Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Anteayer · 14-04-2019 2:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a bit of a false dilemma going on here. To suppose that the only way to deal with one form of sinful behaviour (bigotry and hatred) is to normalize another form of sinful behaviour.

The big, big, big, BIG issue with that is you're assume that being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's not and there is lots of very solid scientific evidence that supports that too.

What you're saying is basically like saying that being black, white, male, female, to have curly hair or to be Irish is sinful.

Whatever about being sinful, it's illegal and socially unacceptable to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation and it's also illegal to incite hatred against gay people and a wide range of other people in society.

If someone were to start saying that a particular colour or skin were sinful or making similar statements about minority religious groups, there would likely be legal implications but somehow ranting about gay people being sinful is still seen as legitimate religious expression.

Whether or not you chose to ignore reality is your own business but being gay isn't some kind of philosophical stance.

Outkast_IRE · 14-04-2019 2:38pm

The moment i realised it has peaked was when on the front page of rte last week they had some spoofer giving an opinion piece on LGBTQIA+ . I had to google the bloodly thing to find out what the second half of it meant.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 2:40pm

recedite wrote: »

You are right.
But antiskeptic is also right...

Nobody is seriously accusing the guy of incitement to hatred, or of illegal hate speech, and nobody is arresting the guy. This is more a story of corporate greed, and the ability of the current very vocal majority to enforce their own moral view while silencing dissenters.

That moral view being "Hey, maybe gay people don't deserve to be tortured forever and saying that they do is a bit not ok..."

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2019 2:46pm

recedite wrote: »

You are right.
But antiskeptic is also right...

Nobody is seriously accusing the guy of incitement to hatred, or of illegal hate speech, and nobody is arresting the guy. This is more a story of corporate greed, and the ability of the current very vocal majority to enforce their own moral view while silencing dissenters.

If you think using your large social media platform to say a particular group of people are 'unholy' /damned isn't inciting hatred than you must be unaware that the Sultan of Brunai used exactly the same justification to introduce Capital Punishment. Pointing the finger at a section of society and calling them 'sinners' is to incite hatred.

Corporate greed or one individual who believes his beliefs give him the right to ignore the terms and conditions of his lucrative contract of employment even after being warned not to associate his employers with his views?

recedite · 14-04-2019 2:49pm

King Mob wrote: »

That moral view being "Hey, maybe gay people don't deserve to be tortured forever and saying that they do is a bit not ok..."

The word "saying" is the key word here. Either you agree with Freedom of Speech (excluding any illegal incitement to hatred) or you don't.

I know from previous discussion with you that you only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed.

recedite · 14-04-2019 2:51pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Corporate greed or one individual who believes his beliefs give him the right to ignore the terms and conditions of his lucrative contract of employment even after being warned not to associate his employers with his views?

Yes, ultimately its the lucrative sponsorship deals that are at stake.

recedite · 14-04-2019 2:55pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think using your large social media platform to say a particular group of people are 'unholy' /damned isn't inciting hatred than you must be unaware that the Sultan of Brunai used exactly the same justification to introduce Capital Punishment

You are confusing celebrity status with "ruler of a kingdom" status.

The Sultan does not derive his authority from social media, nor does he rely on it. Which is exactly why he can buck the social media trends.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2019 2:57pm

recedite wrote: »

You are confusing celebrity status with "ruler of a kingdom" status.

The Sultan does not derive his authority from social media, nor does he rely on it. Which is exactly why he can buck the social media trends.

And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that both use their religious beliefs as justification to point the finger and condemn others.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 2:58pm

recedite wrote: »

The word "saying" is the key word here. Either you agree with Freedom of Speech (excluding any illegal incitement to hatred) or you don't.

I know from previous discussion with you that you only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed.

You're putting words in my mouth here.
Never say that people couldn't say what they wanted.
I'm just arguing that people should also then be free to point out how some people's speech is a bit horrible.
Like for instance: saying that gay people deserve torture.
These are horrible, hateful things to say.

We're also pointing out that people can't really pretend it's the work of the gay illuminati and there's nothing wrong such hateful ideas.

You're welcome to explain how I " only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed" because I have never said any such thing.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2019 2:59pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, ultimately its the lucrative sponsorship deals that are at stake.

The same sponsorship deals that paid that employees wages.

batgoat · 14-04-2019 3:16pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The same sponsorship deals that paid that employees wages.

