nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

salmocab wrote: »

We may not like it but that’s the way it has to be, otherwise we get to extremities where a teacher with anti Semitic leanings could be teaching Jewish kids whilst in their own time walking in fascist parades dressed like SS storm troopers.

And this is the thing, as long as we are aware of it.
I agree that he had to go but we need to just be aware of the potential consequences of how he went.

Same with Olding and Jackson last year. Non illegal actions and comments are grounds for dismissal if they are deemed against the nebulous Ethos of an organisation (I say nebulous intentionally as that can change based on publicity and public sentiment, or just if they are looking to sack you without redundancy).

Bannasidhe

Varta wrote: »

Inclusivity is a good thing, but that is not what sports is 'about'.
Playing for the national team is indeed about representing your country, but it is also about the individual's personal achievement in the sport.
Sports people representing their country should only be held to account while they are actually engaged in representing their country.

I'm sorry but I think your view of what sport is about is very naive.
Inclusivity is very much is what a sport like rugby is trying to be about because it is trying to grow and attract the best players (male and female) from all parts of society and the widest possible range of male and female supporters - and therefore the widest range of sponsors to pay the players and build infrastructure. In Australia Rugby Union is far less popular than Aussie Rules or Rugby League - both of which rely on fanatical local support. Union is trying to go beyond this and appeal to the widest possible audience.

At it's most basic level Team sports are built on playing for the Team, being part of a team. Falou was/is part of Team Australia. While identified as a member of Team Australia he broadcast (which is what he did) a list of 'sins' and stated that people who had committed those 'sins' are, in his view, damned. You can be sure many of his teammates (and members of their families) could tick a few of those boxes. Therefore he has threatened team cohesion. That can have serious on field consequences. Because you know what - people can be a bit 'slow' in getting there in support of a fellow player when that player has been a dick. That's human nature.

No - playing on a team for your country is about which combination is most likely to succeed. You can, individually, be the greatest player in the world but if you don't play well with others than you are a liability. There were 14 other people playing alongside Falou - how many of them has he called sinners?

His profile picture has him in full flight 'representing' his country. His platform exists because he represents his country. He used that platform to express views that do not represent his country.

As I said, Falou was free to retire and express his views as an individual. He didn't do that. He decided that despite warnings he would use his position as a representative of his country to publicly pass judgement on others.

cgcsb

SoundsRight wrote: »

I'm pleased that he isn't backing down. A man has the right to express his beliefs. If some people get upset over it, that's on them. Would we really want to live in a world where people are constantly worried about upsetting someone's feelings?

That's fine, he expressed his beliefs twice and lost his employment after being warned of same the first time, everyone's a winner.

cgcsb

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As someone who holds the belief that homosexuality is sinful,

How can you square the above with the below? You're saying you have a baseless, blind belief in some nebulous concept of 'sin' and then below you are criticising others for their beliefs supposedly not having a basis in reality.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

These people who have a genuine problem that I sympathise with believe that gender and sex are disconnected and that their gender is whatever they wish to choose to identify with. This is pure fantasy and has no basis in reality, yet they’re entitled to believe this if they want.

cgcsb

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

Well that's where you're wrong kiddo. If I sell company data to the Chinese in my spare time, that's the company's business. Similarly, if I have a public persona based on my career as a sports person, under contract, and I use that persona to tweet some crap, yes it's the employers business.

cgcsb

Varta wrote: »

If he had said that gays should go to prison or somewhere else tangible then by all means punish him for it. But he said that the are going to a place that is a figment of his imagination. Therefore, he hasn't really said anything, has he?

Hell doesn't exist, but he believes that it does, if he believes it then the intention of the statement was clearly derogatory. For him hell is as real as prison.

Sonics2k

antiskeptic wrote: »

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

In all the bickering about Hell, religion and moral compasses, people have forgotten one key thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

You are absolutely allowed to state what you believe, however this does not mean you are free from repercussions. Exactly the same as if he said all Jews/black/asian etc people were going to hell.

jim o doom

Sonics2k wrote: »

You are absolutely allowed to state what you believe, however this does not mean you are free from repercussions. Exactly the same as if he said all Jews/black/asian etc people were going to hell.

I couldn't agree more. A person is free to state anything they want, but they will suffer the consequences.

If a man insults another in public, which he is free to do so, he may well suffer the repercussion of a dig in the head.

Actions have consequences. If he wasn't free to make the statement in the first place, which is resulting in him likely being dropped from the team, then he wouldn't have made it and we wouldn't have read of it.

partyguinness

Whatever one's beliefs it must be borne in mind that as a well known sports personality what you say and do will be held up to a higher level of scrutiny.

