homer911 wrote: » There cant be discrimination unless you now consider him to be God and he is making the decisions about Heaven and Hell. Also how can quoting the Bible be perceived as discrimination? The world has yet to come up with a law that considers pointing out to sinners their future, as being discriminatory or racist. I'm also pretty sure that this Bible quote was directed at Christians, warning them not to live like pagans
sydthebeat wrote: » If the Bible discriminates and espouses hate, as folaus interpretation is of it, then that hateful message should not be allowed to be spread. Simples.
recedite wrote: » That's your opinion that its a message of hate, and not a friendly warning. What you're advocating now is a ban on the bible's message, which is really a separate free speech and/or freedom of religion issue. But if this player is accused of "discrimination" then you must show how he somehow disadvantaged. or prevented the participation of a homosexual in rugby.
amcalester wrote: » Discrimination isn’t measured by the outcome, it’s measured by the intention.
troyzer wrote: » You have freedom of religion and speech but you are not free from consequences.
recedite wrote: » troyzer wrote: » You have freedom of religion and speech but you are not free from consequences. That's a strange kind of "freedom". In fact, its not freedom at all. The problem with the LGBT lobby these days is that they have gone way past the point at which they gained their own equality and freedom, and now they want to take away other peoples freedoms.
recedite wrote: » Then at least show how he intended to somehow disadvantage a homosexual, or prevent the participation of a homosexual in rugby.
recedite wrote: » That's a strange kind of "freedom". In fact, its not freedom at all. The problem with the LGBT lobby these days is that they have gone way past the point at which they gained their own equality and freedom, and now they want to take away other peoples freedoms.
amcalester wrote: » That wouldn’t be the test, the test would be whether the reasonable person would think his statements were discriminatory.
troyzer wrote: » One very reliant on sponsors who themselves are in business to associate with positive messaging and achievement. This goes both ways. Sponsors are under no obligation to continue paying to associate themselves with a toxic brand and several of them threatened to terminate their contracts.
recedite wrote: » troyzer wrote: » One very reliant on sponsors who themselves are in business to associate with positive messaging and achievement. This goes both ways. Sponsors are under no obligation to continue paying to associate themselves with a toxic brand and several of them threatened to terminate their contracts. So now we come to the kernel of the matter. The sponsors. Money. Corporate fear of a negative social media campaign organised by the LGBT lobby. Still, you can't just fire a person for being ugly, or unpopular, or because their religion is unpopular. That would be an unfair dismissal.
troyzer wrote: » It's not about corporate fear or a lobby. I'm a consumer and I want the brands I use to be ethical. There is no gay lobby. I feel the same way around sustainability, sweat shops and human rights. We want our corporations to behave more ethically. It isn't a bad thing for them to accept that they a responsibility. Enabling gay bashers is unacceptable. You can fire somebody for incompetence. And when you sign on the dotted line for a job that means you have a lot of visibility and represent your country, then saying pretty hateful things is incompetent. As I said already, if he was just a skinhead or a neo nazi, you wouldn't be defending him.
recedite wrote: » troyzer wrote: » It's not about corporate fear or a lobby. I'm a consumer and I want the brands I use to be ethical. There is no gay lobby. I feel the same way around sustainability, sweat shops and human rights. We want our corporations to behave more ethically. It isn't a bad thing for them to accept that they a responsibility. Enabling gay bashers is unacceptable. You can fire somebody for incompetence. And when you sign on the dotted line for a job that means you have a lot of visibility and represent your country, then saying pretty hateful things is incompetent. As I said already, if he was just a skinhead or a neo nazi, you wouldn't be defending him. When was Folau involved in gay bashing? If you make that claim with zero evidence, then "its a pretty hateful thing to say". Comparing a Christian professional rugby player to a violent skinhead is a very low and dishonest tactic.
troyzer wrote: » The principle that being gay is inherently wrong or sinful is gay bashing.I never said a violent skinhead? I'm comparing him to skinheads which would share many of his views on homosexuality. By the way, if Sonny Bill Williams (a Muslim who plays for the Blues) came out with an Instagram post saying Catholics will burn in hell or something like that, I'd be saying the same thing. Gay people aren't a special class. I'm against anyone who treats their fellow human beings as less than them. Having said that, mass homophobia and the distressing suicide rate among LGBT teens means we need to be acutely aware of any attempt to tell those vulnerable teenagers that there's something wrong with them. Especially when it's one of their idols doing it. It's important to show that this is not okay. He was given a chance after last time and I supported that. But not twice. He's not repentant and not only will he do it again if kept on, he would be emboldened by the inevitable fanboys of the global Evangelical hard right who are never short of desire for posterboys sticking it to the Man. The Man being teenagers who don't want to be battered at a nightclub by thugs because they were born gay.
