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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

12357…32

Comments

  • #202
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


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

    My SO can actually navigate IKEA.
    At first I was afraid, I was petrified.
    But then she guided me back to sofa furnishings via a wardrobe.


  • #203
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    recedite wrote: »
    Is tweeting doing something?

    How about tweeting outside office hours?
    Both yes. Tweeting is a public broadcast. You're saying things that you intend for the public to hear.

    Plenty of people would get fired or disciplined for tweeting things out of office hours and on a personal account. Most employment contracts include a requirement not to bring your employer into disrepute.

    If you're a well known representative of your employer, then making public statements that damage their reputation is going to get you in trouble.


  • #204
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    seamus wrote: »
    If you're a well known representative of your employer, then making public statements that damage their reputation is going to get you in trouble.

    This is simple stuff. It's been like this for as long as I remember.


  • #205
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I'm sorry but I think your view of what sport is about is very naive.

    You can think whatever you like. Sport is being hijacked by people who want something to pin their beliefs/agendas/politics/etc onto. I see it in its purest form and I believe most people who play a sport see it that way. In fact, it's a great way to get away from all that sh*te.


  • #206
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Varta wrote: »
    You can think whatever you like. Sport is being hijacked by people who want something to pin their beliefs/agendas/politics/etc onto. I see it in its purest form and I believe most people who play a sport see it that way. In fact, it's a great way to get away from all that sh*te.

    And pinning his sh*te on sport is exactly what Falou has done,


  • #207
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    I never said that?





    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.

    Think of not entering the spaceship as not entering Heaven ;-)
    And I believe that if you are to accept people's right to religion then you have to accept everyone's right to religion. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as valid as The Catholic church.


  • #208
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    cgcsb wrote: »
    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.

    Tackling him is the easy part (no pun intended). Let's see if the same people calling for him to be banned are prepared to ban his church.


  • #209
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And pinning his sh*te on sport is exactly what Falou has done,

    Agreed. The question is should he have been banned for it. And if you agree that he should, why stop with him? Surely his church must also be banned from any public events or bodies it associates with.


  • #210
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    seamus wrote: »
    If you're a well known representative of your employer, then making public statements that damage their reputation is going to get you in trouble.
    mcmoustache wrote: »
    This is simple stuff. It's been like this for as long as I remember.
    Its not simple stuff, because seamus here keeps conflating things like employment law, sexual harassment and incitement to hatred with the much more vague "reputational damage" that might "get you in trouble".


    I mean, I have worked in places where somebody being openly gay would have caused enough "reputational damage" to get themselves into trouble. And that was justified (not by me) because "that was the way it was for as long as anyone could remember".


    Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,196 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    recedite wrote: »
    Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.
    and?
    to cast 'being gay' and 'being homophobic' as somehow equivalent, in terms of people's reaction to it, is a little odd.
    or to cast it as a 'we can't tackle the bullies because we'd have to be mean to them' approach is a bit disingenuous.


  • #212
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Varta wrote: »
    Agreed. The question is should he have been banned for it. And if you agree that he should, why stop with him? Surely his church must also be banned from any public events or bodies it associates with.

    He wasn't banned.
    He has apparently been sacked from his job.
    This in no way prevents him from posting any more of his religious views. It simply means he will be posting them as a ex Wallaby.


  • #213
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,411 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Varta wrote: »
    Agreed. The question is should he have been banned for it. And if you agree that he should, why stop with him? Surely his church must also be banned from any public events or bodies it associates with.

    I think you don’t understand what’s happened he has been sacked not for having those beliefs but for expressing them in a way that damages his employers reputation.


  • #214
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,196 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Varta wrote: »
    Agreed. The question is should he have been banned for it. And if you agree that he should, why stop with him? Surely his church must also be banned from any public events or bodies it associates with.
    i'm coming back in late to this debate, but i'm struggling to understand if people are mixing up civil rights as they apply to society in general, with what is deemed permissible in an employer/employee context? because being legally allowed to do something does not mean your employer does not have a stake in it.
    he was not 'banned' from doing anything.
    in a similar sense, BDSM is legal. doesn't mean i can turn up for work in a gimp suit.


  • #215
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    recedite wrote:
    Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.


    Can you truly not tell the difference between being a way that nobody can change but in no way affects anyone, and having an opinion that you decided to have and that has a direct negative effect on innocent people? Facing reasonable consequences for being an a**hole does not make you a victim.


