Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Rugby Discussion II

Options
1…118119121123124…293

Comments

  • Options
    #3602
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    Doesn't help Folau that the CEO of Qantas is openly gay, and a massive advocate of gay marriage in Australia. Considering Qantas are the main sponsor of the ARU, I'd say they're sweating bullets.

    They've fired the guy, no reason for Qantas to do anything.


  • Options
    #3603
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Former Former wrote: »
    They've fired the guy, no reason for Qantas to do anything.

    Have they actually terminated it yet? The reports before was that they intended to because they couldn't get in contact with him, but there hadn't been any confirmation other than a Fox News tweet.


  • Options
    #3604
    clsmooth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Atheist is a disbeliever (asked and rejects) and/or someone with no belief (no question).

    Not to be confused with Anti-theists (which a lot of atheists would also be)

    Or to be confused with anaesthetists who are quite valuable members of society.


  • Options
    #3605
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    clsmooth wrote: »
    Or to be confused with anaesthetists who are quite valuable members of society.

    Anaesthesiologists now, according the the RSCI this week


  • Options
    #3606
    Utah_Saint
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭Utah_Saint


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    Have they actually terminated it yet? The reports before was that they intended to because they couldn't get in contact with him, but there hadn't been any confirmation other than a Fox News tweet.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47906169

    they have met him and announced they still intended to sack him....strange choice of words? Either he's sacked or he's not. Why are they still sitting on the fence with the language they're using.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3607
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Utah_Saint wrote: »
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47906169

    they have met him and announced they still intended to sack him....strange choice of words? Either he's sacked or he's not. Why are they still sitting on the fence with the language they're using.

    They may intend to sack him but they have to find out the exact way to do this, without exposing themselves to legal action.
    Sacking someone for not doing anything illegal and which is in line with "sincerely" held religious "beliefs" is not as easy as some people think. Especially when some of his comments are widespread beliefs within the religions which the majority of people purport to follow, just ignored by most.
    Would you expect an organisation to sack someone, in Ireland, for saying that abortion is a sin and they risk hell? Even saying it after the referendum?

    Again I completely agree with him being drop-kicked out of the stadium but they MUST ensure that they have a fully defensible position.


  • Options
    #3608
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,154 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They may intend to sack him but they have to find out the exact way to do this, without exposing themselves to legal action.
    Sacking someone for not doing anything illegal and which is in line with "sincerely" held religious "beliefs" is not as easy as some people think. Especially when some of his comments are widespread beliefs within the religions which the majority of people purport to follow, just ignored by most.
    Would you expect an organisation to sack someone, in Ireland, for saying that abortion is a sin and they risk hell? Even saying it after the referendum?

    Again I completely agree with him being drop-kicked out of the stadium but they MUST ensure that they have a fully defensible position.

    Exactly. They're basically saying we want to sack him but for now we just need to check we can sack him.


  • Options
    #3609
    clsmooth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Anaesthesiologists now, according the the RSCI this week

    No doubt an attempt to avoid further confusion and potential scorn from Israel Folau


  • Options
    #3610
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    clsmooth wrote: »
    No doubt an attempt to avoid further confusion and potential scorn from Israel Folau

    They risk confusion with anti-scientologists now


  • Options
    #3611
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,380 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They may intend to sack him but they have to find out the exact way to do this, without exposing themselves to legal action.
    Sacking someone for not doing anything illegal and which is in line with "sincerely" held religious "beliefs" is not as easy as some people think. Especially when some of his comments are widespread beliefs within the religions which the majority of people purport to follow, just ignored by most.
    Would you expect an organisation to sack someone, in Ireland, for saying that abortion is a sin and they risk hell? Even saying it after the referendum?

    Again I completely agree with him being drop-kicked out of the stadium but they MUST ensure that they have a fully defensible position.
    there is almost certainly a social media clause in his contract and spouting hate speech is not acceptable for a representative of a national sports team


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3612
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Utah_Saint wrote: »
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47906169

    they have met him and announced they still intended to sack him....strange choice of words? Either he's sacked or he's not. Why are they still sitting on the fence with the language they're using.