If you go around saying things like that (fine it's biblical and all that nonsense) then it is very hard to stop impressionable Joe Soap in the street snowballing that into something else more sinister.

If you say that all gays will go to hell then it's a very small step toward that being the acceptable norm then intolerance is acceptable then a lynch mob is acceptable then violence is acceptable- 'oh but that's what the bible says.' It will simply be hijacked by groups in society for more sinister motives and to justify intolerance and hate toward a particular group. Because it has become the norm then nobody will bat an eyelid- we sleep walk into anarchy.

The Bible or freedom of speech generally is not carte blanche to say what you want and to hell with the consequences. It is not freedom to offend or marginalize who you want.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly - if you aren't inclusive then you may not get the best people. The best people may decide that sport is not for me as it's dominated by narrow minded bigots.

Its ironic that you are using this argument.
This guy is the best... and yet you want him off the team.

Secondly - if sports people wish to get paid the big bucks - which the majority of the professionals do- they need to be aware of where their wages comes from. Yes, money plays a huge role. That money comes from sponsors, merchandise, and supporters. Having your sport associated with any fundamentalist view (in this instance fundamentalist Christianity) is bad business.
If expressing your religious views are more important to a person than abiding by the terms and conditions of the contract they enter into then remain amateur. In short - they can have their cake or they can eat it.

Now you're saying that the sponsors get to decide what the guy can and cannot say. That is true to an extent, but there is a danger that the guy could turn the tables and play the victim himself. Just as you can't sack an employee for being openly gay, you can't sack an employee for openly being a Christian fundamentalist either.

Thirdly - playing for the national team is about representing your country - not your religion or yourself. You are there to represent all the people of your country. Not just the ones you approve of.

That's not true though. If you are the President, then you are there to represent your country. If you are a sports star, you are there to win.
To win glory both for yourself, and for your country.
Here's a list of some religious sportsmen who refused to compromise their faith for their sport (with mixed results). Including that guy from the Chariots of Fire film.

Personally, I don't care what their religion is, what colour they are, or what their views on homosexuality are. These guys are sportsmen, the best in the world. Celebrate that.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Its ironic that you are using this argument.
This guy is the best... and yet you want him off the team.

Now you're saying that the sponsors get to decide what the guy can and cannot say. That is true to an extent, but there is a danger that the guy could turn the tables and play the victim himself. Just as you can't sack an employee for being openly gay, you can't sack an employee for openly being a Christian fundamentalist either.

That's not true though. If you are the President, then you are there to represent your country. If you are a sports star, you are there to win.
To win glory both for yourself, and for your country.
Here's a list of some religious sportsmen who refused to compromise their faith for their sport (with mixed results). Including that guy from the Chariots of Fire film.

Personally, I don't care what their religion is, what colour they are, or what their views on homosexuality are. These guys are sportsmen, the best in the world. Celebrate that.

Where exactly did I say that I want him off the team?
I am discussing why the ARFU may want him off the team.
Because he has shown his personal beliefs are above the Team is, however, to my mind as an ex rugby player, a damn good reason. He is the 'best' only because 14 other people create the opportunities for him to be the 'best'. If they stop - he becomes not only the 'worst', but a liability.

You take the sponsors money - you dance to their tune. If you want to go it alone find a way. Martina Navratilova did when her sponsors dropped her for coming out.

He wasn't sacked for being a Christian Fundamentalist. He has always been a Christian Fundamentalist. He was sacked for expressing views which brought his employers into disrepute - via a platform he has due to his job - and which he had previously been warned not to do. It was 2 strikes and he's out.

Then let his playing ability speak for him. When he is no longer receiving a large salary to represent his country he can say what he likes.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Personally, I don't care what their religion is, what colour they are, or what their views on homosexuality are. These guys are sportsmen, the best in the world. Celebrate that.

You might not, but if the guy is an openly homophobic bigot the team won't want him, the sponsors won't want him, the clubs won't want him and the audience won't want him. He's fully entitled to his freedom of religious expression, but he isn't entitled to be paid top dollar to be part of an elite sports team. That's a position that carries responsibilities on and off the field.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Just as you can't sack an employee for being openly gay, you can't sack an employee for openly being a Christian fundamentalist either.

This is where people display a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between having thoughts in your head that may not be compatible with society, and actually doing things that are not compatible. And I'm somewhat surprised at you, because you know the difference here.

Being "openly" gay simply means that you don't pretend that you're not. That you don't avoid the discussion or pretend to be heterosexual when such topics come up.

Likewise being "openly" christian means that you don't pretend that you're not. Or claim to be Muslim if the topic comes up.

Being "openly" gay does not mean grinding yourself on your hot male co-worker's leg, wearing leather chaps on casual Friday or being overtly sexualised in the office. None of these things are acceptable from anyone regardless of sexuality.

Likewise being "openly" Christian does not mean holding prayer meetings in earshot of the whole office, publically telling co-workers, customers and the general public that their lifestyle is evil, or starting religious debates over the water cooler.
None of these things are acceptable regardless of your religion (or lack thereof).

Being fired from your job as a high-profile role model and sponsorship icon because you posted something hateful on Twitter is not "oppression". It's gross incompetence.

Anteayer

To me, this illustrates a bit of a cultural dilemma at the moment. We've developed a notion that people have an absolute right to express any opinion, no matter how vile or stupid, and that somehow that just because it's a firmly held belief (especially if religious, but sometimes political) that it should be completely above criticism or consequence.

You're seeing it a lot with statements of hatred that are couched in various religious beliefs (often stretching them to extremes). You're also seeing a lot of just downright stupid stuff like media outlets feeling they need to actually 'respect' the opinion that the earth is flat. It's by no means unique to Christianity either.

You do have a very broad ranging right to freedom of speech in most developed democracies, including this one, but there are limits to that and it does not protect you from there being consequences, just your right to express the views.

Even in the USA with the 1st amendment rights, which are very broad, there are limits. In some cases they far tighter than here - e.g. try yelling obscenities in a public place in some states, telling a police officer to go **** himself or something like that and you'll find very hard and fast consequences to your freedom of expression.

You've also got limitations around things like libel and defamation protections in most democratic societies. Again, even if the US there are limits to what you can say about someone and while the bar might be higher than here due to the first amendment, really malicious stuff can lead to lawsuits resulting in compensation payments and/or injunctions.

Likewise, I can't just go around harassing people and claiming that it's my absolute right to freedom of speech to do so. In almost every country, that will land you in front of a judge eventually.

We also have a general legal acceptance in this country and most other that minority groups are protected from harassment or attempts to provoke hatred. In Ireland this would be covered largely under the Incitement to Hatred Act and in other countries similar legislation would apply.

The reality is that social mores and legal norms have evolved around LGBT+ rights in all western democracies. What he has said might have been acceptable in the 1950s and might be acceptable in some homophobic regimes around the world, but it's absolutely not in Australia or in many other countries.

Also, if you're the front-facing representative of a big brand as an ambassador, a sports star or even sometimes working for a company, you usually have to sign up to a code of conduct and agree to things like not bringing the brand into disrepute.

So for example, if I were in a branded company vehicle and decided to drive really badly, giving everyone the finger as I went past and shouting homophobic abuse out the window, I'd probably be fired. Being a representative of a team is quite similar to that.

The simple reality is that an absolute right to freedom of speech without any consequences does not exist anywhere in the world. Your freedom of expression is highly protected, but there are limits.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Being "openly" gay does not mean grinding yourself on your hot male co-worker's leg, wearing leather chaps on casual Friday or being overtly sexualised in the office. None of these things are acceptable from anyone regardless of sexuality.

Likewise being "openly" Christian does not mean holding prayer meetings in earshot of the whole office, publically telling co-workers, customers and the general public that their lifestyle is evil, or starting religious debates over the water cooler.
None of these things are acceptable regardless of your religion (or lack thereof).

"Grinding on a co-workers leg" or any kind of sexual harassment is a completely different thing.
What if a homosexual tweeted details of his/her weekend activities, would that be a sacking offence?
I agree with your general point on thinking something versus doing something but the problem is where do you draw that line in the sand?
Is tweeting doing something?

How about tweeting outside office hours?

And I think you will have to admit that this guy that not do anything that would fall foul of any employment or sexual harassment laws.

Whether he fell foul of the small print in his contract is another matter. I don't know whats in his contract. But I know sponsors are generally scared $hitless of the kind of negative online social media campaigns that could result from something like this.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

"Grinding on a co-workers leg" or any kind of sexual harassment is a completely different thing.
What if a homosexual tweeted details of his/her weekend activities, would that be a sacking offence?

What details though?
Graphic sexual details?
Or more like "I went browsing in Ikea with my partner as part of our healthy relationship"?

Cause neither are really comparable...

mcmoustache

If my twitter account made clear who I work for and had my company's logo and I tweeted that kind of nonsense, I would likely be told to knock it off or be sacked.

This is not as complicated or as fuzzy as people are trying to make it out to be. You can't be making derogatory statements about classes of people on a public platform while representing an organisation. It's really not complicated.

It's no different than had he tweeted that Christians are all a bunch of incestuous morons and got the sack.

Stop trying to spin this into a free-speech issue - it's the go-to these days whenever someone faces social consequences for being a díck to gays or brown people but the spin doesn't work as can be seen in the Gemma O Doherty, Alex jones and Tommy Robinson threads in AH.

salmocab

recedite wrote: »

"

Whether he fell foul of the small print in his contract is another matter. I don't know whats in his contract. But I know sponsors are generally scared $hitless of the kind of negative online social media campaigns that could result from something like this.

His employers are more scared ****less of the sponsors, who in this case have a top man who happens to be gay. He also fell foul of his contract and was rebuked before about this behavior.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Whether he fell foul of the small print in his contract is another matter.

As a rule of thumb, I'd imagine you can say whatever you like about yourself but the problems start when you start suggesting other people unknown to you should be damned to an eternity of suffering because they don't share your worldview. I'm not sure why the OP posted here, other than perhaps to troll the A&A, given that along with the entirety of the gay community all us filthy pagans good atheist folk are also damned to hell in this plonkers book.

smacl

King Mob wrote: »

I went browsing in Ikea with my partner...

Nice one. You've just nailed my personal notion of hell :pac:

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Nice one. You've just nailed my personal notion of hell :pac:

My SO can actually navigate IKEA.
At first I was afraid, I was petrified.
But then she guided me back to sofa furnishings via a wardrobe.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Is tweeting doing something?

How about tweeting outside office hours?

Both yes. Tweeting is a public broadcast. You're saying things that you intend for the public to hear.

Plenty of people would get fired or disciplined for tweeting things out of office hours and on a personal account. Most employment contracts include a requirement not to bring your employer into disrepute.

If you're a well known representative of your employer, then making public statements that damage their reputation is going to get you in trouble.

mcmoustache

seamus wrote: »

If you're a well known representative of your employer, then making public statements that damage their reputation is going to get you in trouble.

This is simple stuff. It's been like this for as long as I remember.

Varta

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sorry but I think your view of what sport is about is very naive.

You can think whatever you like. Sport is being hijacked by people who want something to pin their beliefs/agendas/politics/etc onto. I see it in its purest form and I believe most people who play a sport see it that way. In fact, it's a great way to get away from all that sh*te.

Bannasidhe

Varta wrote: »

You can think whatever you like. Sport is being hijacked by people who want something to pin their beliefs/agendas/politics/etc onto. I see it in its purest form and I believe most people who play a sport see it that way. In fact, it's a great way to get away from all that sh*te.

And pinning his sh*te on sport is exactly what Falou has done,

Varta

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I never said that?

I don't understand it, but it's there. Nobody seriously believes in the flying spaghetti monster though. Not entering the spaceship is not a threat to anyone, but going to hell very much is.

Think of not entering the spaceship as not entering Heaven ;-)
And I believe that if you are to accept people's right to religion then you have to accept everyone's right to religion. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as valid as The Catholic church.

Varta

cgcsb wrote: »

Hell doesn't exist, but he believes that it does, if he believes it then the intention of the statement was clearly derogatory. For him hell is as real as prison.

Tackling him is the easy part (no pun intended). Let's see if the same people calling for him to be banned are prepared to ban his church.

Varta

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And pinning his sh*te on sport is exactly what Falou has done,

Agreed. The question is should he have been banned for it. And if you agree that he should, why stop with him? Surely his church must also be banned from any public events or bodies it associates with.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

If you're a well known representative of your employer, then making public statements that damage their reputation is going to get you in trouble.

mcmoustache wrote: »

This is simple stuff. It's been like this for as long as I remember.

Its not simple stuff, because seamus here keeps conflating things like employment law, sexual harassment and incitement to hatred with the much more vague "reputational damage" that might "get you in trouble".

I mean, I have worked in places where somebody being openly gay would have caused enough "reputational damage" to get themselves into trouble. And that was justified (not by me) because "that was the way it was for as long as anyone could remember".

Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.

and?
to cast 'being gay' and 'being homophobic' as somehow equivalent, in terms of people's reaction to it, is a little odd.
or to cast it as a 'we can't tackle the bullies because we'd have to be mean to them' approach is a bit disingenuous.