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

Airing Religious Views

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Iang87 wrote: »
    Its not a crime to air his views, he's very much allowed to.

    I'm at work now and if I walk into the LGBT council meeting here and say "Well lads ye are all going to hell" then I fully expect to find my p45 on my desk when I get back.

    Your views are your views but employers, that pay you, may not share your views which is their right also. If they no longer want to keep you because you don't fit what they feel is best for their company then out you go.

    For what its worth I do not share his views and think fair play to Australian rugby for taking a stand against probably their best player.

    Business are under pressure from the authoritarian PC left, if business choose to fire someone for holding a view like this rugby player, it's really a coerced decision


  • Options
    #153
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    as long as these rules are applied evenly, fair enough. i would say the fact that he is a christian gave his employers an easier decision than if he had been one of the other Abrahamic religions however.


  • Options
    #154
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    as long as these rules are applied evenly, fair enough. i would say the fact that he is a christian gave his employers an easier decision than if he had been one of the other Abrahamic religions however.

    I'm sure if a Jew who is playing rugby for the ARFU said it they would face the same sanctions. That is who you mean isn't ?


  • Options
    #155
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    Business are under pressure from the authoritarian PC left, if business choose to fire someone for holding a view like this rugby player, it's really a coerced decision

    He. was. fired. for. breaching. his. code. of. employment.

    He signed the contract.
    He broke the contract.
    He received a warning.
    He did it again.
    He was fired.

    How in the honour of uck is that the fault of the 'authoritarian PC left'?


  • Options
    #156
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I'm sure if a Jew who is playing rugby for the ARFU said it they would face the same sanctions. That is who you mean isn't ?
    a Jew or Muslim may have received the same sanction but it would have been squeeky bum time in the board room


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    twinytwo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,194 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    grahambo wrote: »
    The Rule in 2019 is:
    You're not allowed to say anything that might "trigger" some mad person or upset a delicate snow flake.

    Basically the world has to pretend to be super inclusive, accepting and culturally diverse even though it really isn't.
    .

    Has a truer ever been spoken on boards????


  • Options
    #158
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    twinytwo wrote: »
    Has a truer ever been spoken on boards????
    and through this pretence; utopia.


  • Options
    #159
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    a Jew or Muslim may have received the same sanction but it would have been squeeky bum time in the board room

    Whatever.

    You have gone from wouldn't have happened to would have happened but...

    You have no idea how squeaky the bums were on this occasion but sure - use this to have a go at the 'other Abrahamic religions' .


  • Options
    #160
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    not having a go at the religions themselves, rather the fear of crossing them, looking forward to the next gay cake controversy involving a Muslim bakery btw.

    as i said, as long as these rules are evenly applied its fair.


  • Options
    #161
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    not having a go at the religions themselves, rather the fear of crossing them, looking forward to the next gay cake controversy involving a Muslim bakery btw.

    as i said, as long as these rules are evenly applied its fair.

    This has nothing to do with cakes. That was a private business declining to provide a service to a customer.
    I don't have an issue with that.

    This is about an employee who is paid to represent his country and, as part of that, signed up to a very clear set of terms and conditions, deciding to break his contract not once but twice.
    No one forced him to sign the contract.
    He was given a chance after his first breach of contract.

    Why should Folau be allowed to pick and choose which bits of the code he agreed to by signing the contract he will respect? That is asking for special treatment due to his religious beliefs and the very opposite of equality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    twinytwo wrote: »
    Has a truer ever been spoken on boards????

    Lmfao

    You dont have to be a part of polite society if you dont want

    Just dont be surprised when you get shunned


  • Options
    #163
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Yes that your correction of someone else's bible verse was also incorrect.

    You were wrong, they were wrong, there is no right english bible verse because every english bible verse is at some point a translation and all the other ambiguites of the bibles creation aside a translation is an iterpertation.

    We could say that about any translation of any language. It's a nonsense arguement.


    The original

    זכר. נקבה You'll be able to understand them without translating I assume!


  • Options
    #164
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,789 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Aubrie Thoughtless Spy wrote: »
    We could say that about any translation of any language. It's a nonsense arguement.

    Indeed any translation of the bible in any language is nonsense. I concur.


  • Options
    #165
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Indeed any translation of the bible in any language is nonsense. I concur.

    I've given you the original above.


  • Options
    #166
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with cakes. That was a private business declining to provide a service to a customer.
    I don't have an issue with that.

    This is about an employee who is paid to represent his country and, as part of that, signed up to a very clear set of terms and conditions, deciding to break his contract not once but twice.
    No one forced him to sign the contract.
    He was given a chance after his first breach of contract.