    It would be completely inappropriate to inform the world that an employee is sacked before formally informing the person themselves.


  • Options
    #3613
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    there is almost certainly a social media clause in his contract and spouting hate speech is not acceptable for a representative of a national sports team

    They need to prove it's hate speech. Saying someone is a sinner and going to hell classifies? If it does great but you're risking saying every preacher is a hate monger etc.
    The question was asked why they intended rather than doing (although stating that you're looking for a reason to fire someone will have its own risks)


  • Options
    #3614
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,608 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They need to prove it's hate speech. Saying someone is a sinner and going to hell classifies? If it does great but you're risking saying every preacher is a hate monger etc.
    The question was asked why they intended rather than doing (although stating that you're looking for a reason to fire someone will have its own risks)

    They absolutely do not need to prove it's hate speech for two reasons.
    1. They are not prosecuting him, merely firing him.
    2. Under Australian Law there is no right to free speech with an exception for Hate Speech (as there is in Ireland). Free speech in Australia only protects you right to criticise governments.


  • Options
    #3615
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    We're all going to Heaven lads waaaaaaaay


  • Options
    #3616
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    errlloyd wrote: »
    They absolutely do not need to prove it's hate speech for two reasons.
    1. They are not prosecuting him, merely firing him.
    2. Under Australian Law there is no right to free speech with an exception for Hate Speech (as there is in Ireland). Free speech in Australia only protects you right to criticise governments.


    Yeah but they have to be careful that they are not firing him for religious reasons, that they are not defaming him etc.
    If they fire him for hate speech they will need to be able to defend that position, if he sues them?
    If they fire him for espousing his religious beliefs, they need to potentially defend a discrimination case?

    The are covering their bases and getting this just right (I hope)


  • Options
    #3617
    b.gud
    Registered Users Posts: 4,806 ✭✭✭b.gud


    Billy V weighs in

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BwJoJq7gW4Q/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=qb06qk6iop3j


  • Options
    #3618
    AdamD
    Registered Users Posts: 12,524 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    There just comes a point when you insult what I grew up believing in that you just say enough is enough

    If what you believe in is idiotic people are going to insult it. Nevermind that its discriminatory..


  • Options
    #3619
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    b.gud wrote: »
    Billy V weighs in

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BwJoJq7gW4Q/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=qb06qk6iop3j

    Ah, the good old "technicalities" argument. I think Billy needs to learn that even the Catholic Church have moved away from the idea that God created us from scratch and that we didn't evolve as we have done. But how bad anyway, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere.


  • Options
    #3620
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Ah Billy.

    You'd think he'd be able to see the furore caused by Folau's post and maybe cop that posting in support of it on social media wouldn't be the best idea in the current storm.


  • Options
    #3621
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Ah, the good old "technicalities" argument. I think Billy needs to learn that even the Catholic Church have moved away from the idea that God created us from scratch and that we didn't evolve as we have done. But how bad anyway, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere.

    They absolutely have not moved away from that.

    Nor have they moved away from the idea that gay people go to hell.

    Let's be very clear on this. Catholic policy is that gays go to hell.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3622
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    They absolutely have not moved away from that.

    Nor have they moved away from the idea that gay people go to hell.

    Let's be very clear on this. Catholic policy is that gays go to hell.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

    They have and the above was just a large public announcement, it's been taught by catholic priest teachers for decades (personal knowledge here of a priest as a secondary school science teacher).
    The Catholics have been very adept in twisting sciences to their dogma.
    A Catholic priest formulated the Big Bang theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre


    The rest of your post...
    Spot on.

    This is why I say that the ARU needs to be very careful on how they proceed. The default position of Catholics and many Christian sects is that being gay or atheist is a sin, and sinners go to hell. He is stating this publicly but it is also stated (indirectly) by any member of staff attending mass/service of one of these sects, especially catholics as you don't get to choose/debate what to follow there.


