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
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    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.


  • Options
    #93
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    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.


  • Options
    #94
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    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.


  • Options
    #95
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    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?


  • Options
    #96
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    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.


  • Options
    #98
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Options
    #99
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    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.


  • Options
    #100
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    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!


  • Options
    #101
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,066 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    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.

    And if that burger flipper was going around wearing their burger flipping uniform shouting hate speech to 10's of thousands of people on their twitter account which they had by virtue of being the official burger flipper for the company then they would be out of a job if Burger King told them to stop and they then didn't.


  • Options
    #103
    jjpep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 658 ✭✭✭jjpep


    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.

    That's the point. Make him say that. Make him and others like him own that what they are saying is all makey up. Being gay ( and the problems that can bring even still today) is a real thing. Choosing to believe in nonsense and then using that as a reason to be ****ty to other people needs not only to be called out but the person saying it needs to be challenged, not just treated in a way where they get to act the martyr.


  • Options
    #104
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    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.

    No, but in his line of work his behaviour in public (incl. social media) is almost certainly stipulated in his contract.


  • Options
    #105
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    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.

    No one in my scenario is denied anything on their sexuality!

    A staff member refuses to follow direction (serve meat). Citing religous belief

    Folau has most likley violated the code of conduct ( a direction from his employer). Citing Religous belief.


  • Options
    #106
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    Swap the word "gay" with "black" or any other ethnicity or "women" and you might start to understand why what he said is causing such huge controversy.

    Nobody's stopping him from having personal beliefs, but those beliefs are very much as odds with human rights and are extremely negative towards a minority group within society and one that still suffers extreme persecution in many countries, including threats of prosecution, violence and death.

    You can't really be against gay people any more than you can be against people of a particular ethnicity, those with blue eyes or curly hair.

    It's not a philosophy, a political party, a religious community or a personal choice. You're being against a personal attribute of a % of the population.

    It's on the same level as racism or sexism.

    You have freedom of speech and expression but it's not a case that people aren't able to respond to that expression or that just because you've beliefs they have to be accepted or respected. You can say things that are totally abhorrent and there are social consequences to that, in this case a rugby team doesn't want to be associated with those views.


  • Options
    #107
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    If he said Jews were going to hell, which he believes no doubt, this thread wouldn't exist. The gays are an easy target for whataboutary and victim shaming.


  • Options
    #108
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Strange how Folau's religious beliefs didn't prevent him appearing on the cover of an Australian LGBT magazine in 2014 promoting The Bingham Cup being held in Sydney (which was supported by ARFU) - a gay and inclusive rugby tournament held in honour of Mark Bingham (a gay rugby player) who died on board Flight 93 on 9/11.
    Is is "Hey gays - come and play in this tournament honouring a man killed by religious extremists ... btw... they are right about you all being damned..."?

    Folau also has tattoos - (Leviticus 19:28): "You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

    And doesn't 'keep holy' the Sabbath Day (unlike many other devout Christian sports people like Aussie Rugby League player William Hopoate) - which is only one of the actual 10 Commandments.
    When Folau was asked if he would be following Hopoate's example he replied " "I certainly applaud William's belief and his faith, but I won't be doing that," Folau said of standing down from Sunday football. "I have a different view and perspective of the way I play sport." https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/israel-folau-says-playing-on-sunday-is-an-expression-of-his-religious-faith-20160513-gouvq4.html

    Can't help but think Folau is being a bit pick 'n' mix in which bits he decides he must adhere when it comes to his strict religious beliefs.


  • Options
    #109
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    jjpep wrote: »
    That's the point. Make him say that. Make him and others like him own that what they are saying is all makey up. Being gay ( and the problems that can bring even still today) is a real thing. Choosing to believe in nonsense and then using that as a reason to be ****ty to other people needs not only to be called out but the person saying it needs to be challenged, not just treated in a way where they get to act the martyr.

    You want to force a religious person to publically say that religion is makey-uppey? Really? Do we want the Pope to do that too. And everybody else who goes to a pointy shaped building every Sunday?

    Nonsense or not nonsense, people are entitled to practice whatever religion they fancy. And they are entitled to believe the teachings of that religion.

    Like I said already, I think religion is dumb but that doesn't mean that I don't support someone's right to practice it.


  • Options
    #110
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,465 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Can't help but think Folau is being a bit pick 'n' mix in which bits he decides he must adhere when it comes to his strict religious beliefs.

    And?


  • Options
    #111
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    Can't help but think Folau is being a bit pick 'n' mix in which bits he decides he must adhere when it comes to his strict religious beliefs.

    Same as everybody else here in Ireland who go to the pointy shaped building on Sundays.

