Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Bannasidhe · 15-04-2019 11:01am

Varta wrote: »

"Sports today are about inclusivity where players on a national team serve as role models for what others might aspire to."
I disagree. Sport is about sport and no one has a right to hijack it to promote inclusivity or anything else. Players on a national team should be the best available players. End of. Why should sports people be singled out as role models?

Firstly - if you aren't inclusive then you may not get the best people. The best people may decide that sport is not for me as it's dominated by narrow minded bigots.

Secondly - if sports people wish to get paid the big bucks - which the majority of the professionals do- they need to be aware of where their wages comes from. Yes, money plays a huge role. That money comes from sponsors, merchandise, and supporters. Having your sport associated with any fundamentalist view (in this instance fundamentalist Christianity) is bad business.
If expressing your religious views are more important to a person than abiding by the terms and conditions of the contract they enter into then remain amateur. In short - they can have their cake or they can eat it.

Thirdly - playing for the national team is about representing your country - not your religion or yourself. You are there to represent all the people of your country. Not just the ones you approve of.

15-04-2019 11:06am

Varta wrote: »

"Sports today are about inclusivity where players on a national team serve as role models for what others might aspire to."
I disagree. Sport is about sport and no one has a right to hijack it to promote inclusivity or anything else. Players on a national team should be the best available players. End of. Why should sports people be singled out as role models?

Sports stars have been deemed as role models for decades, longer some would argue.
Due to their athletic ability and skills and the fact that they are idolized by young people.

15-04-2019 11:10am

Varta wrote: »

Why isn't he losing his job for saying that adulterers will go to Hell?

He also said atheists, in that post, but no one cares about that. Not that atheists have been a persecuted group in multiple cultures, throughout history :rolleyes:

salmocab · 15-04-2019 11:10am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He also said atheists, in that post, but no one cares about that. Not that atheists have been a persecuted group in multiple cultures, throughout history :rolleyes:

In fairness I can’t imagine many atheists are worried about the threat of hell

Franz Von Peppercorn · 15-04-2019 11:14am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He also said atheists, in that post, but no one cares about that. Not that atheists have been a persecuted group in multiple cultures, throughout history :rolleyes:

There were very few people who admitted atheism.

15-04-2019 11:14am

salmocab wrote: »

He’s losing his job because he publicly expressed his private views, as a top international rugby player he is part of Australian rugby’s image which he has a duty to keep. Sponsors won’t be happy with what he says as they don’t want to have links to such a person. He is perfectly entitled to his own beliefs but when he publicly makes ridiculous statements that affect his employer then they are entitled to do something about it.

Problem is that this logic would also apply to say atheists in religious schools here no?
Should an atheist teacher be fired, from a religion run school, for publicly stating their non belief?
Should the school be allowed to tell the atheist that they are entitled to their views in private but must not go against the ethos of the school publicly (on their own time)?

He is an objectively horrible human being and I am delighted to see him gone BUT, while I fundamentally disagree with what he said, I am uncomfortable with the "how" they got rid of him.

SoundsRight · 15-04-2019 11:14am

batgoat wrote: »

Employees follow a code of conduct. Eg if my company ended up heavily associated with such views as a result of me. I could get fired. With sporting figures, expressing such views automatically associates it with the team. Which is a breach of their contract.

I'd be very surprised if an employment contract had stipulations covering someone's religion.

This is just part of diversity. Some people think it's ok for two dads to raise kids, for people change gender etc, and some don't. Each is entitled to their beliefs. We just have to put our differences aside.

15-04-2019 11:16am

salmocab wrote: »

In fairness I can’t imagine many atheists are worried about the threat of hell

He wished the idea of hell on everyone he mentioned. Does not matter if a gay person was a theist or not, the intent is key.

15-04-2019 11:17am

SoundsRight wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if an employment contract had stipulations covering someone's religion.

This is just part of diversity. Some people think it's ok for two dads to raise kids, for people change gender etc, and some don't. Each is entitled to their beliefs. We just have to put our differences aside.

