He is entitled to his bigot based opinion that is outdated and in all honesty probably some deep ceded cover for being in the closet himself.
I also am entitled in my opinion that he is a disgusting ill informed narrow minded human being that is being selective about what his religions 'rules'.
Like father/mother, like son/daughter.
You only now what youve been told...
Our education system sucks, we put so much emphasis on retaining information and creativity but we put little development into the youngest part of the brain. Logic, rational thought and critical thinking.
Prision Statistics - 90+% inmates religious.
As disappointing and confused as his opinions are, fortunately he finds himself amongst a receding minority disappearing into their depraved ignorant corner.
Thankfully the majority in this country realize the absurdity of his position while appreciating his right to express it as long as he doesn't mind looking s bit stupid while doing so.
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.
I do wonder how isy explains the fact that the worlds leading biologists (who's life's work is understanding such things) agree that every studied mammalian species exhibits same sex attraction, and that it occurs with near identical frequency within their populations.
So why would Satan need gay dolphins?
Two years ago
Hope Issy likes the company of those that he is damning because the bible also says: 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." I would suggest that $2 million a year for playing rugby makes Issy a rich man.
I'll go first , Dear God, so why do you allow 9 million children under the age of 5 every year to die, the great majority dying screaming in agony of starvation & diharea with their parents desperately preying for help, none of which you answer?
Is it because you can't help or you just don't want to?
Ps. I'm also concerned that they may be damned to suffer for eternity as punishment for not believing in a religion they haven't herd of as your revaluation is yet to rech them, if you can clear that up too I'd be very greateful
Thanks in advance for your reply;)
I'll field this one.
Recent events have brought about a much-needed revolution in our approach to faith. We recognise more people than ever are being brainwashed and distancing themsleves from eternal truth. We have a full 10-year global plan ready to roll out starting in August of this year, with the chief aim to bring faith back to the people. From New York City to Melbourne to the most desolate parts of Central Africa, the faith will reach you and touch you in ways you may never have been touched. It is a brilliant approach, guaranteed to stimulate trickle-down salvation to those willing to accept it. And even those who are not, which I absolutely love.
We do not condemn people to hell for living and dying without knowing of the True Lord, we reincarnate them. Those without knowledge of the cause are born again as purveyors of the truth, so everyone gets a chance. Those who do not open their heart will see the floor open underneath them for the long drop to hell. Sorry not sorry
"So who's the bigger dickhead?
Folau for expressing an opinion, or that twat at Qantas threatening to pull sponsorship because of it."
That turd CEO of theirs telling staff to use 'partner' instead of husband/wife should've been the final straw. What a maggot.
Why are people angry towards Izzy?
If you are a non believer then why would it effect you?
I am a Christian, if a Muslim told me i will go to hell for eating pork, i would laugh at them then go and have a bacon and egg roll.
If you are a non Christian, why would his comments effect you?
Makes ZERO sense.
Two years ago
So why would Satan need gay dolphins?
Lol, best comment so far
Sorry but time people evolved, no one is coming to save or condemn anyone , it's up to you what you do with your life, religion of any kind is what’s wrong with this entire dam planet
Two years ago
Everyone is happy to preach for freedom of speech, but when someone says something that that person doesn't like the concept goes out the window and it often turns personal.
i.e. freedom of speech has only really become freedom of speech if it coincides with what you believe in. Which really defeats the whole thing.
Dictators throughout history have had free speech. Look at the sort of hate and bile they produce and what it can potentially lead to.
The argument about Freedom of Speech is so lame - you have the right to say what you want, but you also have a responsibility not to outwardly offend people and be a nasty prick.
Israel Folau should have exercised better judgement before he tweeted what he tweeted. The article is pathetic
And if his omnipresent omniscient God is so special, so loving and so caring, why would he/she discriminate against one of his/her creations based on their sexuality.
That turd CEO of theirs telling staff to use 'partner' instead of husband/wife should've been the final straw. What a maggot.This attitude strikes me as quite odd. Likened to excrement for asking staff to be more general/inclusive in the modern world - something that is probably commercially responsible too (the remit of a CEO, you'd hope).