    Why should Folau be allowed to pick and choose which bits of the code he agreed to by signing the contract he will respect? That is asking for special treatment due to his religious beliefs and the very opposite of equality.

    yep i agree with all that


  • Options
    #167
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,789 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Aubrie Thoughtless Spy wrote: »
    I've given you the original above.

    No you did not.
    What you provided is not the original text of the verse you claim.


  • Options
    #168
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    This is about an employee who is paid to represent his country and, as part of that, signed up to a very clear set of terms and conditions, deciding to break his contract not once but twice.
    No one forced him to sign the contract.
    He was given a chance after his first breach of contract.

    Why should Folau be allowed to pick and choose which bits of the code he agreed to by signing the contract he will respect? That is asking for special treatment due to his religious beliefs and the very opposite of equality.

    There are a few issues here and it's not as simple as saying he breached his contract.

    Firstly, did he breach his contract.
    Secondly, is the contract fair.
    Thirdly, does the contract discriminate against his religious views.
    Fourthly, did he receive fair procedure?

    I'm kind of doubtful about the fair procedure part. He posted the comments (picture containing the comments - not sure if you could call it a meme) on the 10th and you had Michael Cheika (Oz manager) saying on the 11th that he wouldn't be able to select him any more and that he was going to be sacked. Sounds like a pre-judgement to me.

    I can see Falau being paid his contract to fcuk off.


  • Options
    #169
    Pauliedragon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Pauliedragon


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    There are a few issues here and it's not as simple as saying he breached his contract.

    Firstly, did he breach his contract.
    Secondly, is the contract fair.
    Thirdly, does the contract discriminate against his religious views.
    Fourthly, did he receive fair procedure?

    I'm kind of doubtful about the fair procedure part. He posted the comments (picture containing the comments - not sure if you could call it a meme) on the 10th and you had Michael Cheika (Oz manager) saying on the 11th that he wouldn't be able to select him any more and that he was going to be sacked. Sounds like a pre-judgement to me.

    I can see Falau being paid his contract to fcuk off.
    There had been reports that he had a clause in his latest contract about these posts but the last few days papers are saying they weren't put in which could be a big balls up RA if true. Rugby over there. simply don't have 3 or 4 million to pay him off.


  • Options
    #170
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Pauliedragon wrote: »
    There had been reports that he had a clause in his latest contract about these posts but the last few days papers are saying they weren't put in which could be a big balls up RA if true. Rugby over there. simply don't have 3 or 4 million to pay him off.

    It'll be interesting to see how this plays out under employment law.


  • Options
    #171
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    There are a few issues here and it's not as simple as saying he breached his contract.

    Firstly, did he breach his contract.
    Secondly, is the contract fair.
    Thirdly, does the contract discriminate against his religious views.
    Fourthly, did he receive fair procedure?

    I'm kind of doubtful about the fair procedure part. He posted the comments (picture containing the comments - not sure if you could call it a meme) on the 10th and you had Michael Cheika (Oz manager) saying on the 11th that he wouldn't be able to select him any more and that he was going to be sacked. Sounds like a pre-judgement to me.

    I can see Falau being paid his contract to fcuk off.

    Yes. He breached his contract. The code is clear about what is expected.

    You can be damn sure he didn't just ruck up (pun intended) all alone and naive when the contract was negotiated - he would have had an agent and/or legal advice. If he didn't then he is an idiot. But is he an idiot who read what he siged? If he didn't he's an eejt of an idiot but that doesn't make the contract either void or 'unfair'.

    There is zero evidence he attempted to have an exemption inserted to allow him to break the ARFU's code on religious terms. But even if he did and they refused - he signed the contract.

    'Unfair' would be if he was the only one expected to adhere to the code - he isn't. It applies to all players contracted to the ARFU.

    He wants to get his million a year but not have to abide by the terms and conditions applied to all the other players.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,938 ✭✭✭circadian


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The minority get to tell us now what is right and what is wrong.

    No they don't.


  • Options
    #173
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes. He breached his contract. The code is clear about what is expected.

    You can be damn sure he didn't just ruck up (pun intended) all alone and naive when the contract was negotiated - he would have had an agent and/or legal advice. If he didn't then he is an idiot. But is he an idiot who read what he siged? If he didn't he's an eejt of an idiot but that doesn't make the contract either void or 'unfair'.

    There is zero evidence he attempted to have an exemption inserted to allow him to break the ARFU's code on religious terms. But even if he did and they refused - he signed the contract.

    'Unfair' would be if he was the only one expected to adhere to the code - he isn't. It applies to all players contracted to the ARFU.

    He wants to get his million a year but not have to abide by the terms and conditions applied to all the other players.

    I do apologise. I didn't realise that you are a lawyer with expertise in Australian employment law and have a copy of Falau's contract to hand.


  • Options
    #174
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,789 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I do apologise. I didn't realise that you are a lawyer with expertise in Australian employment law and have a copy of Falau's contract to hand.