They did, his new contract forbade him from airing his religious views publicly

15-04-2019 11:18am

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sports stars have been deemed as role models for decades, longer some would argue.
Due to their athletic ability and skills and the fact that they are idolized by young people.

Someone tell that to McGregor, Mayweather, half the NFL, etc.
Sponsors dictate it, not the public.

boetstark · 15-04-2019 11:20am

partyguinness wrote: »

He will be punished not for expressing his religious 'beliefs' as such but rather for violating (again) a Code of Conduct that he has signed up for which basically tells him to keep all that nonsense to himself.

Your nonsense , his beliefs.

SoundsRight · 15-04-2019 11:21am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They did, his new contract forbade him from airing his religious views publicly

I seriously doubt that.

batgoat · 15-04-2019 11:22am

SoundsRight wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if an employment contract had stipulations covering someone's religion.

This is just part of diversity. Some people think it's ok for two dads to raise kids, for people change gender etc, and some don't. Each is entitled to their beliefs. We just have to put our differences aside.

He was previously warned that disrespectful remarks in relation to a person's sexuality on social media etc is unacceptable and a violation of the code of conduct. If it ends up going to a hearing that is most likely going to confirm it is a violation.

Varta · 15-04-2019 11:26am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly - if you aren't inclusive then you may not get the best people. The best people may decide that sport is not for me as it's dominated by narrow minded bigots.

Secondly - if sports people wish to get paid the big bucks - which the majority of the professionals do- they need to be aware of where their wages comes from. Yes, money plays a huge role. That money comes from sponsors, merchandise, and supporters. Having your sport associated with any fundamentalist view (in this instance fundamentalist Christianity) is bad business.
If expressing your religious views are more important to a person than abiding by the terms and conditions of the contract they enter into then remain amateur. In short - they can have their cake or they can eat it.

Thirdly - playing for the national team is about representing your country - not your religion or yourself. You are there to represent all the people of your country. Not just the ones you approve of.

Inclusivity is a good thing, but that is not what sports is 'about'.
Playing for the national team is indeed about representing your country, but it is also about the individual's personal achievement in the sport.
Sports people representing their country should only be held to account while they are actually engaged in representing their country.

cgcsb · 15-04-2019 11:29am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell

If you have nasty things to say, like gays (or jews or any other group) are going to hell, then perhaps keep a lid on it. If you are a person working in the public view then your employer has a reputation to maintain, basically you can't say what you like in this line of work.

Varta · 15-04-2019 11:29am

DubInMeath wrote: »

Sports stars have been deemed as role models for decades, longer some would argue.
Due to their athletic ability and skills and the fact that they are idolized by young people.

Being deemed a role model is one thing. Being expected to serve as a role model is quite another. What they do or say when off duty should be their own business. On duty is another matter. For example, I am sick and tired of seeing footballers praying on the football pitch.

splinter65 · 15-04-2019 11:29am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They did, his new contract forbade him from airing his religious views publicly

Have you a link to that? I can’t imagine someone like him agreeing to that.

cgcsb · 15-04-2019 11:31am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Just as you wouldn't have gotten a 2nd opportunity in 1953 to stand up in your office and announce that you were gay.

He who lives by the mood of the time, dies by the mood of the time.

So much for enlightened thinking.

The key difference being one statement is self-identification and the other is denouncing others.

Varta · 15-04-2019 11:32am

cgcsb wrote: »

If you have nasty things to say, like gays (or jews or any other group) are going to hell, then perhaps keep a lid on it. If you are a person working in the public view then your employer has a reputation to maintain, basically you can't say what you like in this line of work.

If he had said that gays should go to prison or somewhere else tangible then by all means punish him for it. But he said that the are going to a place that is a figment of his imagination. Therefore, he hasn't really said anything, has he?

Ave Sodalis · 15-04-2019 11:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem is that this logic would also apply to say atheists in religious schools here no?
Should an atheist teacher be fired, from a religion run school, for publicly stating their non belief?
Should the school be allowed to tell the atheist that they are entitled to their views in private but must not go against the ethos of the school publicly (on their own time)?

