Airing Religious Views

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2019 11:20am

BattleCorp wrote: »

The bus driver would be in work if he was telling everybody who boarded their bus that gay people would be going to hell.

Falou posted what he did in his own spare time. Folou didn't tell people his beliefs whilst in work.

They aren't the same thing.

Everything he does reflects on the organisation that pays him. An organisation with an ethos that is completely at odds with what he posted. He is a public figure. he did this publicly. He was warned before for doing the same thing.

lawred2 · 18-04-2019 11:21am

BattleCorp wrote: »

The bus driver would be in work if he was telling everybody who boarded their bus that gay people would be going to hell.

Falou posted what he did in his own spare time. Folou didn't tell people his beliefs whilst in work.

They aren't the same thing.

Forgive me for saying but that's a stupid comparison.

Falou as a contracted professional is a brand ambassador for Australian Rugby and Australian Rugby Sponsors.

There is no 'spare time' where tweets like that are concerned.

Sure what's to stop it being liked and retweeted while he's playing for Australia?

randd1 · 18-04-2019 11:24am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Explain to me how he can back up his belief? What does he do, bring back cctv footage of hell and it's full of gays? He can't back up his beliefs with proof. That's the whole idea of religion. It's a belief without a shred of proof.

Then how does he actually know that gays are going to hell, if there is a hell, or if there's a God, or if there's a God he/she sends gays to hell?

As you say he can't prove it. So why spout about something you can't prove to be actually true?

If heaven and hell did exist, wouldn't it be a delicious irony if heaven had a gay nightclub and a big gay scene and God was perfectly fine with it, and sent them to hell for being anti-gay where they end up being gay against their will as punishment from the devil?

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:24am

robinph wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with saying that you think some deity helped you win.

That is vastly different to saying that your deity thinks that certain groups of people are evil and going to hell.

How so?

There are books which lay out what each deity believes? This particular one doesn't like gays.

You can choose to follow him or not, to believe it or not, to live by it or not - but what you can't do is you can't go changing what he is so you can follow someone a bit more likeable!

Falau's god is sending gays to hell - that's it, that's the end of that discussion.

If you don't like that, tough. Maybe start your own religion up, one where gays get sent to eternal Ibiza? Feel free to post your beliefs on the internet as much as you like!

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:25am

valoren wrote: »

I recall golfer Zach Johnson airing his religious views after he won the US Masters in 2007. During his sit down interview to get the green jacket which is watched by millions he harped on about how Jesus, his lord and saviour, had been "walking the fairways" with him all week, that he found strength from that and conveyed that this helped him win so to speak. So here was another sportsperson airing his religious views. Did his corporate sponsors dump him? Did the companies he endorsed drop him unceremoniously? Of course they didn't. It was nice to see someone take pride in their religious views. Zach Johnson may very well believe that homosexuals are destined to burn in hell, no one knows, because he's not stupid enough to say something like that if he does believe that and is intelligent enough to understand the consequences personally and professionally for him if he said anything like that on any public forum.

100%. All Katie Taylor drones on about is God.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:26am

robinph wrote: »

I think if a bus driver was telling everyone that boarded their bus that gay people would be going to hell they would not be in their job for much longer.

What if he posted it on the internet?

Falau wasn't going around the stadium shouting at gay people you know!

sk8erboii · 18-04-2019 11:28am

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/scientists-established-link-religious-fundamentalism-brain-damage/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

If youre a religious fundamentalist, you might quite literally be brain damaged

cgcsb · 18-04-2019 11:28am

Why do people not understand this?
He expressed this view publicly on a platform afforded to him by virtue of his fame due to his employment.
Employer warned him not to as it would bring the organisation and sponsors into disrepute.
He chose to anyway and now finds himself unemployed.

His freedom of expression remains intact, the organisation's reputation is saved and every one is happy.

robinph · 18-04-2019 11:29am

BattleCorp wrote: »

The bus driver would be in work if he was telling everybody who boarded their bus that gay people would be going to hell.

Falou posted what he did in his own spare time. Folou didn't tell people his beliefs whilst in work.

They aren't the same thing.

As an international rugby player, with his employers logos on his photos on his social media profiles, his social media following being due to his job then anything he says at any time can be considered to be representing his employer.