On what realistic front of a culture war is using "partner" any issue? Presumably it feels like taking a step back in the face of an inevitable wave and makes a few people feel defensive?
"If you are a non Christian, why would his comments effect you?"
lol indeed, so there are only 2 category's? Christians & non Christian's, only the religious can generalize in that way
In all seriousness, I would defend izzys right to hold his beliefs as strongly as I criticize them, he has the right to hold the I have the right to object.
Public figures expressing that marginalized people are flawed in their very nature regardless of their actions is an incredibly damaging message, sucude rates of the most vulnerable section of this group are why his comments deeply concern me.
I think the outrage was not so much the wording 'partner'but the directing of staff to refrain from using the words wife husband Mrs Mr,mum dad,all these words are just as important to some people to be recognized as it is for others who wish to have a general terminology a parent I like my 'title'as a partner I like my title,How are the going to address the singular when they can clearly see the gender
for me the issue I see is in recognizing the demanding rights the 'gender fluidity'group,the rest of the world is loosing theirs. Its absolutely no different to what Israel Folau is doing,by refusing to recognize those who are gay and casting them as sinners.
common respect of peoples choices isnt hard,no matter what your choice
What rights are others losing if someone says "Welcome, Isaac" instead of "Welcome, Mr Forman". Or "Your partner will need to sit across the aisle" instead of "Your wife..." My right to be addressed as "Mr"? Not sure if that's a right or a corporate advantage (as a nicety) that's going to outweigh not offending others. My preference is generally not displayed on a boarding pass. I begrudgingly put a title because it's usually a required field, but I think it's ridiculous.
Years ago when registering frequent flyer membership, the title dropdown was massive. You could choose Mr, Mrs, Master, Sir, His Eminence, etc - there were dozens of them. I registered my partner ("wife" even) as "Princess" and out came the membership card. There were a number of amusing encounters at check-in and when phoning the airline after that.
I find the intersection of social conservatism and the corporate pedestal quite interesting. They're odd political bedfellows. Let's say a CEO has the numbers suggesting they can make more money by offending fewer people at the cost of dropping some social/historical niceties? It would be their responsibility to do that.
You may not find the changing of what others consider 'normal'titles as anything and thats your right,but those who wish to be recognised as wife/husband/mother/father/Mr/Mrs have as much right as well that was my point,personally Id prefer to be called by my first name,some like formality,I would not like my parental term changed just for social protocol though thats for sure,thats a title I wear with pride,as is my right.
its PC gone mad really
Two years ago
Everyone is happy to preach for freedom of speech, but when someone says something that that person doesn't like the concept goes out the window and it often turns personal.I must have missed the part where people were calling for him to be arrested.
People should and can hold any views they wish.
Opinions don't hurt people so Izzy opinion didn't cause harm or result in rioting in the street against the LGBTI community other than the usual nutters who get offended by every opposing view to there own.
As with all open and free societies differing thoughts and viewpoints should be discussed without the mass twitterage of sackings and sponsorship withdrawal threats.
Two years ago
Whilst I don't agree with Izzy's comments I do believe in free speech. He is entitled to say whatever he wants but he must realize there would be ramifications from them. I have opinions on certain matters (I am an atheist) but I don't go out of my way to push them on others. As Ricky Gervais said, "telling an atheist they're going to hell is like telling an adult they're not getting any presents from Santa". If someone disagrees with my views (like many disagree with Folau's) ignore them and move on.
Two years ago
I actually feel sorry for Raelene Castle
She's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Doesn't want to lose Folau from RU but has to balance against keeping sponsors happy.
I thought she handled well and managed to do enough on both sides to keep the sides happy
I dont get why Sponsors in the modern era are so upset/sensitive..are people really going to stop supporting RA based on what one of their players thinks (and even though RA openly supported gay marriage). A bit of a knee jerk overreaction I thought.
