played aussie rules before but was part of the AFL's grand plans for their new expansion team the Greater Western Sydney Giants to seize the heartland of rugby league. Folau may have failed dismally but he was still paid as if he was an elite player.No no no. Moving from a game Rugby League he grew up with and to a game he was never going to reach an elite level at meant he wouldn't reach elite pay levels in Aussie Rules.
For once, i disagree:I personally think everyone's taking all this far too seriously.
Yes some rugby player quoted a section of the Bible that has some nasty words in it. Well sure, it's the Bible it's not a Mickey Mouse cartoon book so yes it says some rotten things. Religious books tend to be full of stuff like that and that's no secret.
It's like the conservatives who got upset about Dark Mofo last year and the inverted crosses. Offensive or something they claimed. Yeah whatever, most didn't seem too fussed and saw it as art. It's not as though there wasn't a great big Christmas tree not far away 6 months before and after.
Everyone needs to lighten up a bit is my view. It's some rugby player quoting words from a book and it's not as though he picked the worst sections of it by any means. Nobody's fired any shots or blown anything up. Nothing's physically in ruins, there's no river of blood, there's no sirens wailing.
Meanwhile there's thousands of people sleeping on the streets tonight here in Australia and there's however many people with all manner of problems from being victims of domestic violence through to being unemployed. Those are real problems far more serious than someone preaching religion.
I've decided to avoid this thread for the reasons I've outlined in another thread, that being that I'm currently of the view that discussing religion isn't helping this forum overall.For once, i disagree:
this is a show case for freedom of expression/speech, and the rulings will apply to all in the foreseeable future.
That is, I am saying that RA and those taking offence are taking Folau's comments too seriously, not that people commenting on this thread are taking RA's decision to sack him too seriously. I perhaps should have been clearer on that detail.
I understand, i read your comments on the other thread and so decided to close the debate also after editing my previous post last night.I've decided to avoid this thread for the reasons I've outlined in another thread, that being that I'm currently of the view that discussing religion isn't helping this forum overall.
That does not mean I've changed my mind on the comments I've made, just that I think that it's a "can't win" situation for ASF. It's completely unrelated to investing and is only going to upset someone.
To clarify my point about it being taken too seriously though, well if my view there were applied then Folau would still be playing rugby.
That is, I am saying that RA and those taking offence are taking Folau's comments too seriously, not that people commenting on this thread are taking RA's decision to sack him too seriously. I perhaps should have been clearer on that detail.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?