Wonder if he also views campaigns such as 'Keep Racism out of Football' as further examples of corporate greed. Same logic follows it.

antiskeptic · 14-04-2019 3:51pm

Kingmob wrote:

This is a misrepresentation.
I am not arguing from a "populist" position.
I'm pointing out that this person is unlikely to share your uncommon belief and definitions re hell torture etc.
You have no reason to believe that he does.

I have no need to jump to your conclusion. If this guy is in anyway a thinking, reflective person he is likely not to hold to a literalist view of the bible.

We're arguing over nowt really: hell is a horror whether it be actually hellfire and brimstone or that just an attempt to describe its actual horror that encompasses far more than just the physical person.

Your mistaking a hellfire model being your goto with it necessarily being a goto for those who might be more informed than you.

Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that this person must adhere to your definitions and you are feigning confusion as to how people could possible take him to mean what he said on face value and not your specific version of the concepts

People will take it according to their own understanding. You are laying your understanding on him. I'm merely saying this need by no means be. My understanding ( no actual fire) is commonplace not esoteric.

So no, you cannot produce any evidence to support your idea that being gay leads to harm

Nor can you that science is the prime way for everyone to assess such things. I say everyone - not just you or those who share your philosophical faith

It's all based on your religious ideas and untrained, uneducated uninformed and biased opinions.

I remain unconvinced.

As do I by your inability to provide a proof for your philosophical roots.

You concentrate very much on the architectural merit of the empiricist structure you inhabit. When it comes to showing us the foundations on which it all rests ... silence

You can fool alot of the people alot of the time with such misdirection. Its not that folk can't be fooled by the glossy packaging. I'm more interested in the contents however

Your alternative is not at all viable.

It appears we are both satisfied with our respective systems, without being able to demonstrate a proof of them to another.

Snap..

We aren't going to make progress on your positions re empiricism and you making factual statments without and in spite of evidence.

The factual position is that there is no proof for empiricism uber alles.

I would however like you to detail what exactly the "LGBT agenda" is.
You guys often bring it up, but it's a lot like the Illuminati or the Lizard people.

What do you think it is? Who do you think is running it and why? To what end?

Nobody need run it anymore than anyone need run neo-conservatism in order that it flourish. It arises from goals sufficiently shared by a sufficient number of people. In so far as there is a string puller then he is satan. ☺

The background would be #meonly liberalism. The idea that I ought be able to do anything I like so long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else (where 'harm' is a loose term, defined in the eye of the beholder)

The formula for inception is a response to an evil (where evil is defined as a bastardisation of God's intent): whether womens lib arising from misogyonistic patriarchy or the LBGT movement arising from hatred towards gays.

The outcome leads to more evil (as defined above). And so today we have industrial childcare vans pulling up outside schools with 'open from 7am to 7pm' emblazoned on the side. With all the psychological harm involved in same (don't bother citing your papers, my wifes a qualified counselling psychologist and I'm aware of both the research and the problematic nature of research). Or the fact that there's been a massive transfer of wealth borne of womens lib (it takes two earners to finance a household where ot used take only one).

Ditto the LGBT movement. All is to be normalised unto kids books with cross dressing themes or 11 year olds placed into gender reassignment programmes by parents who've swallowed whole,the current mood and flavour.

Its not rocket science: the hand that rocks the cradle (whether through ownership of the media or influence within same) comes to rule the world

King Mob · 14-04-2019 3:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no need to jump to your conclusion. If this guy is in anyway a thinking, reflective person he is likely not to hold to a literalist view of the bible.

Well no.
If they were a thinking reflective person, they wouldn't being saying such awful things in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ditto the LGBT movement. All is to be normalised unto kids books with cross dressing themes or 11 year olds placed into gender reassignment programmes by parents who've swallowed whole,the current mood and flavour.

Its not rocket science: the hand that rocks the cradle (whether through ownership of the media or influence within same) comes to rule the world

So, pretty much exactly the same level as the illuminati and lizard people then...

antiskeptic · 14-04-2019 3:58pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

You are confusing celebrity status with "ruler of a kingdom" status.

The Sultan does not derive his authority from social media, nor does he rely on it. Which is exactly why he can buck the social media trends.

And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that both use their religious beliefs as justification to point the finger and condemn others.

You might not realise that the philosophical underpinnings of your position (eg: empiricism (a.k.a. the research shows) and rationalism) have no proofs.

They are faith based positions (that is: you believe in them in the absence of proofs).

And so, in condeming others you do so from the same base position that they do (personal conviction / faith)

In so far as 'religious' is deemed a dirty word, a word with negative connotations, so to can be dismissed the 'philosophical' view.

antiskeptic · 14-04-2019 4:04pm

Double post

antiskeptic · 14-04-2019 4:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have no need to jump to your conclusion. If this guy is in anyway a thinking, reflective person he is likely not to hold to a literalist view of the bible.