If the bus driver goes an posts on his social media, then nobody notices or cares and because he is a bus driver nobody is following his social media. People were following Falou on social media because of his job, his job as a rugby player and representing Australian Rugby is full time as far as what he posts on social media.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:29am

lawred2 wrote: »

you think the majority agree with Israel Falou's private beliefs?

I 100% believe that the majority don't give a shyte about his private beliefs. The minority disagree with it and here we are.

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-04-2019 11:29am

riffmongous wrote: »

'The bible said it' doesn't wash, the bible says a whole heap of contradictory stuff, that people pick and choose. If you're not a reclusive hermit living on the mountain in a sackcloth your nothing more than a hypocrite telling someone else they are going to Hell. Why don't these types ever focus on the love thy neighbour as the thyself, jesus died to save you stuff? No its always rules and hell.

And good for those who aren't religious and don't care he says you're going to Hell, but what about those who are? The young people struggling with their sexuality and religion? Why not tell them God created them in his image and Jesus loves them?

Pure scum

Funny that...it actually says."God made them in His image, male and female."

If you're going to try back up your position with a Bible verse, at least get it right.

Plumbthedepths · 18-04-2019 11:30am

BattleCorp wrote:

I don't think that's worth losing your job over.

If your employer has warned you about your behaviour and you ignore said warning what do you think should happen?

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:30am

lawred2 wrote: »

you seem to have conflated incitement to hatred with incitement to violence

And you seem to missing the very basis of religion.

Sinners get punished, followers get rewarded.

That's basically every religion ever, summed up in one succinct sentence.

It's hardly the first time any of us have heard this!

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:32am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If your employer has warned you about your behaviour and you ignore said warning what do you think should happen?

Does your employer interfere in your religious beliefs?

Do you think they should be allowed to?

lawred2 · 18-04-2019 11:35am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And you seem to missing the very basis of religion.

Sinners get punished, followers get rewarded.

That's basically every religion ever, summed up in one succinct sentence.

It's hardly the first time any of us have heard this!

And what's that response got to do with anything? Certainly doesn't serve as a response to what I posted.

mcmoustache · 18-04-2019 11:35am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't agree with Israel Falou's private or public beliefs. Not even remotely.

But I do think that he shouldn't lose his job for having those beliefs.

Nobody is stopping him from having his beliefs.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2019 11:35am

weldoninhio wrote: »

I 100% believe that the majority don't give a shyte about his private beliefs. The minority disagree with it and here we are.

if he kept them as his private beliefs this thread would not exist.

Captain Flaps · 18-04-2019 11:35am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you think they should be allowed to?

If you're a public figure and your views are antagonistic to other employees or supporters/customers then yes, absolutely.

robinph · 18-04-2019 11:36am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Does your employer interfere in your religious beliefs?

Do you think they should be allowed to?

Your employer should not interfere with your religious beliefs.

Your religious beliefs should not interfere with your employer.

His employer doesn't care what beliefs he has and haven't stopped him having them. What they have done is stopped his beliefs from being promoted using their brand and platform.

He is now free to go and spout whatever he likes wherever he likes, the employer is now free to say he's nothing to do with them.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:36am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if he kept them as his private beliefs this thread would not exist.

As far as I know he has never forced anyone to follow him on Twitter.

Plumbthedepths · 18-04-2019 11:38am

sbsquarepants wrote:

Does your employer interfere in your religious beliefs?

My employer doesn't give a f**k what I believe once I keep it to myself and doesn't reflect negatively on them.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2019 11:38am

weldoninhio wrote: »

As far as I know he has never forced anyone to follow him on Twitter.

He aired them publicly despite being previously warned by his employer not to do this so **** him.

lawred2 · 18-04-2019 11:38am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Does your employer interfere in your religious beliefs?

Do you think they should be allowed to?

Again nothing but pure misrepresentation of reality.

cgcsb · 18-04-2019 11:41am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Does your employer interfere in your religious beliefs?

Do you think they should be allowed to?

Being a celebrity under contract is different to working the counter at TK MAXX

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 11:42am

Aubrie Thoughtless Spy wrote: »

Funny that...it actually says."God made them in His image, male and female."

If you're going to try back up your position with a Bible verse, at least get it right.

Well actually it doesn't say either because the oldest version you can find of that or any other bible verse will not be written in English.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:43am

robinph wrote: »

Your employer should not interfere with your religious beliefs.