A sibling of mine was in religion class of a multi-denominational secondary school. The teacher asked started of the year by encouraging the class to pray for the atheists as they were going to hell. She got a very firm warning for it.

As for your questions: should they be fired? Yeah, probably (although why an atheist would work in a religious school in the first place is a bit odd).
Yes, they should be allowed to tell the atheist that. If the teacher, on a public platform, starts an anti-religion rant whilst working in a very religious school and that goes against the school's ethos, then I don't see why the teacher shouldn't be given a warning and then fired if it continues.

However, there is a very fundamental difference between a religious belief and sexuality, especially these days. That difference being that I have a clear and set moment when I decided to be atheist. I have absolutely no moment where I decided to be straight.

Tacklebox · 15-04-2019 11:40am

Varta wrote: »

If he had said that gays should go to prison or somewhere else tangible then by all means punish him for it. But he said that the are going to a place that is a figment of his imagination. Therefore, he hasn't really said anything, has he?

In essence you're probably right.

I'm not homophobic racist or religiously motivated, but if wherever he lives has law's against what ever he posted,then he's in trouble.

Some people will get offended by others opinions, that's the way it is.

Not all of us are sensitive to people's remarks because some can rise above it.
I'll admit I used to be a bit over sensitive myself and it was painful feeling that way.

Admittedly I had to grow up and smell the coffee.
Life is easier when not feeling like a victim, but unfortunately that's the way it is.

We live in a society where one person's version of bullying is another's version of banter.

Ave Sodalis · 15-04-2019 11:40am

Varta wrote: »

If he had said that gays should go to prison or somewhere else tangible then by all means punish him for it. But he said that the are going to a place that is a figment of his imagination. Therefore, he hasn't really said anything, has he?

To atheists, yeah it's ridiculous. Atheism and being gay do not necessarily go hand in hand.

15-04-2019 11:44am

Marengo wrote: »

Entitled to his beliefs, absolutely. However as a Christian I find his beliefs very anti Christian. No one can judge another or post or speak comments like that. That's hate not love, not the Christian or Humanitarian attitude. P.s. You don't need religion to be a decent human being.

Does the bible say that being gay is a sin? Do sinners go to hell, according to the bible?

Being Christian (of sects that do not allow personal interpretation) means it is VERY Christian to say such things.
The catholic upper level is so hypocritical on this, saying that they love everyone gay or not and just the gay acts are the sin so... you know... just don't do it.
But if you do sin? Well hell awaits.

15-04-2019 11:48am

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

A sibling of mine was in religion class of a multi-denominational secondary school. The teacher asked started of the year by encouraging the class to pray for the atheists as they were going to hell. She got a very firm warning for it.

As for your questions: should they be fired? Yeah, probably (although why an atheist would work in a religious school in the first place is a bit odd).
Yes, they should be allowed to tell the atheist that. If the teacher, on a public platform, starts an anti-religion rant whilst working in a very religious school and that goes against the school's ethos, then I don't see why the teacher shouldn't be given a warning and then fired if it continues.

However, there is a very fundamental difference between a religious belief and sexuality, especially these days. That difference being that I have a clear and set moment when I decided to be atheist. I have absolutely no moment where I decided to be straight.

Multi denominational schools are meant to also cater for non believers.

90% of schools in Ireland are catholic. Just because they are public does not remove that. They are religious.

salmocab · 15-04-2019 11:48am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Problem is that this logic would also apply to say atheists in religious schools here no?
Should an atheist teacher be fired, from a religion run school, for publicly stating their non belief?
Should the school be allowed to tell the atheist that they are entitled to their views in private but must not go against the ethos of the school publicly (on their own time)?

He is an objectively horrible human being and I am delighted to see him gone BUT, while I fundamentally disagree with what he said, I am uncomfortable with the "how" they got rid of him.