recedite wrote: » troyzer wrote: » The principle that being gay is inherently wrong or sinful is gay bashing.I never said a violent skinhead? I'm comparing him to skinheads which would share many of his views on homosexuality. By the way, if Sonny Bill Williams (a Muslim who plays for the Blues) came out with an Instagram post saying Catholics will burn in hell or something like that, I'd be saying the same thing. Gay people aren't a special class. I'm against anyone who treats their fellow human beings as less than them. Having said that, mass homophobia and the distressing suicide rate among LGBT teens means we need to be acutely aware of any attempt to tell those vulnerable teenagers that there's something wrong with them. Especially when it's one of their idols doing it. It's important to show that this is not okay. He was given a chance after last time and I supported that. But not twice. He's not repentant and not only will he do it again if kept on, he would be emboldened by the inevitable fanboys of the global Evangelical hard right who are never short of desire for posterboys sticking it to the Man. The Man being teenagers who don't want to be battered at a nightclub by thugs because they were born gay. You're saying a lot of things, but mostly you seem to be insinuating that Folau is the same as violent skinheads battering people outside a nightclub. Unless you just mean you think his hair is too short?
troyzer wrote: » I'm saying his views are shared by skinheads and you wouldn't be arguing if Rugby Australia had just sacked a player for expressing exactly the same views if they had just been a skinhead.
troyzer wrote: » The principle that being gay is inherently wrong or sinful is gay bashing.
troyzer wrote: » Right. We need to clear a few things up because you clearly haven't got a clue what a skinhead or gay bashing in. A skinhead is a member of a subculture of post punk rockers who for the most part have been taking over by far right bigots who hate gay people and are usually white supremacists.
Gay bashing is the act of maligning and belittling the gay community verbally. It's not physical assault.
I never brought up assault or violence.
What I'm saying to you is if a skinhead (not Folau) was sacked for expressing strong anti gay views, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You wouldn't care.
People are sacked all the time for outrageous comments in the workplace, I've seen this myself.
recedite wrote: » The majority of people in the world would probably agree with him.
recedite wrote: » But what does "discriminatory" mean? It means disadvantaging a person, or trying to prevent their participation. Folau was AFAIK trying to steer people (atheists, drunks fornicators and homosexuals) away from hell and towards heaven instead. That would seem to be the opposite of discrimination, because he invites participation and he wants them to share in the advantages.
AngryHippie wrote: » AFAIK being the fundamental problem. As Far As Anyone KNOWS There is no heaven, or hell. It is an article of FAITH as such it is your own personal heaven or hell and can only be entirely subjective it exists only in your imagination. There has never been a shred of proof, nor by definition can there be. As such he is telling people how to live and threatening them with his damnation as a result of how they live their lives. He is totally delusional if he thinks this will be possible while having an active role as the poster boy of any of the three major sports code that he has been fortunate enough to fulfill. He has had some very bad advice from a "spiritual" leader who has pressured him into spouting his nonsense, or he has taken it as his own personal mission. Either way, the supporters and sponsors of those sports pay his wages and they don't have to tolerate his BS. That is the message that is being sent. Personal belief is fine, using your profile and social media audience to spout hate speech is not fine.
recedite wrote: » No it's not, because he is not selecting the players; he is after all, only a player himself.
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.
theological wrote: » Berating Christians from a secular perspective for being intolerant, bigoted, homophobic etc is just a bit boring after a while.
theological wrote: » Unless we're willing to discuss and analyse the idolatry and deification of sexual relationships in the West then we won't get to the heart of the matter.
theological wrote: » If Israel Folau believes that sin leads to God's rightful judgement against humanity for sin and rebellion against Him, then it is genuinely loving to warn people to repent before it is too late. Israel Folau doesn't believe like most of the secular world in the west that sexual relationships are the highest form of experience in this life. Rather he believes that a living relationship with the only true God is the highest form of experience in this life.
AngryHippie wrote: » An honest conversation about love first, and about sexual relationships following on from that would benefit those with a "Christian worldview".
smacl wrote: » The point is not about berating Christians for being homophobic though, it is berating homophobia regardless of its source. The principal idea behind secularism is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. A secular society acknowledges the importance of religion but makes its rules based on the consensus of all the people, where many religions and none might be represented. So if society arrives at the conclusion that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not acceptable, that is independent of religious belief and religious belief does not excuse public displays of this type of discrimination. This is as true whether the discrimination is inspired by Christianity, Islam or alt-right conservatism. Certainly in this country, the majority of Christians are not homophobic and consistently vote in a secular manner.
AngryHippie wrote: » I think it's the devout religious people that are hung up about sexual relationships, not the other way around, most homosexuals have worked out (or are in the process of working out) how they feel, who they love and sexual behavior stems from that. An honest conversation about love first, and about sexual relationships following on from that would benefit those with a "Christian worldview".
AngryHippie wrote: » This is what was posted. Its got nothing to do with the highest form of life, or trying to save people.
smacl wrote: » While Folau expresses "a Christian worldview" it is certainly not the only Christian worldview and definitely not the majority one in this country or Australia for that matter. e.g. we are a majority Christian country that voted to allow same sex marriage. Australia is a Christian majority country that does not allow rugby players on its national team discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation. More extreme Christians might suggest that they represent a majority but I don't believe the evidence supports this position.
theological wrote: » From what I read, the thread is about berating Christians who hold to historical Christian, Biblical views on sexuality for being these things.
troyzer wrote: » Bible bashing is when a Christian uses the Bible to force their beliefs down someone else's throat.