Your religious beliefs should not interfere with your employer.

His employer doesn't care what beliefs he has and haven't stopped him having them. What they have done is stopped his beliefs from being promoted using their brand and platform.

He is now free to go and spout whatever he likes wherever he likes, the employer is now free to say he's nothing to do with them.

I'm not so sure that's what they've done at all.

He didn't say Rugby Australia say gays are going to hell, or whatever club it is he plays for, he said it in a private capacity. "I" believe - not "we" endorse.

As I've said it all depends on his contract - if he has agreed to not say things like this and agreed to be subject to whatever sanction if he does - then so be it, that's the contract he signed. Boo hoo, bounce on.

But apart from that, your job doesn't get to tell you what to do, think, say etc outside of work - they just don't.

They are your employer, not your owner!

Roger Hassenforder · 18-04-2019 11:43am

weldoninhio wrote: »

I 100% believe that the majority don't give a shyte about his private beliefs. The minority disagree with it and here we are.

So the majority agree with his bullshįt?

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 11:43am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Does your employer interfere in your religious beliefs?

Do you think they should be allowed to?

They did not interfere in his religous belief unless his religous belief is to proselytize.

In which case he would be better suited to a career as a preacher.

cgcsb · 18-04-2019 11:44am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They are your employer, not your owner!

The world of celebrity is different, it's all about image.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 11:45am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not so sure that's what they've done at all.

He didn't say Rugby Australia say gays are going to hell, or whatever club it is he plays for, he said it in a private capacity. "I" believe - not "we" endorse.

As I've said it all depends on his contract - if he has agreed to not say things like this and agreed to be subject to whatever sanction if he does - then so be it, that's the contract he signed. Boo hoo, bounce on.

But apart from that, your job doesn't get to tell you what to do, think, say etc outside of work - they just don't.

They are your employer, not your owner!

Indeed and his employer has moved to distance themselves from his beliefs.
however he was probaly under a code of conduct with his employer which probably included a bar on uttering anything that can be construed as hate speech.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:46am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He aired them publicly despite being previously warned by his employer not to do this so **** him.

How many people thank god when they win something?? It's double standards.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:46am

cgcsb wrote: »

Being a celebrity under contract is different to working the counter at TK MAXX

That's my point.

It depends on his contract. There is no god given right for any employer to sack employees because they don't like their religious views.

There are actually laws in place in most western countries which explicitly forbid that.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:47am

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So the majority agree with his bullshįt?

I 100% believe that the majority don't give a shyte

I'll try again. :rolleyes:

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 11:48am

weldoninhio wrote: »

How many people thank god when they win something?? It's double standards.

Thanking god is not the same as saying my God says this group of people (who might make up a portion of my clubs fanbase or family of said fanbase) are evil and going to hell.

Roger Hassenforder · 18-04-2019 11:49am

weldoninhio wrote: »

I 100% believe that the majority don't give a shyte

I'll try again. :rolleyes:

And the minority give a shít?
My bad, thought you meant the majority agree with him.

robinph · 18-04-2019 11:49am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not so sure that's what they've done at all.

He didn't say Rugby Australia say gays are going to hell, or whatever club it is he plays for, he said it in a private capacity. "I" believe - not "we" endorse.

As I've said it all depends on his contract - if he has agreed to not say things like this and agreed to be subject to whatever sanction if he does - then so be it, that's the contract he signed. Boo hoo, bounce on.

But apart from that, your job doesn't get to tell you what to do, think, say etc outside of work - they just don't.

They are your employer, not your owner!

You are trying to compare a regular member of the public to a public figure. As a public figure then everything he does and says is considered to be representative of his employer.

If you go and shout about your religious view on the street then that is entirely up to you and not really anything to do with your employer. If however you are shouting about those view on the street whilst still wearing your employers brand on your work uniform then they would be quite entitled to tell you to stop, and if you persist to then sack you.

As a public figure he is always representing the brand of rugby Australia. They told him to stop, he didn't, they said bye then.

kneemos · 18-04-2019 11:50am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And you seem to missing the very basis of religion.

Sinners get punished, followers get rewarded.

That's basically every religion ever, summed up in one succinct sentence.

It's hardly the first time any of us have heard this!