If the school has a religious ethos then I don’t think the teacher dhould be tweeting that people that follow that religion are morons or simple minded. The teacher would of course be perfectly entitled to that opinion but not to demean some of the parents or pupils by publicly stating it. In the case being discussed IF has made statements about certain groups that are probably all covered by the supporters and sponsors of his employer who just like the parents or pupils in your example are effectively the people paying for his services.

Varta · 15-04-2019 11:49am

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

To atheists, yeah it's ridiculous. Atheism and being gay do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Indeed. Although I struggle to understand how any gay person could be religious given the religious based persecution gay people have lived with throughout the years. But that's religion for you.

But to put it in context. If he had said that gay people would not enter into the spaceship of the flying spaghetti monster, would people have called for his sacking? I doubt it. They would more likely have declared him nuts. Yet the flying spaghetti monster is as real as Hell.

15-04-2019 11:50am

salmocab wrote: »

If the school has a religious ethos then I don’t think the teacher dhould be tweeting that people that follow that religion are morons or simple minded. The teacher would of course be perfectly entitled to that opinion but not to demean some of the parents or pupils by publicly stating it. In the case being discussed IF has made statements about certain groups that are probably all covered by the supporters and sponsors of his employer who just like the parents or pupils in your example are effectively the people paying for his services.

So they should be fired or have contractual stipulations saying that they cannot, say, post here?

Or a Catholic teacher in a Christian school? Should they be restricted to that sects beliefs?

Ave Sodalis · 15-04-2019 11:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

Multi denominational schools are meant to also cater for non believers.

90% of schools in Ireland are catholic. Just because they are public does not remove that. They are religious.

I never said that?

Varta wrote: »

Indeed. Although I struggle to understand how any gay person could be religious given the religious based persecution gay people have lived with throughout the years. But that's religion for you.

But to put it in context. If he had said that gay people would not enter into the spaceship of the flying spaghetti monster, would people have called for his sacking? I doubt it. They would more likely have declared him nuts. Yet the flying spaghetti monster is as real as Hell.

I don't understand it, but it's there. Nobody seriously believes in the flying spaghetti monster though. Not entering the spaceship is not a threat to anyone, but going to hell very much is.

salmocab · 15-04-2019 11:58am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So they should be fired or have contractual stipulations saying that they cannot, say, post here?

Or a Catholic teacher in a Christian school? Should they be restricted to that sects beliefs?

Well posting here is an anonymous post so that wouldn’t matter but yeah a school should be able to take steps just like any other employer to stop them being undermined by staff. We may not like it but that’s the way it has to be, otherwise we get to extremities where a teacher with anti Semitic leanings could be teaching Jewish kids whilst in their own time walking in fascist parades dressed like SS storm troopers.

15-04-2019 12:04pm

Anteayer wrote: »

What's annoying me is this is a thread is opening a debate about gay rights, largely by people who seem to see it as some kind of abstract topic, as it doesn't impact them.

When it impacts you personally, it's a very different discussion and it's extremely frustrating to see this rugby player's statement being defended.

If it were a discussion about race, I would think the tone would be very different and someone being LGBT is not a matter of personal choice or opinion. It's fundamentally about who they are. It's also potentially also very isolating, as they don't automatically have community.

So all I'm saying is be careful when you post. This is a real world issue for plenty of people potentially reading this thread.

No one is defending what he posted (or they should not be)
The fact that he said gay people (and most posters in this forum) deserve an eternity of torture is, frankly, disgusting.

I am uncomfortable with the ability to fire someone for a public comment, which breaks no laws, does not call for violence, and is the logical expression of the bible which is done in every sermon/mass/service every day.
It's ok to hold mass meetings of this nature as long as you're not too public with it? That is disturbing.

And the whataboutary? I don't think that means what you think it means...

Arguments must stand up to scrutiny and differing situations. So "what about firing a teacher, in Ireland, for posting a pro-atheist (or anti-theist) comment" is valid?
So if you believe that someone should be fired for Falou's comments, it's carte blanche to allow companies the other also.
That's the worrying bit, not the content but the precedent.

They should NEVER have given him another contract, in the first place. It, to be honest, shows that they did not care about his beliefs and only their own public image.

15-04-2019 12:06pm

salmocab wrote: »

We may not like it but that’s the way it has to be, otherwise we get to extremities where a teacher with anti Semitic leanings could be teaching Jewish kids whilst in their own time walking in fascist parades dressed like SS storm troopers.

And this is the thing, as long as we are aware of it.
I agree that he had to go but we need to just be aware of the potential consequences of how he went.

Same with Olding and Jackson last year. Non illegal actions and comments are grounds for dismissal if they are deemed against the nebulous Ethos of an organisation (I say nebulous intentionally as that can change based on publicity and public sentiment, or just if they are looking to sack you without redundancy).

Bannasidhe · 15-04-2019 12:06pm

Varta wrote: »

Inclusivity is a good thing, but that is not what sports is 'about'.
Playing for the national team is indeed about representing your country, but it is also about the individual's personal achievement in the sport.
Sports people representing their country should only be held to account while they are actually engaged in representing their country.

I'm sorry but I think your view of what sport is about is very naive.
Inclusivity is very much is what a sport like rugby is trying to be about because it is trying to grow and attract the best players (male and female) from all parts of society and the widest possible range of male and female supporters - and therefore the widest range of sponsors to pay the players and build infrastructure. In Australia Rugby Union is far less popular than Aussie Rules or Rugby League - both of which rely on fanatical local support. Union is trying to go beyond this and appeal to the widest possible audience.

At it's most basic level Team sports are built on playing for the Team, being part of a team. Falou was/is part of Team Australia. While identified as a member of Team Australia he broadcast (which is what he did) a list of 'sins' and stated that people who had committed those 'sins' are, in his view, damned. You can be sure many of his teammates (and members of their families) could tick a few of those boxes. Therefore he has threatened team cohesion. That can have serious on field consequences. Because you know what - people can be a bit 'slow' in getting there in support of a fellow player when that player has been a dick. That's human nature.

No - playing on a team for your country is about which combination is most likely to succeed. You can, individually, be the greatest player in the world but if you don't play well with others than you are a liability. There were 14 other people playing alongside Falou - how many of them has he called sinners?

His profile picture has him in full flight 'representing' his country. His platform exists because he represents his country. He used that platform to express views that do not represent his country.

As I said, Falou was free to retire and express his views as an individual. He didn't do that. He decided that despite warnings he would use his position as a representative of his country to publicly pass judgement on others.

cgcsb · 15-04-2019 12:17pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

I'm pleased that he isn't backing down. A man has the right to express his beliefs. If some people get upset over it, that's on them. Would we really want to live in a world where people are constantly worried about upsetting someone's feelings?

That's fine, he expressed his beliefs twice and lost his employment after being warned of same the first time, everyone's a winner.

cgcsb · 15-04-2019 12:21pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As someone who holds the belief that homosexuality is sinful,

How can you square the above with the below? You're saying you have a baseless, blind belief in some nebulous concept of 'sin' and then below you are criticising others for their beliefs supposedly not having a basis in reality.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

These people who have a genuine problem that I sympathise with believe that gender and sex are disconnected and that their gender is whatever they wish to choose to identify with. This is pure fantasy and has no basis in reality, yet they’re entitled to believe this if they want.

cgcsb · 15-04-2019 12:25pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

He's an employee, not a slave. His bosses can't tell him to suppress his religious beliefs in his own free time. It would be like telling a gay person to hide their homosexuality.

Well that's where you're wrong kiddo. If I sell company data to the Chinese in my spare time, that's the company's business. Similarly, if I have a public persona based on my career as a sports person, under contract, and I use that persona to tweet some crap, yes it's the employers business.

cgcsb · 15-04-2019 12:29pm

Varta wrote: »

If he had said that gays should go to prison or somewhere else tangible then by all means punish him for it. But he said that the are going to a place that is a figment of his imagination. Therefore, he hasn't really said anything, has he?

Hell doesn't exist, but he believes that it does, if he believes it then the intention of the statement was clearly derogatory. For him hell is as real as prison.

Sonics2k · 15-04-2019 12:54pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

In all the bickering about Hell, religion and moral compasses, people have forgotten one key thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

You are absolutely allowed to state what you believe, however this does not mean you are free from repercussions. Exactly the same as if he said all Jews/black/asian etc people were going to hell.

jim o doom · 15-04-2019 1:20pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

You are absolutely allowed to state what you believe, however this does not mean you are free from repercussions. Exactly the same as if he said all Jews/black/asian etc people were going to hell.

I couldn't agree more. A person is free to state anything they want, but they will suffer the consequences.

If a man insults another in public, which he is free to do so, he may well suffer the repercussion of a dig in the head.

Actions have consequences. If he wasn't free to make the statement in the first place, which is resulting in him likely being dropped from the team, then he wouldn't have made it and we wouldn't have read of it.

partyguinness · 15-04-2019 1:28pm

Whatever one's beliefs it must be borne in mind that as a well known sports personality what you say and do will be held up to a higher level of scrutiny.

If you go around saying things like that (fine it's biblical and all that nonsense) then it is very hard to stop impressionable Joe Soap in the street snowballing that into something else more sinister.

If you say that all gays will go to hell then it's a very small step toward that being the acceptable norm then intolerance is acceptable then a lynch mob is acceptable then violence is acceptable- 'oh but that's what the bible says.' It will simply be hijacked by groups in society for more sinister motives and to justify intolerance and hate toward a particular group. Because it has become the norm then nobody will bat an eyelid- we sleep walk into anarchy.

The Bible or freedom of speech generally is not carte blanche to say what you want and to hell with the consequences. It is not freedom to offend or marginalize who you want.

recedite · 15-04-2019 2:41pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Firstly - if you aren't inclusive then you may not get the best people. The best people may decide that sport is not for me as it's dominated by narrow minded bigots.

Its ironic that you are using this argument.
This guy is the best... and yet you want him off the team.

Secondly - if sports people wish to get paid the big bucks - which the majority of the professionals do- they need to be aware of where their wages comes from. Yes, money plays a huge role. That money comes from sponsors, merchandise, and supporters. Having your sport associated with any fundamentalist view (in this instance fundamentalist Christianity) is bad business.
If expressing your religious views are more important to a person than abiding by the terms and conditions of the contract they enter into then remain amateur. In short - they can have their cake or they can eat it.

Now you're saying that the sponsors get to decide what the guy can and cannot say. That is true to an extent, but there is a danger that the guy could turn the tables and play the victim himself. Just as you can't sack an employee for being openly gay, you can't sack an employee for openly being a Christian fundamentalist either.

Thirdly - playing for the national team is about representing your country - not your religion or yourself. You are there to represent all the people of your country. Not just the ones you approve of.

That's not true though. If you are the President, then you are there to represent your country. If you are a sports star, you are there to win.
To win glory both for yourself, and for your country.
Here's a list of some religious sportsmen who refused to compromise their faith for their sport (with mixed results). Including that guy from the Chariots of Fire film.

Personally, I don't care what their religion is, what colour they are, or what their views on homosexuality are. These guys are sportsmen, the best in the world. Celebrate that.

Bannasidhe · 15-04-2019 4:37pm

recedite wrote: »

Its ironic that you are using this argument.
This guy is the best... and yet you want him off the team.

Now you're saying that the sponsors get to decide what the guy can and cannot say. That is true to an extent, but there is a danger that the guy could turn the tables and play the victim himself. Just as you can't sack an employee for being openly gay, you can't sack an employee for openly being a Christian fundamentalist either.

That's not true though. If you are the President, then you are there to represent your country. If you are a sports star, you are there to win.
To win glory both for yourself, and for your country.
Here's a list of some religious sportsmen who refused to compromise their faith for their sport (with mixed results). Including that guy from the Chariots of Fire film.

Personally, I don't care what their religion is, what colour they are, or what their views on homosexuality are. These guys are sportsmen, the best in the world. Celebrate that.

Where exactly did I say that I want him off the team?
I am discussing why the ARFU may want him off the team.
Because he has shown his personal beliefs are above the Team is, however, to my mind as an ex rugby player, a damn good reason. He is the 'best' only because 14 other people create the opportunities for him to be the 'best'. If they stop - he becomes not only the 'worst', but a liability.

You take the sponsors money - you dance to their tune. If you want to go it alone find a way. Martina Navratilova did when her sponsors dropped her for coming out.

He wasn't sacked for being a Christian Fundamentalist. He has always been a Christian Fundamentalist. He was sacked for expressing views which brought his employers into disrepute - via a platform he has due to his job - and which he had previously been warned not to do. It was 2 strikes and he's out.

Then let his playing ability speak for him. When he is no longer receiving a large salary to represent his country he can say what he likes.

smacl · 15-04-2019 4:47pm

recedite wrote: »

Personally, I don't care what their religion is, what colour they are, or what their views on homosexuality are. These guys are sportsmen, the best in the world. Celebrate that.

You might not, but if the guy is an openly homophobic bigot the team won't want him, the sponsors won't want him, the clubs won't want him and the audience won't want him. He's fully entitled to his freedom of religious expression, but he isn't entitled to be paid top dollar to be part of an elite sports team. That's a position that carries responsibilities on and off the field.

seamus · 15-04-2019 4:51pm

recedite wrote: »

Just as you can't sack an employee for being openly gay, you can't sack an employee for openly being a Christian fundamentalist either.

This is where people display a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between having thoughts in your head that may not be compatible with society, and actually doing things that are not compatible. And I'm somewhat surprised at you, because you know the difference here.

Being "openly" gay simply means that you don't pretend that you're not. That you don't avoid the discussion or pretend to be heterosexual when such topics come up.

Likewise being "openly" christian means that you don't pretend that you're not. Or claim to be Muslim if the topic comes up.

Being "openly" gay does not mean grinding yourself on your hot male co-worker's leg, wearing leather chaps on casual Friday or being overtly sexualised in the office. None of these things are acceptable from anyone regardless of sexuality.

Likewise being "openly" Christian does not mean holding prayer meetings in earshot of the whole office, publically telling co-workers, customers and the general public that their lifestyle is evil, or starting religious debates over the water cooler.
None of these things are acceptable regardless of your religion (or lack thereof).

Being fired from your job as a high-profile role model and sponsorship icon because you posted something hateful on Twitter is not "oppression". It's gross incompetence.

Anteayer · 15-04-2019 5:29pm

To me, this illustrates a bit of a cultural dilemma at the moment. We've developed a notion that people have an absolute right to express any opinion, no matter how vile or stupid, and that somehow that just because it's a firmly held belief (especially if religious, but sometimes political) that it should be completely above criticism or consequence.

You're seeing it a lot with statements of hatred that are couched in various religious beliefs (often stretching them to extremes). You're also seeing a lot of just downright stupid stuff like media outlets feeling they need to actually 'respect' the opinion that the earth is flat. It's by no means unique to Christianity either.

You do have a very broad ranging right to freedom of speech in most developed democracies, including this one, but there are limits to that and it does not protect you from there being consequences, just your right to express the views.

Even in the USA with the 1st amendment rights, which are very broad, there are limits. In some cases they far tighter than here - e.g. try yelling obscenities in a public place in some states, telling a police officer to go **** himself or something like that and you'll find very hard and fast consequences to your freedom of expression.

You've also got limitations around things like libel and defamation protections in most democratic societies. Again, even if the US there are limits to what you can say about someone and while the bar might be higher than here due to the first amendment, really malicious stuff can lead to lawsuits resulting in compensation payments and/or injunctions.

Likewise, I can't just go around harassing people and claiming that it's my absolute right to freedom of speech to do so. In almost every country, that will land you in front of a judge eventually.

We also have a general legal acceptance in this country and most other that minority groups are protected from harassment or attempts to provoke hatred. In Ireland this would be covered largely under the Incitement to Hatred Act and in other countries similar legislation would apply.

The reality is that social mores and legal norms have evolved around LGBT+ rights in all western democracies. What he has said might have been acceptable in the 1950s and might be acceptable in some homophobic regimes around the world, but it's absolutely not in Australia or in many other countries.

Also, if you're the front-facing representative of a big brand as an ambassador, a sports star or even sometimes working for a company, you usually have to sign up to a code of conduct and agree to things like not bringing the brand into disrepute.

So for example, if I were in a branded company vehicle and decided to drive really badly, giving everyone the finger as I went past and shouting homophobic abuse out the window, I'd probably be fired. Being a representative of a team is quite similar to that.

The simple reality is that an absolute right to freedom of speech without any consequences does not exist anywhere in the world. Your freedom of expression is highly protected, but there are limits.

recedite · 15-04-2019 5:58pm

seamus wrote: »

Being "openly" gay does not mean grinding yourself on your hot male co-worker's leg, wearing leather chaps on casual Friday or being overtly sexualised in the office. None of these things are acceptable from anyone regardless of sexuality.

Likewise being "openly" Christian does not mean holding prayer meetings in earshot of the whole office, publically telling co-workers, customers and the general public that their lifestyle is evil, or starting religious debates over the water cooler.
None of these things are acceptable regardless of your religion (or lack thereof).

"Grinding on a co-workers leg" or any kind of sexual harassment is a completely different thing.
What if a homosexual tweeted details of his/her weekend activities, would that be a sacking offence?
I agree with your general point on thinking something versus doing something but the problem is where do you draw that line in the sand?
Is tweeting doing something?

How about tweeting outside office hours?

And I think you will have to admit that this guy that not do anything that would fall foul of any employment or sexual harassment laws.

Whether he fell foul of the small print in his contract is another matter. I don't know whats in his contract. But I know sponsors are generally scared $hitless of the kind of negative online social media campaigns that could result from something like this.

King Mob · 15-04-2019 6:06pm

recedite wrote: »

"Grinding on a co-workers leg" or any kind of sexual harassment is a completely different thing.
What if a homosexual tweeted details of his/her weekend activities, would that be a sacking offence?

What details though?
Graphic sexual details?
Or more like "I went browsing in Ikea with my partner as part of our healthy relationship"?

Cause neither are really comparable...

mcmoustache · 15-04-2019 6:09pm

If my twitter account made clear who I work for and had my company's logo and I tweeted that kind of nonsense, I would likely be told to knock it off or be sacked.

This is not as complicated or as fuzzy as people are trying to make it out to be. You can't be making derogatory statements about classes of people on a public platform while representing an organisation. It's really not complicated.

It's no different than had he tweeted that Christians are all a bunch of incestuous morons and got the sack.

Stop trying to spin this into a free-speech issue - it's the go-to these days whenever someone faces social consequences for being a díck to gays or brown people but the spin doesn't work as can be seen in the Gemma O Doherty, Alex jones and Tommy Robinson threads in AH.

salmocab · 15-04-2019 6:14pm

recedite wrote: »

"

Whether he fell foul of the small print in his contract is another matter. I don't know whats in his contract. But I know sponsors are generally scared $hitless of the kind of negative online social media campaigns that could result from something like this.

His employers are more scared ****less of the sponsors, who in this case have a top man who happens to be gay. He also fell foul of his contract and was rebuked before about this behavior.

smacl · 15-04-2019 6:20pm

recedite wrote: »

Whether he fell foul of the small print in his contract is another matter.

As a rule of thumb, I'd imagine you can say whatever you like about yourself but the problems start when you start suggesting other people unknown to you should be damned to an eternity of suffering because they don't share your worldview. I'm not sure why the OP posted here, other than perhaps to troll the A&A, given that along with the entirety of the gay community all us filthy pagans good atheist folk are also damned to hell in this plonkers book.

smacl · 15-04-2019 6:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

I went browsing in Ikea with my partner...

Nice one. You've just nailed my personal notion of hell :pac:

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Comments