You may not find the changing of what others consider 'normal'titles as anything and thats your right,but those who wish to be recognised as wife/husband/mother/father/Mr/Mrs have as much right as well that was my point,personally Id prefer to be called by my first name,some like formality,I would not like my parental term changed just for social protocol though thats for sure,thats a title I wear with pride,as is my right.If the steward on a plane hedges and says "Your partner may have to sit across the aisle" because they don't want to assume you're married or siblings or whatever, you're still a husband/wife/father/mother. They're not making an incorrect assumption or offending. They're not suggesting you'll burn in hell or need to be converted. They're defaulting to plain terms like "parent", "partner" etc.
It's an airline and a staff member you don't know. Like I said at the start, it strikes me as an odd thing to be concerned by and I'm honestly trying to understand it. (I'm a married white straight male with children - I like being a husband and father and I'm proud of both, but not fussed about a company using neutral terms.) Does more inclusive behaviour from a corporation's staff make you personally feel less special?
Two years ago
Well, I am still happy to live in a country where we are free to say what we believe, as long as it isn't threatening, racist or defaming and I am also happy that we can be critical of what people say, ask questions and use logic, common sense and science or facts to present our ideas.
Best ignore bigots, you can't fairly win a fight of intellect if only one person brings their intellect!
"You may not find the changing of what others consider 'normal'titles as anything and thats your right,but those who wish to be recognised as wife/husband/mother/father/Mr/Mrs have as much right as well that was my point,personally Id prefer to be called by my first name,some like formality,I would not like my parental term changed just for social protocol though thats for sure,thats a title I wear with pride,as is my right.
its PC gone mad really"
Exactly. The CEO of Qantas is using his position to social engineer, instead of doing the job he is paid to do. and to threaten sponsorship withdrawal because of one person's OPINION is yet another questionable act by him. He is abusing his position by trying to put forward his own alternative lifestyle beliefs.
Two years ago
He can certainly say whatever he wants, but also I can understand sponsors, players and associated brands wanting to distance themselves and denounce. Unfortunately, in the case of people with positions of public influence - their opinions can hurt people. Pretty badly too - whether it be basically publicly giving the green light to schoolyard homophobia, or even just in aspiring young players dropping out of the game or staying in the closet longer, because they know their sexuality *is* an issue in the game, completely outside of their control. This undeniably leads to all sorts of shitty mental health.
Not sure where anyone's going with the partner thing - partner's a flexible term that covers off whether people are married, unmarried, same sex, hetty, whatevs. It's not "PC" so much as literally the easiest way to address a big variety of personal relationships, respectfully.
Manu - can you and everyone that chooses to use the Bible as a scientific document explaining the existence of reality please stop.
It was written by illiterate nomads in the iron age who may never have met Jesus.
As soon as you start an argument with - "The Bible says..." you're point goes out the window.
Taking the piss - really? Would be good to get that clarified.
Great point from jodiechrist about players having the courage to come out while they're still playing.
As is the norm with religion, it aspires to take us back 50 years in our development rather than progress us forward.
[Let's say a CEO has the numbers suggesting they can make more money by offending fewer people at the cost of dropping some social/historical niceties? It would be their responsibility to do that.]
Spot on Isaac.
This is why we should always remain extremely skeptical of any claims of "corporate responsibility" made by CEO's.
You think the AFL, Qantas, etc really care about "inclusivity" or the LGBTIQ community? Think again. They only care when it's commercially convenient.
Corporates are merely political players who are out there trying to please their shareholders and the financial markets.
Anyone who doesn't see this is, as the old saying goes, a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Sponsors coming out with threats is poor form really just because management of that company has an agenda or opinion on an issue.
How many employees at these company don't agree with the companies position on all issues, take gay marriage, At least 40% of your workforce voted no so you can't sack 40% of your work force because they don't agree with the board/executives position.
1 individuals stance should bring down an entire organisation or its support of a sport/team, people are allowed to think freely.
Ah yeah tattoos. That's another "trend" in our modern society.Not sure it's much of a trend if it's mentioned in the bible...