The law takes precedence over any hate speech.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:52am

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Thanking god is not the same as saying my God says this group of people (who might make up a portion of my clubs fanbase or family of said fanbase) are evil and going to hell.

What about Katie Taylor saying god helped her beat her opponent?? Does god prefer Katie? Is Katies opponent lesser in the eyes of god??

Some egg chaser said an imaginary person is sending some people to an imaginary place and the minority militant LGBTQRSQ+++DDWCDCA+++==++ lobby are out in force to try to get him sacked.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2019 11:54am

weldoninhio wrote: »

What about Katie Taylor saying god helped her beat her opponent?? Does god prefer Katie? Is Katies opponent lesser in the eyes of god??

Some egg chaser said an imaginary person is sending some people to an imaginary place and the minority militant LGBTQRSQ+++DDWCDCA+++==++ lobby are out in force to try to get him sacked.

Nobody is out in force to get him sacked. He has already been sacked.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 11:57am

weldoninhio wrote: »

What about Katie Taylor saying god helped her beat her opponent?? Does god prefer Katie? Is Katies opponent lesser in the eyes of god??

Some egg chaser said an imaginary person is sending some people to an imaginary place and the minority militant LGBTQRSQ+++DDWCDCA+++==++ lobby are out in force to try to get him sacked.

There is no god so its preference should be of no consideration.

Firstly Katie is not employed by a sporting body. As boxer she is an independant entity so probably not governed by a corporate or private bodies code of conduct (excluding whatever boxing federation codes of conduct exist.)

Secondly where in her saying a god helped her has she used hate speech against another group of people?

They are not the same thing.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 11:59am

robinph wrote: »

You are trying to compare a regular member of the public to a public figure. As a public figure then everything he does and says is considered to be representative of his employer.
.

Absolutely not!

As a public figure he is subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. He is subject to the exact same contract laws, protections and obligations as if he was working in burger king.

weldoninhio · 18-04-2019 11:59am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nobody is out in force to get him sacked. He has already been sacked.

It's going to a tribunal. He then has the option of a court appeal.

Plumbthedepths · 18-04-2019 12:01pm

sbsquarepants wrote:

As a public figure he is subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. He is subject to the exact same contract laws, protections and obligations as if he was working in burger king.

Which countries employment laws are you referring too, they are not universal.

RobbieTheRobber · 18-04-2019 12:01pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Absolutely not!

As a public figure he is subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else. He is subject to the exact same contract laws, protections and obligations as if he was working in burger king.

So you would suuport religous individuals working in Fast food restaurants but refusing ro serve people meat if it did not meet with their religous viewpoints?

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 12:02pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

however he was probaly under a code of conduct with his employer which probably included a bar on uttering anything that can be construed as hate speech.

And if he was - then so be it.

The guy is clearly an asshole - but I work with tons of assholes, you don't get the sack for that!

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2019 12:02pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

It's going to a tribunal. He then has the option of a court appeal.

He was sacked. He asked for a hearing to contest that sacking. He remains sacked while that is ongoing. I dont fancy his chances at the hearing.

BattleCorp · 18-04-2019 12:02pm

Apparently the ARU announced that he would be sacked before his hearing.

That's a breach of employment law right there. You can't prejudge these things.

What will happen is that he'll be paid up his contract and he'll go to France and play for a team over there.

BattleCorp · 18-04-2019 12:03pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So you would suuport religous individuals working in Fast food restaurants but refusing ro serve people meat if it did not meet with their religous viewpoints?

Falou didn't deny anybody a service based on their sexuality. He stated a view that is held by most of the world's main religions.

sbsquarepants · 18-04-2019 12:03pm

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So you would suuport religous individuals working in Fast food restaurants but refusing ro serve people meat if it did not meet with their religous viewpoints?

Of course not.

He didn't refuse to work though. In fact he performs much better than most other employees as far as I can tell!

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2019 12:04pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Apparently the ARU announced that he would be sacked before his hearing.

That's a breach of employment law right there. You can't prejudge these things.

What will happen is that he'll be paid up his contract and he'll go to France and play for a team over there.

He was sacked. In response to that he had the option of accepting his sacking or contest it at a hearing. He requested the hearing. The ARU have the right to sack him. He is exercising his rights to contest the sacking. There is no breach of his rights. All is well.

Airing Religious Views

Comments