  • #216
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    in a similar sense, BDSM is legal. doesn't mean i can turn up for work in a gimp suit.
    What if you tweeted a photo of yourself in a gimp suit at the weekend?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    What if you tweeted a photo of yourself in a gimp suit at the weekend?

    If its anything like my company, and the customers seen it and complained, yes they would get the sack.


  • #218
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    Facing reasonable consequences for being an a**hole does not make you a victim.
    Being sacked for your religious beliefs does make you a victim.
    I know people are trying to say here that he's not being sacked for having a belief, but for expressing a belief.


    But I'm not buying that, because you can't expect somebody to hide their beliefs when its a big part of who they are. Its a bit hypocritical. Its actually very similar to the old RCC position that its OK to be be gay as long as you keep it hidden.


  • #219
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    If its anything like my company, and the customers seen it and complained, yes they would get the sack.
    The company would probably be sued for an unfair dismissal then.


  • #220
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    He wasn't banned.
    He has apparently been sacked from his job.
    This in no way prevents him from posting any more of his religious views. It simply means he will be posting them as a ex Wallaby.

    Sure, but he has been punished for what he said. No doubt many others in his church are saying similar if not the same. Are they too being punished?


  • #221
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    salmocab wrote: »
    I think you don’t understand what’s happened he has been sacked not for having those beliefs but for expressing them in a way that damages his employers reputation.

    Why should it damage his employers reputation? If his employer stated that his views did not represent theirs I would accept that.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    recedite wrote: »
    I mean, I have worked in places where somebody being openly gay would have caused enough "reputational damage" to get themselves into trouble. And that was justified (not by me) because "that was the way it was for as long as anyone could remember".


    Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.
    Well no, because you're still mixing up actions and thoughts. Being gay, is not an action.

    I think you'd find that if any sports celebrity went onto Twitter disparaging religious people, they'd find themselves in exactly the same trouble. This is not an LGTB "Lynch mob". It's a basic standard that if you decide to open your mouth, there are probably going to be consequences and you need to accept them.

    If you're not prepared to accept them, then STFU.


  • #223
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    seamus wrote: »
    If you're not prepared to accept them, then STFU.
    Free Speech can't be extinguished so easily.


  • #224
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    recedite wrote: »
    Being sacked for your religious beliefs does make you a victim.
    I know people are trying to say here that he's not being sacked for having a belief, but for expressing a belief.


    But I'm not buying that, because you can't expect somebody to hide their beliefs when its a big part of who they are. Its a bit hypocritical. Its actually very similar to the old RCC position that its OK to be be gay as long as you keep it hidden.


    If he was sacked for his religious beliefs, why wasn't he sacked before now? The management knew he had them, since he received a warning.



    No, that's barely drawing parallels. You choose to be racist/homophobic/bigoted etc. You choose to be religious these days. You do not choose to be a different race or gay.


    recedite wrote: »
    Free Speech can't be extinguished so easily.


    Free speech isn't a thing in Australia, outside of political speech.


  • #225
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    recedite wrote: »
    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    Facing reasonable consequences for being an a**hole does not make you a victim.
    Being sacked for your religious beliefs does make you a victim.
    I know people are trying to say here that he's not being sacked for having a belief, but for expressing a belief.


    But I'm not buying that, because you can't expect somebody to hide their beliefs when its a big part of who they are. Its a bit hypocritical. Its actually very similar to the old RCC position that its OK to be be gay as long as you keep it hidden.

    Hes not a victim. He simply is incredibly stupid.
    How stupid do you have to be to jeopardise your career like that.


  • #226
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,411 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Varta wrote: »
    Why should it damage his employers reputation? If his employer stated that his views did not represent theirs I would accept that.

    The employer relies on sponsorship and ticket sales if people start to stay away because they choose not to spend their money watching a bigot play sport then the employer suffers as their reputation is tarnished by association. Just because you accept it doesn’t mean anything. He had a duty to Australian rugby that he had tarnished before and had been warned about so he did this full in the knowledge that he would be in trouble employment wise. He either didn’t care or wanted to cause this trouble.


  • #227
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    The company would probably be sued for an unfair dismissal then.

    Nope it's in the contract that at all times you are a representative of the company, and this includes any social media platforms. Anything that you post that could potentially harm the business or reputation of the company will lead to disciplinary action.