    And that's fine too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    There have been in the past religious justifications (albeit very stretched ones) to persecute plenty of minorities. For example, selective and out of context biblical quotes were regularly used to justify slavery in the Southern US states and elsewhere.

    Even look at our own history where religious ideologies were used as an excuse for what amounted to ethnic cleansing against the Irish population. Plenty of Cromwell era types believed that we were poor because we were religiously destined to be.

    You can't leave that kind of stuff unchallenged.


  • Options
    #113
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PCeeeee wrote: »
    And?

    And posters here are saying Folau is simply being a devout Christian and is being penalised for following the tenets of his religious beliefs.

    Yet - he doesn't follow them all now does he?
    He chooses which to follow and which don't suit him.

    Bible says xxxx - so I'm gonna tweet about that cos it's the word of the Lord.
    Bible says xxxx & xxxx - yup, I'm just gonna ignore those bits.

    Plus if you can't see the stunning hypocrisy of promoting a gay/inclusive tournament in honour of a gay rugby player killed by religious extremists and then tweeting that gays, according to your beliefs, are damned than I can't help you.


  • Options
    #114
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Anteayer wrote: »
    There have been in the past religious justifications (albeit very stretched ones) to persecute plenty of minorities. For example, selective and out of context biblical quotes were regularly used to justify slavery in the Southern US states and elsewhere.

    Even look at our own history where religious ideologies were used as an excuse for what amounted to ethnic cleansing against the Irish population. Plenty of Cromwell era types believed that we were poor because we were religiously destined to be.

    You can't leave that kind of stuff unchallenged.

    So, posting something that says "Warning: Drunks. Homosexuals. Adulterers. Liars. Fornicators. Thieves. Atheists. Idolaters. Hell awaits you.” is the same now as ethnic cleansing? :confused:

    He stated a view that is held by many religions. He's not launching a crusade to wipe these people off the face of the earth.


  • Options
    #115
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And posters here are saying Folau is simply being a devout Christian and is being penalised for following the tenets of his religious beliefs.

    Yet - he doesn't follow them all now does he?
    He chooses which to follow and which don't suit him.

    Bible says xxxx - so I'm gonna tweet about that cos it's the word of the Lord.
    Bible says xxxx & xxxx - yup, I'm just gonna ignore those bits.

    Plus if you can't see the stunning hypocrisy of promoting a gay/inclusive tournament in honour of a gay rugby player killed by religious extremists and then tweeting that gays, according to your beliefs, are damned than I can't help you.

    What branch of Christianity does he follow??


  • Options
    #116
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,066 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    So, posting something that says "Warning: Drunks. Homosexuals. Adulterers. Liars. Fornicators. Thieves. Atheists. Idolaters. Hell awaits you.” is the same now as ethnic cleansing? :confused:

    He stated a view that is held by many religions. He's not launching a crusade to wipe these people off the face of the earth.

    He posted an opinion on a platform afforded to him by his job that did not match the views that his employer expect of their employees to be using that platform for. What is so difficult to understand?


  • Options
    #117
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    cgcsb wrote: »
    No, but in his line of work his behaviour in public (incl. social media) is almost certainly stipulated in his contract.

    Quite possibly - and if that is the case, well then that's it. Case closed.

    But in that case he's being sacked for breach of contract, not for being a dick. You still can't sack someone for just being a bit of a twat, famous or not.


  • Options
    #118
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    robinph wrote: »
    He posted an opinion on a platform afforded to him by his job that did not match the views that his employer expect of their employees to be using that platform for. What is so difficult to understand?

    The part where it's afforded to him by his employer.

    Explain that part to me.


  • Options
    #119
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    sbsquarepants wrote:
    But in that case he's being sacked for breach of contract, not for being a dick. You still can't sack someone for just being a bit of a twat, famous or not.


    You can if your contract says you are not to act like 'a bit of a twat' whilst in our employ.


  • Options
    #120
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    So, posting something that says "Warning: Drunks. Homosexuals. Adulterers. Liars. Fornicators. Thieves. Atheists. Idolaters. Hell awaits you.” is the same now as ethnic cleansing? :confused:

    He stated a view that is held by many religions. He's not launching a crusade to wipe these people off the face of the earth.

    No but it's equivalent to hell awaits (insert ethnic group).

    What I'm saying is that religious beliefs have been used as an excuse for hatred towards various ethnic groups over the centuries. It's still wrong whether it's a religious belief or not.

    Not only that but he's managed to throw gay people and atheists into the same category as liars, theives etc which is pretty insulting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,066 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    The part where it's afforded to him by his employer.

    Explain that part to me.

    He only has the following on social media because of his job, it's not because of his religious views.


Advertisement