Exactly. The CEO of Qantas is using his position to social engineer, instead of doing the job he is paid to do. and to threaten sponsorship withdrawal because of one person's OPINION is yet another questionable act by him. He is abusing his position by trying to put forward his own alternative lifestyle beliefs.If he was and his board agreed with you, they'd fire him, right? Rather than pay him $25m/year (and recently increased). The counterpoint to it being a questionable act is that he's tasked, partly, in steering a company through changing times, and that making more customers comfortable with the product/service is part of that. I'd be seriously surprised if this was one person dictating terms without the support of at least a board, the C-suite, etc.
When talking of free speech, I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between free speech *laws* and free speech *culture*.
Legally, we have Section 18c in this country - and we do have similar laws here in Victoria, famously used against Danny Nalliah many years ago- but there aren’t too many onerous legal restrictions on speech. To put it bluntly- This isn’t Pakistan.
However, increasingly we do have an anti free speech culture. There is an increasingly loud minority of people in this country who think that people shouldn’t have a right disagree with them. The most obvious example of this was the Coopers brewery debacle early last year. Hipsters from Brunswick started cancelling their Coopers orders, so Coopers backpedalled faster than you could say "Backpedal!".
So we as individuals need to ask: How much do we care? Do you care enough to try and do whatever small thing you can, to influence this culture?
My wife and I always fly Jetstar. It’s our default first choice of website to check for domestic flights.
Next time we fly, I’ll check Virgin first. And if I have to pay an extra $30 per head to fly with them then I will. (If I have to pay an extra $100 per head, maybe not).
And If I do fly with Virgin, I’ll be shooting off a quick email to Qantas, to let them know the reasons why I’m not flying with their subsidiary. Because they’re managed by grossly hypocritical douchebags in thousand dollar suits whose only goal is profit, but who use alleged interest in social causes to bully others and contribute to a culture of shutting down free speech.
A culture of free speech is literally the most important value we could have.
And it's in decline.
Our society values diversity of all kinds. Increasingly though we’re losing interest in the most important type of diversity of all - diversity of thought and opinion.
The difference is, Isaac, I'm counter-protesting against the people who don't like what somebody else is saying.
I'm all FOR using your voice to tell corporates what you want. I'm AGAINST thinking that everybody who disagrees with you in the public square is bigoted and hateful, or shouldn't have their voice heard.
Coopers was doing what every corporate SHOULD be doing. And people got offended. It was the perfect example of what's wrong with the world today. Yes, people did something that's perfectly legitimate- showing their disapproval of a corporate- but they were supporting an idea that is beyond cancerous.
So, yes, people are free to tell Coopers what they want.
We as individuals who actually believe in freedom, pluralism and true diversity need to drown out the snowflakes and authoritarians who try to shut done those with whom they disagree. That's the culture that we as individuals should be trying to foster.
LV you support people talking about bringing back slavery then?
Or what the Nazis did?
Or that people saying women can't vote or have a job is ok too?
What would you say if a Muslim athlete used the same religious excuse to just hate on gay people? You'd be ok with his right to speak his beliefs too?
Lastly Virgin are a huge supporter of LGBT so either way you're supporting a company which believes doing the right thing is important and appropriate.
Gay or not who cares...its seems people get upset about what someones opinion is which means those people need to find something better to do with their time.
Trying to bully or reprimand someone for having an opinion thats different is the beginning of a downward spiral in freedom of expression, thought and speech.
No body is harmed by words so Izzy isn't standing out the front of LGBTI headquarters with tiki torch asking for the death penalty laws to ban people from being gay.
Izzy has a personal opinion thats not exactly dangerous and he is free to have it. If people really think kids are so influenced by sports people they should look at their own parenting skills so children and people in general can make there own informed choices.
"I'm counter-protesting against the people who don't like what somebody else is saying. "
No, you are counter-protesting against the people who are protesting against what someone else is saying. If you want to boycott Qantas, good for you. If you think you are doing it for noble reasons while calling others hypocrites for their boycotts, then you are quite ironically being the hypocrite yourself.