  • #228
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,411 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Varta wrote: »
    Sure, but he has been punished for what he said. No doubt many others in his church are saying similar if not the same. Are they too being punished?

    Australian rugby can’t punish people not connected to them.


  • #229
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Nope it's in the contract that at all times you are a representative of the company, and this includes any social media platforms. Anything that you post that could potentially harm the business or reputation of the company will lead to disciplinary action.
    I'd put that in the same category as most disclaimers and pre-nups - ie if you are relying on the legality of the clause and it goes to court, you might be in for a shock.


  • #230
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,949 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    He'll get another club very quickly. He is a great rugby player.

    As for speaking your mind, well I'm all for it.
    If you force people into not being allowed speak their mind in public they will talk at home. Their kids will hear them and they'll be much worse than their parents were.
    If a guy is allowed give his opinions and people discuss his views then he might soften or change his mind.


  • #231
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    I'd put that in the same category as most disclaimers and pre-nups - ie if you are relying on the legality of the clause and it goes to court, you might be in for a shock.

    Not my company and not on any social media platform.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He'll get another club very quickly. He is a great rugby player.

    As for speaking your mind, well I'm all for it.
    If you force people into not being allowed speak their mind in public they will talk at home. Their kids will hear them and they'll be much worse than their parents were.
    If a guy is allowed give his opinions and people discuss his views then he might soften or change his mind.
    His kids are going to hear his opinions anyway.
    Also have yet to meet a religious nut capable of changing their mind.


  • #233
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    salmocab wrote: »
    Australian rugby can’t punish people not connected to them.

    I'm sure their employers could though.


  • #234
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    salmocab wrote: »
    The employer relies on sponsorship and ticket sales if people start to stay away because they choose not to spend their money watching a bigot play sport then the employer suffers as their reputation is tarnished by association. Just because you accept it doesn’t mean anything. He had a duty to Australian rugby that he had tarnished before and had been warned about so he did this full in the knowledge that he would be in trouble employment wise. He either didn’t care or wanted to cause this trouble.

    Why do you assume people would stay away. Maybe they would just say, "Oh there's the rugby player who has those antiquated views about gay people. What score is it?"


  • #235
    salmocab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,411 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Varta wrote: »
    Why do you assume people would stay away. Maybe they would just say, "Oh there's the rugby player who has those antiquated views about gay people. What score is it?"

    Why do you assume people would say oh there’s that rugby player who has antiquated views, why not oh there’s that bigoted dick I’m not spending my money supporting him. Or Qantas saying we’re not giving money to that crowd as they pay that bigot? Also the players on the team might have an issue with him especially someone like David Pocock. He was warned before so it’s not like this came out of nowhere.


  • #236
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,756 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Varta wrote: »
    Tackling him is the easy part (no pun intended). Let's see if the same people calling for him to be banned are prepared to ban his church.

    What do you mean by banned?


  • #237
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,756 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    recedite wrote: »
    Its not simple stuff, because seamus here keeps conflating things like employment law, sexual harassment and incitement to hatred with the much more vague "reputational damage" that might "get you in trouble".


    I mean, I have worked in places where somebody being openly gay would have caused enough "reputational damage" to get themselves into trouble. And that was justified (not by me) because "that was the way it was for as long as anyone could remember".


    Which takes us neatly back to what the OP was saying; people are still at the mercy of the lynch mob - its just that the roles have been reversed. The persecutors have in some cases become the victims.

    Not comparable situations one is persecution of a minority the other is effectively banning derogatory statements that may bring the organisation into disrepute


  • #238
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,756 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    recedite wrote: »
    Being sacked for your religious beliefs does make you a victim.
    I know people are trying to say here that he's not being sacked for having a belief, but for expressing a belief.


    But I'm not buying that, because you can't expect somebody to hide their beliefs when its a big part of who they are. Its a bit hypocritical. Its actually very similar to the old RCC position that its OK to be be gay as long as you keep it hidden.
    Aside from the fact that gay people are real and god isn't there's still quite a big difference. He could have chosen to tweet nothing that day for example. If he claims that jews would burn in he'll if they didn't repent we wouldn't be having this conversation for example.


  • #239
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,756 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Varta wrote: »
    Why should it damage his employers reputation? If his employer stated that his views did not represent theirs I would accept that.

    It doesn't work that way for de facto celebrities. It's not the same as working the checkout at TK MAXX


  • #240
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,756 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He'll get another club very quickly. He is a great rugby player.