    Niksa posted a link to the rugby Australia's Code of Conduct.
    Falau does not seem to have adhered to it.

    Niska wrote: »
    The Rugby Australia's Code of Conduct can be found here:

    https://www.rugbyau.com/about/codes-and-policies/all-codes-and-policies

    The specific codes brached are:

    Quote
    1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual
    orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,
    harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

    Quote:
    1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do
    not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as
    a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.



    His use of social media (1.7) clearly breaches (1.3) - he clearly breached his contract, and thus his termination (after a warning last year) is justified re the code of conduct.

    When he signed his contract he (or his agent) should of noted whether 1.3 was compatible with his beliefs or not. If he felt his freedom of belief was constrained he should either have not signed the contract, or requested an amendment to accommodate him.


  • Options
    #175
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Niksa posted a link to the rugby Australia's Code of Conduct.
    Falau does not seem to have adhered to it.


    I somewhat agree that he doesn't appear to have adhered to it if:

    1. He didn't treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability.

    2. Make a public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.

    And even if he is guilty of breaching the above clauses, did he get fair procedure in accordance with the ARU disciplinary processes. It seems to me that the ARU were very swift to announce his sacking. I thought that you had to have a hearing before you are sacked?

    So even if he is 100% guilty, he is still entitled to fair procedure. And his employer would have broken the law if they didn't give him fair procedure.


  • Options
    #176
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I do apologise. I didn't realise that you are a lawyer with expertise in Australian employment law and have a copy of Falau's contract to hand.

    I am familiar with Australian employment law as it happens.
    But more to point I took the time to read the code of conduct.


  • Options
    #177
    jim o doom
    Registered Users Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭jim o doom


    Captain Flaps wrote: »
    He's exercising his freedom of speech, he won't go to jail for it and it's not a crime. His employer has simply exercised their own right to disagree with him and assert that such beliefs are at odds with the ethos of their organisation so they have severed ties with him. I don't see a problem with this. He's not been silenced at all, he's still free to post whatever he wants on social media (although instagram are equally free to remove him if they choose).

    Too many people conflate freedom to air views with the right to a platform. He can express his views anywhere he wants at any time, but nobody has to entertain him if they don't want to.

    This is the most logically worded and thought out argument around all of this.

    So many people think that the organisation he is part of shouldn't be allowed to censure him for making a statement which was at odds with an agreement he holds with that same employer.

    If he had no freedom of speech he would be jailed for it, but he hasn't been jailed, he's just (hopefully) losing his job.


  • Options
    #178
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I am familiar with Australian employment law as it happens.
    But more to point I took the time to read the code of conduct.

    He could be in trouble not only for the code of conduct but the code of inclusion also.

    But just because it looks like that from the outside, nothing is ever simple when it comes to legal matters. Plenty of contracts have been thrown out in the past.

    And even if Falau is in breach of his contract and the contract is all above board, there's still the issue of him being sacked without due process.

    Plenty still to be argued.


  • Options
    #179
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,322 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    I can't believe the amount of admitted atheists or non-religious ppl here who are so fervently defending the right of Christian fundamentalist of all ppl to air their views. Literally don't believe it because there is obviously a little bit more to the reason anyone would be motivated to take such a stance in relation to this case.

    Today the EDL and other right-wing organizations were banned from Facebook and other social media platforms. Where are all the ppl defending those groups to air their opinions?


  • Options
    #180
    Captain Flaps
    Registered Users Posts: 1,834 ✭✭✭Captain Flaps


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I can't believe the amount of admitted atheists or non-religious ppl here who are so fervently defending the right of Christian fundamentalist of all ppl to air their views. Literally don't believe it because there is obviously a little bit more to the reason anyone would be motivated to take such a stance in relation to this case.

    Today the EDL and other right-wing organizations were banned from Facebook and other social media platforms. Where are all the ppl defending those groups to air their opinions?

    Eh, have a gander at the Tommy Robinson thread. There are loads of them here, they're just not awake yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    He could be in trouble not only for the code of conduct but the code of inclusion also.

    But just because it looks like that from the outside, nothing is ever simple when it comes to legal matters. Plenty of contracts have been thrown out in the past.

    And even if Falau is in breach of his contract and the contract is all above board, there's still the issue of him being sacked without due process.

    Plenty still to be argued.

    Well, all I can say is I am familiar with Australian employment because I found out how easy it is to lose your job there. So I read up on it.
    3 different employers I worked for either sold the business or brought in outside contractors to take over part of it. In each case I was offered a 'new' job (i.e. old job but with worse terms and conditions) but a good few people came into work one day and were told "yup- sorry. Job gone."

    Procedurally it all hinges on what was said when he received a warned in year ago.If they said - do it again and you're gone mate....


Advertisement