"Izzy has a personal opinion thats not exactly dangerous"
His "opinion" is basically that he wants to continue to marginalise an entire group off people, and you don't think that is dangerous?
[If you think you are doing it for noble reasons while calling others hypocrites for their boycotts, then you are quite ironically being the hypocrite yourself].
I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite.
Qantas are gigantic, epic hypocrites who take hypocrisy to a staggering level. But too much of the public refuse to acknowledge it, and refuse to call out this profit driven hypocrisy that happening in front of our faces.
The people who boycotted Coopers or who support Qantas' comments on Folau aren't necessarily hypocrites at all. But they are badly mistaken, and are supporting ideas that will be hugely unhelpful to free countries and our entire civilization if they continue to spread at their current pace.
Izzy isn't marginalizing a group of people be expressing his opinion.
I don't much care for Vegan's or Bike Riders but me saying so isn't marginalizing them or hurting there respective feelings.
Peoples feelings get hurt everyday thats life and if someones opinion makes you feel marginalized its time to have a look at yourself and get with the program.
"I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite."
"Qantas are gigantic, epic hypocrites"
Oh, thanks for clearing that up...
"Izzy isn't marginalizing a group of people be expressing his opinion."
Yes he is. He is saying gay people are second-class citizens. He is judging every single one of them. He is saying they are of lesser significance. That is the very definition of marginalisation.
Vegan's and bike riders make a conscious choice to be Vegan or a bike rider.
Being gay or straight is as much of a choice as having blue eyes is.
If you think its ok to claim all blue eyed people are going to burn in hell and there's nothing wrong with that then I feel very sorry for you.
People Pilloried Margaret Court for Expressing her Beliefs.
If she was the CEO of a Major Australian Public Company, and used it as a pulpit for her beliefs would that be acceptable? Or would the throngs be calling for a boycott of said company??
My annoyance at Qantas relates to other issues. (Changing a particular route from Qantas to Jetstar, changes to their FF program, taking over the FIFO business by offering "benefits" then stripping those benefits away.)
So I'll freely admit to being biased against his running of the company.
If Court was CEO of a business she wouldn't be any longer. The backlash of her statements would have results in loss of income, boycotts, and shareholder or board backlash forcing her registration. So to answer your question yes, but that fallout would be even more significant.
"Can somebody tell me who gods creator is? Or gods creators creator? Or... "
Must God be some separate entity that requires creation? What really is our natural intelligence, love, passion and appreciation of music - charged neurons?
"I'll go first , Dear God, so why do you allow 9 million children under the age of 5 every year to die, ..."
That is caused by denial of God. Virtually all of us do it every day ; defaulting to hurtful thoughts, envy, looking around for who the bad people are, etc.
There is an all encompassing God-intelligence that we can choose to have a relationship with (such as, for example, what is happening when we lose our ego-self in music).
Instead we have a planet of the majority doggedly resisting that intelligence in favour of belief in their ego-self and thus CREATING THE WORLD WE CURRENTLY HAVE. The problem or the solution is with us and the solution is in a return to relationship with God.
No AshT the solution is to understand the truth that Gods are man made to control the wider population and keep a hold of power and/or to explain something which science has yet to explain.
The sooner the population move away from cults like religion and believe in science which has debunked every single claim in the bible the better the world will be.
"deadlier mass media driven PC-mad cult."
While some people take PC too far, all it is is basically asking people to be mindful of the way they say certain things ie dont be dick.
The real evil is people's reaction to being asked to be considerate, like what we've seen in the US with their "free speech" marches filled with Neo-Nazis.
Wow people getting heated!
Either way people can have an opinion on peoples lifestyle choices gay or straight.
Who cares pretty sure Issy said they are second class citzens so thats in your own little crazy head!
Words don't hurt people so chill out and be thankful as a gay you can be free and open in this country as the vast majority of the world still deem it illegal and punishable by prison or death.
Sexual orientation is not a "lifestyle choice"
The "vast majority" of the world does not consider homosexuality to be illegal (just over to 1 in 3 countries, so far from a majority much less "vast") and only 13 countries have death penalties on the books for it.
Also "as a gay..." is kind of indicative of where you're at.
"That is caused by denial of God. Virtually all of us do it every day ; defaulting to hurtful thoughts, envy, looking around for who the bad people are, etc."
This in response to an example of the volume of suffering visited on millions at this moment serves as the most perfect example of how religion causes otherwise normal people to say and do and believe the most horrible things.
Generally good people do good things & bad people do bad things, to get good people to express opinions as horrific as this you'll need religion.
Please notice the ease with which suffering on unimaginable scale is dismissed as gods will and as just vengeance against believing children. To suggest that your god exacts revenge on a scale that the most prolific genicidal mass murderers could only dream of should make one thing crystal clear, the moral compasses of extreme religious ideology is profoundly damaging to the inate human understanding of what is true and right.
I have to ask, how could any reasonable, moral thinking person believe this as truth and live with themselves.
Listening to izzys coments confirms just how far the rot has spread.
To reiterate, there is no separate-entity-God as many religious people themselves believe and that atheists demand proof of.
There is a battle going on between the ego self and it's material belief system versus the natural, loving, creative intelligence (God) that we each are already a party to (already within us). 'Good people', 'Bad people', atheists, religious people, depressed people, cocky people, myself, are all involved and the outcome is what creates the type of world we have.
The empirical evidence is there for anyone willing but unfortunately the willingness is not at all popular.
Creating a world of pain is simply the ego-self's way of denying our natural Godly self (the ego sees our Godly side as a threat).
Religion and God are not the same thing. Religion is mans doing, so of course it will be subject to corruption. The solution to our suffering is in a shift back to God (natural God as explained above) and certainly not in a shift towards atheism.
BTW, I'd be interested to see what Folau said (thinks) in full context. While it may possibly have been presented accurately I certainly don't trust what I hear in the MSM.
Yes, I see what you're saying. It's only bad if atheists are committed to denial of God. If they are truly committed to being guided by their Godly side then that's great.
Certainly most atheists I know mean well, just as most religious people mean well but how well each understand what is really going on (the cunning ego v God) is more important.
AshT you are either a troll or so brain washed you can't actually read someone else's opinion with any level of understanding.
There is no God. Of any kid. When you die you are over. Just as you didn't exist before you were born, you will not exist after you die. All science has proven this. You're belief in a superior being is a lie, facts and science has proven this to be fact. Educate yourself and live your own life not one of those controlling you.
Some people just can't grasp the concept that life, even though it is just a series of chemical reactions and mutations, can occur and evolve naturally. These people are incapable of accepting that there are things in the universe that they don't understand yet, so the idea of an almighty creator - even though it is more ridiculous than any of the scientific explanations we've come up with so far - is how they choose to encapsulate all they don't understand in some convenient package. A package that has infinite abilities and power. The more we learn about the universe, the more ridiculous the idea of "God" needs to become to account for everything, but they stick with it because the alternative is admitting that not only do we not know everything today, but even more shockingly, the people who were around 2000 years ago didn't know everything then either.
Newsflash: you can still be a good person without being gullible, stubborn, and unwilling to accept science.
Giving you the benifit of doubt, if you genuinely hold this position, you've wonderfully described the ideology of most atheists, humanism, although I think you could get there without the mental gymnastics & convenient unessusary insertion of the term god.
I'm curious as to the nature of the impirical evidence you mentioned?
I know full well that I was describing atheist ideology, as well as an ideology of most people but you may note above that I used the word 'subconsciously'. There is an important difference between good intention and what is occurring subconsciously.
BTW, I'm neither religious nor atheist and have a grand on North and another grand on Gold Coast so I'm off to watch those.
"What if she was founder and senior pastor of a Pentecostal church and president of an international network of 70+ like-minded churches?"
Not sure that makes a point?
Surely in that role you would expect her to espouse exactly what she did, hardline Biblical doctrine.
"BTW, I'm neither religious nor atheist and have a grand on North and another grand on Gold Coast so I'm off to watch those."
Speaking of subconscious, you sound like a believer to me who's notion of God has receded further & further as the religious loose the argument on every front until left with the ghost of an aboration "internal self gods" and the like. Your choice to insert the word god where it's not needed proves this point.
Not an athiest, so you don't not believe theology.
North looking good, perhaps you do have knowledge no available to the rest of Us:)
"Not sure it's much of a trend if it's mentioned in the bible..."Than when islander cultures tattooed almost every person in a village? Or similar with scarification in Africa, or markings in South America? Or are you only talking about white people?
Hahaha. It's way trendier today, though.
"I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite."I LOLed.
"Qantas are gigantic, epic hypocrites"
LV, the Coopers case was presumably a senior individual (family/owner) making a personal call that likely went against the leanings of (I'd guess) their younger owners, staff and most customers. That's not too far removed from the (suggested but unrealistic, IMO) criticised act of a QANTAS CEO advancing their personal cause. I'd guess the Coopers case was a freelancing head-honcho whereas the QANTAS case was actually a broader decision.
If your argument is that people should make decisions based on their convictions rather than profits alone, great, but doesn't that assume that a gay CEO of QANTAS can't be part of doing exactly that?
No, we can't be implying right-brain thought processes (eg. via the subconcious,unconcious,creative) are that legitimate, can we? Rigid Left-brain thinking is the domain of mans BELIEF in a material world happening upon him. I see it all the time.
The reason I 'insert the word God' is because the all encompassing natural intelligence, being party to who we already are, is what man has always been referring to, as much as man has the habit to battle against it and thus distort what is meant by 'God'. It is not a belief. It is already there. Just as our natural intelligence, love, passion and appreciation of music are some example's of it but for theorists who may prefer to explain those away as must be a product of charged neurons - perhaps the beat of the base drum causes neurons to vibrate against brain tissue causing a pleasnt sensation that eases our troubles away?
For those who don't get my point, losing yourself in music is an example of having a relationship with God (real God, not a misty figure in a cloud).
Relationship with our God side inspires, thus eases our troubles away. It is the solution to man made suffering, which is caused by our subconcious attempts to deny true God.
No doubt we can go around in circles for a long time.
So the CEO of Rugby Aus should be fired because she doesn't know what’s she’s doing? She’s gone hard on a player who’s using his religious views to attack homosexuals. At the same time we, as a society, are going hard at Margaret Court for using her religious views to attack homosexuals. Going so far as to wanting her not to be lauded for her sporting feats from decades ago because of her abhorrent views now. By this token we should be celebrating the CEO of Rugby Aus for her courage, or, not slamming Margaret Court. Can’t have it both ways.
Settlements of this nature is a "lets just pay them to go away so we can move on".
Glad it's finished, RA did the right thing and demanded that their employees don't put their objectives and values into disrepute - any business has the right to do so.
A lot of people assume freedom of speech/religion entails carte blanche speech which is simply not the case. It means you can likely avoid prosecution by Government, not avoid all and any consequences that arise from speech.
It's an interesting one KET, because none of that got tested in court due to the settlement. Does an employer's code of conduct override your right to religious freedom away from the workplace? There is a fair chance it doesn't and RA's legal team knew that.
Had this gone to court it would have done us all a favour by setting a precedent and clearing up at least some of this very big grey area.
I'd like some thoughts on the church/other church goers from this point. Does the church get in trouble for preaching these messages ? Do the other church goers get in trouble from their employers for having the same beliefs ?
Or does it purely come down to that fact that Folau declared his on Social Media and that he's such a prominent figure ?
I mean, if society want this kind of talked stopped, shouldn't they be looking to stop the source instead of stopping just Folau.
I ask because it was mentioned previously by one of the Islander heritage players that "they'd need to get rid of all of us then" or something along those lines, as they all have similar religious beliefs. Is the distinction in that Folau thinks it and declares it and the others just think it ?