    As for speaking your mind, well I'm all for it.
    If you force people into not being allowed speak their mind in public they will talk at home. Their kids will hear them and they'll be much worse than their parents were.
    If a guy is allowed give his opinions and people discuss his views then he might soften or change his mind.
    Gay people aren't going to engage in a 'debate' about whether or not they are going to burn in hell no more than jews are going debate same with anti semites. It's a farcical suggestion to be honest. Such stupid utterances do not need to be entertained or 'debate any more that flat earthers or the kkk need a platform for debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Strumms
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,812 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Hes not a victim. He simply is incredibly stupid.
    How stupid do you have to be to jeopardise your career like that.

    Incredibly stupid, it defies logic. You actually hope that when he put forward these views in a public setting he was under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both. To have a great, sought after career, which for a large part in essence is made possible by the public whom some of will be gay, have gay friends and relatives etc... as stupid as he might be for expressing these views, to have given them thought, consideration to the point of believing them is fûcking bananas.


  • #242
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    salmocab wrote: »
    Why do you assume people would say oh there’s that rugby player who has antiquated views, why not oh there’s that bigoted dick I’m not spending my money supporting him. Or Qantas saying we’re not giving money to that crowd as they pay that bigot? Also the players on the team might have an issue with him especially someone like David Pocock. He was warned before so it’s not like this came out of nowhere.

    If you can assume so can I.
    I find what he said to be utter nonsense, but it is a case of pinning the blame on one man rather than the entire religion. When Qantas are prepared to ban from their flights all followers of religions that say it is wrong to be gay, then I will take them seriously. But if they withdraw their sponsorship over his articulation of a belief held by millions of deluded followers of religion, then they are merely hypocrites hitting on an easy target.


  • #243
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    Strumms wrote: »
    Incredibly stupid, it defies logic. You actually hope that when he put forward these views in a public setting he was under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both. To have a great, sought after career, which for a large part in essence is made possible by the public whom some of will be gay, have gay friends and relatives etc... as stupid as he might be for expressing these views, to have given them thought, consideration to the point of believing them is fûcking bananas.

    He was under the influence of religion. A very powerful drug indeed.


  • #244
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Aside from the fact that gay people are real and god isn't there's still quite a big difference. He could have chosen to tweet nothing that day for example. If he claims that jews would burn in he'll if they didn't repent we wouldn't be having this conversation for example.

    Don't think that would be the case, someone most likely would have opened a thread about it.


  • #245
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,949 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    He will probably end up on mire money than he earned in Australua with a French team or even an Irish one. The clubs that don't go in for him are foolish, he is that good.


  • #246
    cgcsb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,756 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Varta wrote: »
    If you can assume so can I.
    I find what he said to be utter nonsense, but it is a case of pinning the blame on one man rather than the entire religion. When Qantas are prepared to ban from their flights all followers of religions that say it is wrong to be gay, then I will take them seriously. But if they withdraw their sponsorship over his articulation of a belief held by millions of deluded followers of religion, then they are merely hypocrites hitting on an easy target.
    Do you understand the difference between an employee and a customer?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He will probably end up on mire money than he earned in Australua with a French team or even an Irish one. The clubs that don't go in for him are foolish, he is that good.

    A French team might certainly pick him up - probably will - but I seriously doubt the IRFU will touch him. He is now on the "loose cannon" list.
    His international career is most likely over.
    Which I think is a waste as Falou is a sublime rugby player. But he had his chance to consider his actions after he was warned a year ago.


  • #248
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Do you understand the difference between an employee and a customer?

    What a sad, unprincipled outlook you have on life.


  • #249
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,838 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    eagle eye wrote: »
    He will probably end up on mire money than he earned in Australua with a French team or even an Irish one. The clubs that don't go in for him are foolish, he is that good.

    He certainly won't be picked up by an Irish club :D


  • #250
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,196 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Do you understand the difference between an employee and a customer?
    Varta wrote: »
    What a sad, unprincipled outlook you have on life.

    i'm guessing that's a 'no'.


  • #251
    Varta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Varta


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i'm guessing that's a 'no'.

    I'm guessing you guess at most things in life.

    If I was aware that a person was spewing hatred towards gay people I wouldn't give them my business, nor would I take their business, and I wouldn't work for them. But then I have principles.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement