Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Gronk]

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...iscrimination-laws-about-20190829-p52m1z.html

The draft bill says "religious bodies" are not discriminating against a person by engaging, in good faith, in conduct that would be regarded as in accordance with its doctrines or beliefs. For example, religious schools would have discretion to employ staff of a particular faith. Health practitioners would also be able to conscientiously object to providing a health service –such as abortion – on the basis of their religious belief.

On the other hand, the bill would allow employers not to hire someone because they could not abide by workplace health and safety requirements due to their religious dress.

 

[hindy111]

Once you've had black...

Highly offensive
You merkin

 

[hindy111]

Nothing. It's a mystery ailment. Stupid ageing.

Rasin

 

[Bazal]

Rasin

I bet his sack is all shriveled. Like a f**ken cheap Sultana!

 

[hindy111]

Gronk you dislike religion. That is fine we get it.But as much as you think your right and their wrong they are thinking the exact same.Do you get it? Do you understand you might actually be wrong? You beleive what some other merkin has told you cause in your mind it makes more logical sense.

So ok - There was nothing and then a big bang and then some monkeys and then some turned into humans.
Yeah makes more sense.

Truth is one day you'll be dead. And may or may not ever know. So if someone wants to take a different spin on it then leave them the f**k alone.

 

[hindy111]

For all we know we are all just sperms and earth is an egg we are trying to fertilize it. What seems like a long time for us is just a few days for the universe.
@strider you have no chance in this race.

 

[Bazal]

For all we know we are all just sperms and earth is an egg we are trying to fertilize it. What seems like a long time for us is just a few days for the universe.
@strider you have no chance in this race.

@Gary Gutful is definitely a semen

 

[oldmancraigy]

See this is where I think that whole Izzy thing has been twisted. He is entitled to say whatever he likes in private or as a citizen on social media. However his employer, who pays him handsomely, requested that he refrain from making such public divisive statements as it damaged their brand and the brand of their sponsors. They were apparently wrong is seeking that.

So as it stands your employee can chant from the rooftops anything they like and you have to cop it ?

Meanwhile, church schools want the right to terminate anyone who are not in line with their teachings ?

Am I missing something here ?

Probably this:

Since his move to rugby in 2013, Folau played 74 Tests for the Wallabies and helped win a Super Rugby title with the Waratahs but his increasingly religious posts crossed a line, according to both organisations, with a comment in April 2018 saying homosexuals were destined for Hell.

Neither organisation disciplined Folau after that comment and RA came under heavy fire for not doing so. In October they re-signed him on a four-year deal worth $1.4 million per season, with no extra restrictions on his social media use.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ion-would-give-certainty-20191204-p53gwx.html

The whole time in this saga I've wondered whether or not there ever was such a clause banning him from what he did on social media. The generic RA policy has no such restriction. So, I've always wondered, isn't this just a case of simple contract law?
Leave the religious freedom discussion out of it altogether - RA sacked him based on a clause that was not, in fact, in his contract.

I always speculated he'd win based on contract law - this has been reported from the start (that there was no clause banning his social media use).

Is what he did dumb/ not in the best interests of the game (etc) - sure, but irrelevant if he is not banned from partaking in such action.

Again, I have no idea if the above quote from the herald represents what was actually in/ not in his contract. What I do know is that the most vocal media advocate of RA being 'right' is Fitzsimmons. Who is a muppet of the highest order and therefore clearly wrong.

 

[Gronk]

Gronk you dislike religion. That is fine we get it.But as much as you think your right and their wrong they are thinking the exact same.Do you get it? Do you understand you might actually be wrong? You beleive what some other merkin has told you cause in your mind it makes more logical sense.

So ok - There was nothing and then a big bang and then some monkeys and then some turned into humans.
Yeah makes more sense.

Truth is one day you'll be dead. And may or may not ever know. So if someone wants to take a different spin on it then leave them the f**k alone.

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Gronk]

 

[oldmancraigy]

Well no. On one hand they are saying that they are not seeking to sack anyone, yet simultaneously are campaigning for the introduction of a Religious Discrimination Act.

Explanation:

A number of federal laws prohibit different types of discrimination: the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act (which covers sex, gender identity, marital status, sexuality and family responsibilities), the Age Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. The idea is to add a Religious Discrimination Act to this collection of laws.

The basic function of these laws is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a protected attribute in various contexts such as employment and the provision of goods and services.

A Religious Discrimination Act following the same basic model would prohibit things like refusing to hire a person because she is a Catholic and sacking a person because he is an atheist. It would also prohibit a café refusing to sell coffee to a customer because she is a Muslim and a bakery refusing to make a cake for a customer because he is an Anglican.

https://www.monash.edu/law/news-and...-does-not-need-a-religious-discrimination-act

What about refusing to sell someone bacon!?!

That should be illegal regardless!!

 

[84 Baby]

What about refusing to sell someone bacon!?!

That should be illegal regardless!!

Halal bacon?

 

[Bazal]

Halal bacon?

What about the time some racist slimebags got all up in arms about a hoax Jacob's Creek halal certification for wine lmao

 

[Gronk]

What about the time some racist slimebags got all up in arms about a hoax Jacob's Creek halal certification for wine lmao

They are boycotting cadbury bc it's halal too.

 

[Gronk]

Halal bacon?

That's beef bacon. I had that in Malaysia.

 

[Bazal]

They are boycotting cadbury bc it's halal too.

Well I mean, at least chocolate is capable of being halal

 

[Bazal]

That's beef bacon. I had that in Malaysia.

How shit is it?

It's like someone shat out some bacon and cooked it again.

 

[84 Baby]

That's beef bacon. I had that in Malaysia.

In Malaysia you say.....


No one tell Gronk that there’s no cows in Malaysia

 

[Gronk]

How shit is it?

It's like someone shat out some bacon and cooked it again.

Bad, yet significantly better than Facon (tofu).

 

[strider]

f**k off merkin your a raisin.

Raisins are pretty cool tbh