  • Options
    #3623
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,380 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They need to prove it's hate speech. Saying someone is a sinner and going to hell classifies? If it does great but you're risking saying every preacher is a hate monger etc.
    The question was asked why they intended rather than doing (although stating that you're looking for a reason to fire someone will have its own risks)
    Every preacher who preaches hate is a hate monger.

    This kind of religious attitude is divisive, bigoted and aimed at turning people against targeted and named groups of people.


  • Options
    #3624
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,380 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Billy V needs to cop the fu.ck on and realise that 'the things he has been guilty of' are actions that he regrets in the past, not a fundamental part of his identity and who he is, which is why targeting gay people and saying they are going to hell for being gay is utterly unacceptable in a modern inclusive society.

    He should be given a very stern talking to by his club and country for support Falau in this matter.


  • Options
    #3625
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Every preacher who preaches hate is a hate monger.

    This kind of religious attitude is divisive, bigoted and aimed at turning people against targeted and named groups of people.

    I agree, and all "mainstream" religions target others. But If everyone on that team states that they are Christian, and attend service etc, they are supporting that viewpoint through their beliefs/actions even if they are vocally pro-gay rights in public.

    Seeing as being a Christian is not viewed as a hate-crime (even if that means that you support and believe an organisation's teachings that gays and atheists are sinners and going to hell), they need to be careful about this.
    IMHO religion breeds hate. It has to have a section of society damned, to be better than, to castigate and hate on.
    BUT society has accepted this and only now is embarrassed by public utterances of those beliefs, by believers.
    Even at that only certain topics. Do you think that there would be this outrage if he had mentioned everyone but LGBT, in those posts? Just the fornicators, drunks, atheists?


  • Options
    #3626
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Former Former wrote: »
    molloyjh wrote: »
    Ah, the good old "technicalities" argument. I think Billy needs to learn that even the Catholic Church have moved away from the idea that God created us from scratch and that we didn't evolve as we have done. But how bad anyway, that's probably a discussion for elsewhere.

    They absolutely have not moved away from that.

    Nor have they moved away from the idea that gay people go to hell.

    Let's be very clear on this. Catholic policy is that gays go to hell.

    I never said anything about their policy about homosexuality. I know they believe it's a sin. But they 100% have moved away from the Adam & Eve idea, towards a "evolution was part of Gods plan and he still creates our souls" type of idea.


  • Options
    #3627
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,491 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    I dunno. I kind of think he should be called out on it but at the end of the day Israel Folau is representing Israel Folau and not an official statement of Aussie rugby union etc. Id be more inclined to just ignore what he says rather than make a whole song and dance. Is what Israel Folau says so important that the well-being of the gay community hinges on his beliefs? It’s all well and good to pick up pitchforks and head out for a good old lynching but in a court of law this could get quite sticky. I’d just relearse an official statement that Australia rugby respects a players right to hold views but that these in no way represent the views of Australia rugby etc.


  • Options
    #3628
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,322 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    I dunno. I kind of think he should be called out on it but at the end of the day Israel Folau is representing Israel Folau and not an official statement of Aussie rugby union etc. Id be more inclined to just ignore what he says rather than make a whole song and dance. Is what Israel Folau says so important that the well-being of the gay community hinges on his beliefs? It’s all well and good to pick up pitchforks and head out for a good old lynching but in a court of law this could get quite sticky. I’d just relearse an official statement that Australia rugby respects a players right to hold views but that these in no way represent the views of Australia rugby etc.

    That would be quickly followed by qantas saying Australian rugby are entitled to their views on IF but they won’t be using any of our money for it, we’re off.


  • Options
    #3629
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,491 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    salmocab wrote: »
    That would be quickly followed by qantas saying Australian rugby are entitled to their views on IF but they won’t be using any of our money for it, we’re off.

    Once again that could get sticky in a court of law.


  • Options
    #3630
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,634 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    Once again that could get sticky in a court of law.

    Not really, sponsors are more than welcome to pull their sponsorship if their association can negatively harm their image.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3631
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,322 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    Once again that could get sticky in a court of law.

    I’d say a company like Qantas have plenty of outs written into their contracts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement