Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

eagle eye wrote: »

People should have the right to voice their opinions so long as it's only speech and they are not out breaking the law.
One guy is gay and unhappy about the religious guy saying he is going to hell. Should the guy castigating the man who is religious for being religious not suffer the same fate?

Folau is entitled to say whatever he wants. He’s not entitled to say it with no consequences.

cgcsb wrote: »

Now you're getting it.

Keep your condescension in your back pocket. It's what I have been saying all along. Some people are happy to see a company like Qantas use its influence to have a player sacked if it suits their purpose. Those are the people who don't get it.

salmocab wrote: »

Folau is entitled to say whatever he wants. He’s not entitled to say it with no consequences.

Why not?

cgcsb wrote:

No

Why not?

magicbastarder wrote: »

has the concept of tweeting been around long enough that it can be considered part of practicing your religion?
i know plenty of people who practice their religion who don't even have a twitter account.

If he is being true to his religion then it is his duty to preach the word and convert others.

Folau is merely a pawn.

he's a grown man, responsible for his own opinions. you're letting him off the hook - and patronising him too.

Tell me how

Varta wrote: »

If he is being true to his religion then it is his duty to preach the word and convert others.

Folau is merely a pawn.

Ok. Let him preach. But not as an employee of AR.

cgcsb

Varta wrote: »

If he is being true to his religion then it is his duty to preach the word and convert others.

Folau is merely a pawn.

That's fine, he can be a pawn or he can be employed, he chose the former. Maybe his religious organisation will give him a salary for his pawning.

eagle eye wrote: »

One guy is gay and unhappy about the religious guy saying he is going to hell. Should the guy castigating the man who is religious for being religious not suffer the same fate?

are you genuinely trying to claim the two sides are equivalent?

seamus

Varta wrote: »

Why not?

Because speech has consequences.

This is the simple, "should someone be permitted to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre without consequences?" question.

The answer is quite obviously "no", since the act of doing so is dangerous.

If the things you say have no impact, then you will suffer no consequences.

magicbastarder wrote:

are you genuinely trying to claim the two sides are equivalent?

It's similar.

magicbastarder wrote: »

he's a grown man, responsible for his own opinions. you're letting him off the hook - and patronising him too.

And an opinion is exactly what it is. An opinion that is based on superstitious nonsense. Promising a punishment that doesn't even exist. As for patronising him, I have no time for anyone's religion. I don't, however, deny people the right to preach.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

Is he not entitled to his own opinions? Why should it cost him his job? Are we that far gone that you can't day your bit in public anymore without serious repercussions?
Who wants to live in this type if world?

You've previously had no problems with Colin Kaepernick being blacklisted... Bit of a double standard, no? Kaepernick was far less controversial and had human decency behind his motivation.

eagle eye wrote: »

It's similar.

i'm all ears. how is the act of objecting to homophobia similar to homophobia?

Varta wrote: »

Why not?

Because he has/had an employer who expected certain thing of him, he didn’t keep his end of the bargain up so there were consequences. I really don’t see what you have any issue with. He knew what would likely happen and did it regardless.

batgoat wrote:

You've previously had no problems with Colin Kaepernick being blacklisted... Bit of a double standard, no? Kaep

And I explained that it was because it would split the locker room.
I don't think this would.
Ridiculous comparison.

seamus wrote: »

Because speech has consequences.

This is the simple, "should someone be permitted to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre without consequences?" question.

The answer is quite obviously "no", since the act of doing so is dangerous.

If the things you say have no impact, then you will suffer no consequences.

Utter nonsense. It is anything but a simple question. Are you going to put a gagging order on every preacher in the world? Religion, all religion, is infused with hatred. All preachers preach hatred at some time or other. The love bit is just marketing. The person yelling 'fire' is not preaching.

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

And I explained that it was because it would split the locker room.
I don't think this would.
Ridiculous comparison.

Not at all, how do you think a gay player would feel about this? Attitudes like this would make players less likely to come out or less likely to play with him. It could negatively impact the sport to have a homophobic association.

batgoat wrote: »

Not at all, how do you think a gay player would feel about this? Attitudes like this would make players less likely to come out or less likely to play with him. It could negatively impact the sport to have a homophobic association.

How would a gay Liverpool player feel about Mo Salah's constant praying and devotion, knowing that religion's attitude to gay people? The same can be said for David Luiz.

eagle eye wrote: »

And I explained that it was because it would split the locker room.
I don't think this would.
Ridiculous comparison.

I’d say it would David pocock has very strong views on homophobia

eagle eye wrote: »

Ridiculous comparison.

yet you're comfortable with comparing homophobia to an objection to homophobia.

Varta wrote: »

How would a gay Liverpool player feel about Mo Salah's constant praying and devotion, knowing that religion's attitude to gay people? The same can be said for David Luiz.

So long as he keeps his views to himself I doubt they’d care. It’s not his views but expressing publicily them that are the problem.

Vunipola warned by Saracens for supporting Folau. This is becoming ridiculous.

Time for a new rugby union organisation which allows you to have an opinion.

batgoat

Varta wrote: »

How would a gay Liverpool player feel about Mo Salah's constant praying and devotion, knowing that religion's attitude to gay people? The same can be said for David Luiz.

Salah isn't publicly condemning gay people, it would likely get him in trouble with his team as well.

batgoat wrote:

Not at all, how do you think a gay player would feel about this? Attitudes like this would make players less likely to come out or less likely to play with him. It could negatively impact the sport to have a homophobic association.

I don't think it's fair to call Folau homophobic. He is just calling them sinners not showing any fear of them.

eagle eye wrote: »

Vunipola warned by Saracens for supporting Folau. This is becoming ridiculous.

Time for a new rugby union organisation which allows you to have an opinion.

Nobody is stopping anyone from having an opinion