Well no.
If they were a thinking reflective person, they wouldn't being saying such awful things in the first place.

Its only awful to the mood of the times. If you think there are bigger fish to fry than that well...

So, pretty much exactly the same level as the illuminati..

Dunno what that means. If your happy to have your kids raised like battery chickens because the research says it fine then knock yourself out.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 4:11pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its only awful to the mood of the times. There is bigger picture to fry.

No, it's awful cause it's awful the same way most people understand that similar racist opinions are awful.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dunno what that means.

Your rant there at the end is similar in tone, structure and belief to the people who believe that the illuminati or lizard people from the centre of the Earth are soon to take over the world.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If your happy to have your kids raised like battery chickens because the research says it fine then knock yourself out.

So
"Don't be ****ty to gay people"
=
"Our kids will be raised like battery chickens"

Ok...

antiskeptic · 14-04-2019 4:14pm

recidite wrote:

The word "saying" is the key word here. Either you agree with Freedom of Speech (excluding any illegal incitement to hatred) or you don't.

Bit of of a problem here. Whats legal an illegal lies in the hands of vested interests (think Julian Assange).

Freedom is either free or its in the hands of vested interests and moods of the times to decide.

Which do you want? Pure freedom or control by vested interests?

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2019 4:19pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might not realise that the philosophical underpinnings of your position (eg: empiricism (a.k.a. the research shows) and rationalism) have no proofs.

They are faith based positions (that is: you believe in them in the absence of proofs).

And so, in condeming others you do so from the same base position that they do (personal conviction / faith)

In so far as 'religious' is deemed a dirty word, a word with negative connotations, so to can be dismissed the 'philosophical' view.

Much wordy raphood but little substance there.

What I believe is that someone's life style choice to subscribe to a particular religious belief does not grant them permission to publicly judge others and proclaim them damned and if they choose to do so then the repercussions should be met with the acknowledgement that they got themselves into this position.

antiskeptic · 14-04-2019 4:21pm

kingmob wrote:

Our kids will be raised like battery chickens"

Not will be. Are being.

There's the unexpected consequences of following the mood of the times.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 4:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not will be. Are being.

There's the unexpected consequences of following the mood of the times.

Ok...
And in what way are they being raised like battery chickens?

In some kind of pods in the centre of the earth with the lizard people/gays?

Or do you mean in a more metaphorical factory farm with is likewise far fetched and unsupportable?

recedite · 14-04-2019 4:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

You're welcome to explain how I " only support Free Speech when you agree with the views being expressed" because I have never said any such thing.

You are saying its not OK to say gays will go to hell, and also that the guy should be fired.
I'm saying its not OK in a commercial sense, because its bad for business.
But in a social media sense, it is OK to hold and express that religious belief (which was in fact the normal mainstream religious belief in western society up until recently).

King Mob wrote: »

So, pretty much exactly the same level as the illuminati and lizard people then...

King Mob wrote: »

the illuminati or lizard people from the centre of the Earth are soon to take over the world..

King Mob wrote: »

the Illuminati or the Lizard people.
What do you think it is? Who do you think is running it and why? To what end?

Why this obsession with lizards and lighting?

The herpetology forum is that way >

batgoat · 14-04-2019 4:57pm

recedite wrote: »

You are saying its not OK to say gays will go to hell, and also that the guy should be fired.
I'm saying its not OK in a commercial sense, because its bad for business.
But in a social media sense, it is OK to hold and express that religious belief (which was in fact the normal mainstream religious belief in western society up until recently).

Why this obsession with lizards and lighting?

The herpetology forum is that way >

Most people generally view such people as homophobic dicks tbh. It's generally not a view that's approved of.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 5:10pm

recedite wrote: »

You are saying its not OK to say gays will go to hell, and also that the guy should be fired.

But where did I say he should be fired?
Or that I opposed free speech for that matter?

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying its not OK in a commercial sense, because its bad for business.
But in a social media sense, it is OK to hold and express that religious belief (which was in fact the normal mainstream religious belief in western society up until recently).

Sure. And people by the same token get to point out that belief is wrong and kind of horrible.

recedite wrote: »

Why this obsession with lizards and lighting?

The herpetology forum is that way >

I'm drawing the parallel between the idea of a "LGBT agenda" and the equally silly notion of conspiracy theories like the illuminati and lizard people.
I'm not seeing much of a difference between them, especially given antiskeptics claims above.
Thought that was clear...

recedite · 14-04-2019 5:49pm

batgoat wrote: »

Most people generally view such people as homophobic dicks tbh. It's generally not a view that's approved of.

Maybe its not approved of, but the question is whether he should be allowed to express his view, or even to think it.

King Mob wrote: »

But where did I say he should be fired?

I must have misunderstood you. No argument so.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm drawing the parallel between the idea of a "LGBT agenda" and the equally silly notion of conspiracy theories like the illuminati and lizard people.
I'm not seeing much of a difference between them, especially given antiskeptics claims above.
Thought that was clear...

Thanks for explaining. I had no idea what you were on about.
BTW, can you point me in the direction of the lizard marriage campaign, or the encouragement of schoolchildren to identify as illuminati in schools?

14-04-2019 5:51pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't whether it's a matter of choice. The question is whether a gay lifestyle / being born black or white is sinful or not.

Well the answers no for most normal people in both cases.

Going by some of the posters on boards it's possible to be gay and racist, and to be the opposite, racist but be pro gay rights. For some it's also possible just to out right dislike everyone who isn't like them.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 5:58pm

recedite wrote: »

Thanks for explaining. I had no idea what you were on about.
BTW, can you point me in the direction of the lizard marriage campaign, or the encouragement of schoolchildren to identify as illuminati in schools?

Well no. Cause such things dont exist.
Can you point to the leaders of this sinister agenda?
Can you point to any solid supported evidenced ill effects of this nefarious conspiracy?
Can you point to a final dispicible goal of this cabal?

If not, then its in the samr pile with the ramblings of Alex Jones and David Icke.
And as such people shouldnt be surprised when their claims of a LGBT agenda is met with the same uncomfortable looks towards an exit when someone brings up the masons.

recedite · 14-04-2019 6:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well no. Cause such things dont exist.

Not for lizards or illuminati, but they do exist for LGBT. Therefore there is an LGBT agenda but there is no lizard agenda.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2019 6:18pm

recedite wrote: »

Not for lizards or illuminati, but they do exist for LGBT. Therefore there is an LGBT agenda but there is no lizard agenda.

My Fabulous Gay Agenda

1. Watch Games of Thrones.
2. Watch it again in case I missed something the first time.
3. Be faaaabulous.
4. Feed the lizards.
5. Don't have any lizards. Check on-line where to buy lizards.
6. Feck that. Get lizard tattoo because tattoos are faaaabulos.
7. Coffee!!!

magicbastarder · 14-04-2019 6:22pm

have we reached 'have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?' nonsense yet?

SoundsRight · 14-04-2019 6:28pm

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?

Tell me how · 14-04-2019 6:32pm

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?

But where do you draw the line?
Do you think that someone should be entitled to express the belief that blacks are an inferior race?

If you sign up to the code of practice of an organisation, you have to abide by that practice.

SoundsRight · 14-04-2019 6:37pm

Tell me how wrote: »

But where do you draw the line?
Do you think that someone should be entitled to express the belief that blacks are an inferior race?

If you sign up to the code of practice of an organisation, you have to abide by that practice.

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2019 6:47pm

It should be noted that Australia doesn't have protection for Freedom of Speech, outside of political communication.

Sean.3516 · 14-04-2019 6:48pm

As someone who holds the belief that homosexuality is sinful, I have absolutely no problem with people engaging in any activity that has no extranalities for other people who aren’t voluntarily involved in that activity.

When people say religious ppl hate gays, that’s rubbish. Religious ppl have their own lives and just because they’ve signed onto certain standards for their own behaviour doesn’t mean we hate everyone who doesn’t believe in our standards.

The Trans issue is way way different though. 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.

What makes the T different from the LGB is that the LGB folks are attempting to use the law to ensure me and other ppl must capitulate to their beliefs by using female pronouns on biological men even though we disagree that they are women.

Is this not tyrannical and fascistic?

Tell me how · 14-04-2019 6:50pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

What year do you think it is?

Sean.3516 · 14-04-2019 6:52pm

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

I disagree. Free speech since the inception of the concept has merely meant that the government will pass no law that abridges the right of the individual to express what’s on their mind at any given time. In other words the govt can’t limit speech, however private instituions have every right to ensure that their participants adhere to certain behaviour and this includes speech regualtions.

King Mob · 14-04-2019 11:26pm

recedite wrote: »

Not for lizards or illuminati, but they do exist for LGBT. Therefore there is an LGBT agenda but there is no lizard agenda.

Cool.
So again, who is behind this sinister agenda? Who is controlling it?
What is their goal in forwarding their agenda?
If you can't answer these questions, in what way does this gay agenda exist?

