News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[Legion]

I suspect that among all the things changed by Jesus, the amount of room in heaven might well be one of them.

Well I guess you can live in hope.
You do know that Jesus was just a man, right? A teacher.
Mother Church decided he was a God.

 

[Legion]

He never lost that. He is free to preach as he sees fit.

To me it depends on what is in their social media policy, any other policies that may be applicable, etc.

If there is a policy for which he agrees to, whether it’s in his contract, or in many organisations you do refresher courses or refresher acknowledgments of the policy, then it’s a matter of them disciplining him for breaching it.

He’s not forced into accepting these conditions. He has options such as choose to work for an employer that does not have these policy obligations. He agrees to perform as a rugby player and to follow their codes, policies etc, and they agree to pay him.

As long as the social media he uses isn't RU & is a personal account, he should be able to express his religious views.

 

[Perth Red]

No it's not, this is about freedom of expression which is a human right!

No it’s not. Hate speech isnt the same as freedom of speech. Sigh

 

[Perth Red]

And what is being contested here is if that organisation has a right to restrict a persons freedom of expression in those policies. I do not believe they should be allowed to do so!

What world do you live in? Most organisations, especially a national sporting one, would have some very clear expectations about inclusivity and brand protection from its senior staff. We have codes of conduct for a reason! Swap out gays for blacks in hiss diatribe and tell me if you think he should be allowed to say what he said.

 

[Perth Red]

The ARU should have come out and said they disagree completely with his posts and that they do not represent their views.

The. They would look like total hypocritics if they kept paying him a million $’s a year.

 

[unforgiven]

Swap out gays for blacks in hiss diatribe and tell me if you think he should be allowed to say what he said.

See that is the thing with freedom of expression, you don't get to decide that someone can't say something because you do not agree with it.

I do not agree with Folau, in fact I believe the complete opposite and think he is a dumb asshole for his beliefs.

 

[Canard]

Can someone point out where Folau's free speech rights have been denied?

This isn't a free speech issue

 

[firechild]

Can someone point out where Folau's free speech rights have been denied?

This isn't a free speech issue

Additionally, Australia does not have free speech in the constitution so it's largely irrelevant anyway.

Folau can say whatever he wants and unless it's unlawful, he won't be forced to take it down. However, he will be told he no longer has a place representing the ARU which is absolutely their right.

As a sinner under many of the labels Folau used in his post, I don't care about what he said because one of those things I am is an atheist. What I do have an issue with is that he has incited hatred by a group of people towards many other groups of people.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Why are we talking about a rugby union player in the NRL forum?

 

[CliffyIsGod]

As long as the social media he uses isn't RU & is a personal account, he should be able to express his religious views.

Imagine you work for a large company. You're a senior member of it. They are closing in on a deal with a large customer. You on your personal Instagram page are posting about say Nazi sympathies or some such. Large customer sees this. He lost his grandparents in the Holocaust.

He does not want to be in business with your company now. He pulls the deal and it costs the company millions.

You would be sacked.

It has nothing to do with religion.

 

[TheFrog]

Well I guess you can live in hope.
You do know that Jesus was just a man, right? A teacher.
Mother Church decided he was a God.

I'm referring in a tongue in cheek way to the New Covenant, which means Christians are not subject to the laws that applied to the Children of Israel and which are so often quoted by those who have no idea what they are talking about in order to clumsily attempt to denigrate Christians. The thing about tattoos is a prime example.

By the way, Christians believe Jesus was/is God. You can believe whatever you want.

 

[ULYSSES]

Do you really need me to embarrass you by finding chapter & verse?
You really do need to read the entire book, not just the 'good bits' that your pastor/priest tells you to read.

Prayers to the Divine are good. Thank you.

Please, do your worst

Well I guess you can live in hope.
You do know that Jesus was just a man, right? A teacher.
Mother Church decided he was a God.

Wrong again.

 

[TheFrog]

What world do you live in? Most organisations, especially a national sporting one, would have some very clear expectations about inclusivity and brand protection from its senior staff. We have codes of conduct for a reason! Swap out gays for blacks in hiss diatribe and tell me if you think he should be allowed to say what he said.

You do realise the irony of excluding a bloke for quoting/paraphrasing religious material in the interests of inclusivity?

However, he will be told he no longer has a place representing the ARU which is absolutely their right.

Well Rugby Australia think it is, but this is currently under dispute, as you well know, so all you are doing is pre-empting a court decision that has yet to be made. Funny how they offered him $2 million to get lost if they are so certain they are on safe legal ground.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

You do realise the irony of excluding a bloke for quoting/paraphrasing religious material in the interests of inclusivity?



Well Rugby Australia think it is, but this is currently under dispute, as you well know, so all you are doing is pre-empting a court decision that has yet to be made. Funny how they offered him $2 million to get lost if they are so certain they are on safe legal ground.

The fact that is from religious material is irrelevant.

They were happy to pay him 2m to end it quickly -- very common thing to do and is not an admission of guilt of shaky legal ground.

 

[TheFrog]

And no one as far as we know told him he could not practice his religion.

RA told him he could not continue to both practice his religion and play rugby for NSW/Australia. This is at the crux of the court case.

No it’s not. Hate speech isnt the same as freedom of speech. Sigh

Good luck in court defining hate speech. It's in the ear of the beholder, and as such meaningess as a legal construct.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

RA told him he could not continue to both practice his religion and play rugby for NSW/Australia. This is at the crux of the court case.


Good luck in court defining hate speech. It's in the ear of the beholder, and as such meaningess as a legal construct.

For the millionth time it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[TheFrog]

The fact that is from religious material is irrelevant.

They were happy to pay him 2m to end it quickly -- very common thing to do and is not an admission of guilt of shaky legal ground.

If it's been in the public domain for many hundreds of years rather than something he just made up, a court might consider that relevant. Certainly not for you or I to decide.

For the millionth time it has nothing to do with religion.

It is before a court, who will determine that. Anything else is just opinion.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

If it's been in the public domain for many hundreds of years rather than something he just made up, a court might consider that relevant. Certainly not for you or I to decide.

Yet here you are deciding.

 

[TheFrog]

Yet here you are deciding.

No I'm not. I have an opinion, and it is not the same as yours.

 

[CliffyIsGod]

No I'm not. I have an opinion, and it is not the same as yours.

Ah, hiding behind opinion therefore cannot be wrong = the Folau school of thought