John I think it was that he'd done something similar previously on social media and was told then that as a representative of RA that was not acceptable. I think they may have said that if he did it again he’d be sacked? So, they understand that that’s his religious belief, they’ve just asked him not to shout it from the hill tops I guess. He tried to call their bluff and it didn’t work?
It's sad that as always it had to come down to money, but I guess $8M is a lot on vindication.
RA had three basic problems:
Firstly, you've got the rather obviously fuelled rumours that their Major Sponsor Qantas (Alan Joyce) pressured them to dump Folau. Reality is, you don't even want Castle being asked that under oath in court.
Secondly, they were always facing an uphill battle. It's fundamentally illegal to sack somebody because of their religion. Period.
It's difficult to argue in court that he wasn't sacked because of his Religion, but only because of the comments he made (because of his Religion.)
Just on that, Castle shot their whole case right in both feet in the initial hearing. When asked by the Tribunal Chair, she admitted she would have sacked Folau for posting a picture of an actual Bible verse.
This isn't come obscure text cloaked with "religion." She actually admitted she would sack somebody for quoting the Bible.
Finally, you have the World Cup debacle, which has ARU fans calling for her head anyway. She and the board are in survival mode, and this is one more thing she didn't need.
Not to sound wankery, but i think the average person on the street dissecting the situation is discussing this using the term "freedom of religion" and applying the constitutional context assuming it extends to this matter.
That's not right, it's broadly irrelevant and any interpretation of that won't be given by a tribunal. It's not a question of law in respect of constitutional law - if it was the matter would be the High Court not the Federal Court.
This is a commercial matter sent to the tribunal from the FCA, so the questions are commercial questions: ie, antidiscrimination act, workplace/other industrial laws.
Whether RA is able to terminate is dictated by 1) Question of the Contract in respect of the term allowing termination for such conduct and then 2) Whether that contractual term complies with the relevant workplace legislation.
So, the question isn't whether Folau can't be terminated because of some broadly applied constitutional interpretation of freedom of religion. Of course, the Federal Government makes it confusing when they discuss legislation with a name "Religious Freedoms Act".
What the Folau matter was never going to provide, is 1) whether there's some broad freedom of religion/how far it extends; 2) any sort of vindication on the ground of freedom of religion.
All this really tells us, is like most matters of workplace suits, the business paid the former employee to go away. Traditionally when this occurs it's not seen as "the business paid they must have done wrong, the person is vindicated", it's "the business had to get rid of xx, is it worth the risk of being troubled by this person?"
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
- Updated every 15 minutes
Mon 14:36- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 14:25- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 14:21- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 14:20- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 13:56- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 13:48- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 13:38- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 13:06- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 12:57- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 12:52- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 12:38- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 12:37- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 11:58- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 11:26- re: Big V 2020
Mon 10:23- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 10:18- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:35- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:28- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:27- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:26- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:21- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 9:18- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:11- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Mon 9:10- re: Big V 2020
Mon 9:04- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 9:00- re: Why has no one talked ab...
Mon 8:45- re: Big V 2020
Mon 8:42- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 7:24- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 7:13- re: Youngest/Oldest poster o...
Mon 7:02- re: Youngest/Oldest poster o...
Mon 6:45- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 5:07- re: Cotton considering two o...
Mon 0:29- re: The most over used gag o...
Sun 23:49- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 23:31- re: Announcement Soon NBL1 i...
Sun 19:14- re: Youngest/Oldest poster o...
Sun 19:09- re: The most over used gag o...
Sun 19:01- re: Big V 2020
Sun 18:27- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 18:19- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 18:17- re: Shane Heal to Blame!!!
Sun 17:49- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 17:23- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 17:21- re: Ex-hoopster wins high ju...
Sun 17:21- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 17:15- re: Shane Heal to Blame!!!
Sun 17:09- re: Chad Ford's Assessment o...
Sun 16:22- re: Cotton considering two o...
Sun 16:12- re: Cotton considering two o...
Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.
$30/month Pay $100 for lifetime access. Sign up now!
An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 2:49 pm, Mon 25 May 2020 | Posts: 833,865 | Last 7 days: 424