What ill effects will this agenda have?
If you can't point to any (or ones that you can support with actual evidence) why should we be concerned about it?

Is there a "black agenda"?
Is there a "straight agenda"?

bilbot79 · 14-04-2019 11:31pm

Sean.3516 wrote: »

As someone who holds the belief that homosexuality is sinful, I have absolutely no problem with people engaging in any activity that has no extranalities for other people who aren’t voluntarily involved in that activity.

When people say religious ppl hate gays, that’s rubbish. Religious ppl have their own lives and just because they’ve signed onto certain standards for their own behaviour doesn’t mean we hate everyone who doesn’t believe in our standards.

The Trans issue is way way different though. 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.

What makes the T different from the LGB is that the LGB folks are attempting to use the law to ensure me and other ppl must capitulate to their beliefs by using female pronouns on biological men even though we disagree that they are women.

Is this not tyrannical and fascistic?

Pathetic to think homosexuality is sinful. What scant character a person must have, when they need to outsource their moral values to a religion.

Guy:Incognito · 14-04-2019 11:33pm

screamer wrote: »

There’s a lot more people on his list there that will burn in hell.... they’re not making a big deal of it though. Perspective is lost on some people and I’m very tired of the outrage brigade at this stage. Sticks n stones and all that......

Maybe we could add "people that dont read the thread" to the hell list.

Along with "people who think being gay is the same as being a thief, a liar, an alcoholic etc"

Guy:Incognito · 14-04-2019 11:43pm

I just wrote my own book . It's all up to date and caters to the realities of the world of today. It says that people who believe made up stories, are sinners. Theres no consequence for this, cos I just made up the contents of the book, so anyone that thinks my work of fiction could affect their lives, or even more bizarrely, their post life years, is delusional .

Youre a double sinner if you not only believe the made up stories, but live your life letting them put restrictions on your life. But again, that just means you wont be affected, twice.

smacl · 15-04-2019 8:10am

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm outraged. I'm an atheist and I'm not going to hell.

I dunno though, why is this peak LGBT nonsense?

It isn't. It is and attempt to pass off depressingly common homophobia, bigotry, dubious Victorian morality and religious zeal as acceptable in today's society. I think it is proper order that he was fired and excluded from playing from the national team. Sports today are about inclusivity where players on a national team serve as role models for what others might aspire to. Expressions of bigotry and discrimination, while deeply reprehensible at a personal level, are genuinely damaging in this context and have no place.

Alan Quinlan's interview on the subject sums it up pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHlUdgAput4

SoundsRight · 15-04-2019 9:30am

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I disagree. Free speech since the inception of the concept has merely meant that the government will pass no law that abridges the right of the individual to express what’s on their mind at any given time. In other words the govt can’t limit speech, however private instituions have every right to ensure that their participants adhere to certain behaviour and this includes speech regualtions.

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.

sydthebeat · 15-04-2019 9:34am

SoundsRight wrote: »

Yes, absolutely they have the right to express that belief. There are fundamental human rights that take precedence over an employer's code of conduct.

Well you are INCREDIBLY wrong then

LeinsterDub · 15-04-2019 10:05am

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.

Can his bosses tell him not to take performance enhancing drugs in his own free time?

batgoat · 15-04-2019 10:19am

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.

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.

15-04-2019 10:24am

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.

YES THEY CAN. And he's not a slave, as a slave would have to stay with them and not get paid. He can go off and go work for some other company who don't have such hangups regulations.

Russia or Georgia or some of those countries would probably sign him. Or perhaps South Africa.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 15-04-2019 10:30am

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I disagree. Free speech since the inception of the concept has merely meant that the government will pass no law that abridges the right of the individual to express what’s on their mind at any given time. In other words the govt can’t limit speech, however private instituions have every right to ensure that their participants adhere to certain behaviour and this includes speech regualtions.

That’s actually a limited version of free speech based on the US model. Unions actually campaigned for the rights of workers to free speech within corporations. The American protections are pretty weak, to be honest.

magicbastarder · 15-04-2019 10:32am

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.

they are not telling him to suppress his beliefs. you're mixing up the right to a belief and a right to free speech, and muddying it with employment law.

if i was publically pronouncing that some of my colleagues in work were sinners and would burn in hell, they would have a very good case for having me removed from my job.
let the chap spout off about how he thinks others are sinful; he can do that if it makes him feel warm inside. but the notion that he should be allowed do so without any care as to whether he remains employed is naive in the extreme.

Varta · 15-04-2019 10:47am

"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?

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

Comments