Manly - The PRIDE of the league

[Frenzy.]

His partners name was Mickey?

Funnily, wittyfan changed his name to sullyfan. As in Mickey Sullivan. Remember him. Pretty little halfback

 

[Quigs]

Did Mickey have a mini or is that too big of a call.

Just mouse-ing around.

They had a club you know.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

How exactly have they been discriminated against? They opted out of playing and there has been zero repercussions for them.

It is also discrimination when an unreasonable rule or policy applies to everyone but has the effect of disadvantaging some people because of a personal characteristic they share. This is known as ‘indirect discrimination’.

Discrimination on these grounds is against the law in a number of areas of public life, including: employment, education, getting or using services or renting or buying a house or unit. Some limited exceptions and exemptions apply.

Employers have a legal responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination on these grounds.

Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, individuals can also lodge complaints with the Commission concerning discrimination in employment because of their religion, political opinion, national extraction, nationality, social origin, medical record, criminal record or trade union activity. Complaints will be reported to Parliament where the Commission finds a breach of the Act.

 

[Cheese sandwich]

It is also discrimination when an unreasonable rule or policy applies to everyone but has the effect of disadvantaging some people because of a personal characteristic they share. This is known as ‘indirect discrimination’.

Discrimination on these grounds is against the law in a number of areas of public life, including: employment, education, getting or using services or renting or buying a house or unit. Some limited exceptions and exemptions apply.

Employers have a legal responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination on these grounds.

Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, individuals can also lodge complaints with the Commission concerning discrimination in employment because of their religion, political opinion, national extraction, nationality, social origin, medical record, criminal record or trade union activity. Complaints will be reported to Parliament where the Commission finds a breach of the Act.

They could complain, that's their right. The chirping of crickets might be the reply though.

 

[DJDL]

Inclusivity arguments aside, I still don't know what the thought process behind adding a rainbow to the jerseys was.

It's Women In League round, not Lesos In League round.

Would it be acceptable to wear jerseys adorned with American Indian symbolism during Indigenous Round?

 

[Inferno]

It is also discrimination when an unreasonable rule or policy applies to everyone but has the effect of disadvantaging some people because of a personal characteristic they share. This is known as ‘indirect discrimination’.

Discrimination on these grounds is against the law in a number of areas of public life, including: employment, education, getting or using services or renting or buying a house or unit. Some limited exceptions and exemptions apply.

Employers have a legal responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination on these grounds.

Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, individuals can also lodge complaints with the Commission concerning discrimination in employment because of their religion, political opinion, national extraction, nationality, social origin, medical record, criminal record or trade union activity. Complaints will be reported to Parliament where the Commission finds a breach of the Act.

Again, I ask the question how have they been discriminated against?

 

[BatteredFlake]

Inclusivity arguments aside, I still don't know what the thought process behind adding a rainbow to the jerseys was.

It's Women In League round, not Lesos In League round.

Would it be acceptable to wear jerseys adorned with American Indian symbolism during Indigenous Round?

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

Again, I ask the question how have they been discriminated against?

unreasonable rule or policy

Would it be unreasonable to expect people of faith to be comfortable supporting something that contradicts a key underpinning in their beliefs as Christians or derivatives thereof?
Notwithstanding the fact it was communicated at the 11th hour when clearly there was no due consultative process with the actual football team for something that has understandably been in the pipelines of planning for some time?

Personally yes I think that is an unreasonable expectation placed upon those those players.

You don't drop grenades and ask questions later with a matter this sensitive to both camps.

This alone precluded them from having meaningful open dialogue on the matter that was about to be dropped in their laps.

applies to everyone

Yes, there was no alternative to participate in the game being the core line of business.
Play in support of the cause or stand down on religious grounds.
For some, the former may never be an option given their religious standing so the hand is forced.

has the effect of disadvantaging some people

Yes.
This has every possibility of disadvantaging these players into the future.
The negative publicity this has brought can have untold ramifications for them on many fronts moving forward.

personal characteristic they share.

Their religious faith.

 

[txta2]

The point is that 20 years ago you’d be bashed for coming out, now it’s like meh good for you.

Until coming out in sport is “normalised” there will still be this huge unnecessary uproar over a person speaking up.

There should be a coming out round where they all do it at the same time, will be news for a day then who the f**k cares.

Disclaimer - I don’t think that have to come out at all but they should feel like they can if they want to. Right now they don’t feel safe at all.

not really , some areas still have high youth suicide rates because of it. And the bible bashers want us to give them respect for being homophobic....

 

[BatteredFlake]

Would it be unreasonable to expect people of faith to be comfortable supporting something that contradicts a key underpinning in their beliefs as Christians or derivatives thereof?
Notwithstanding the fact it was communicated at the 11th hour when clearly there was no due consultative process with the actual football team for something that has understandably been in the pipelines of planning for some time?

Personally yes I think that is an unreasonable expectation placed upon those those players.

You don't drop grenades and ask questions later with a matter this sensitive to both camps.

This alone precluded them from having meaningful open dialogue on the matter that was about to be dropped in their laps.



Yes, there was no alternative to participate in the game being the core line of business.
Play in support of the cause or stand down on religious grounds.
For some, the former may never be an option given their religious standing so the hand is forced.



Yes.
This has every possibility of disadvantaging these players into the future.
The negative publicity this has brought can have untold ramifications for them on many fronts moving forward.



Their religious faith.

"Their religious Faith" Christ ian. As in "followers of Christ." When asked what most important commandment of God was ... He said (according to the authors of Bible) Treat others as you would like to be treated.
In Old testament (before christianity) Lepers were "unclean" and persecuted.
Regarding sin ? we are all sinners. Is that not why Jesus died on the cross to ensure we understood he suffered so we were forgiven of sin.? ALL sinners and we are ALL sinners . Those seven players are as well as anyone else,they want to persecute. Somewhere also bible says judge not lest ye be judged. Something about a tiny stick in someones eye and a log in your own.

Inclusive ? These guys wont lose their jobs. They wont be excluded from any employment they are capable of being an economic plus to, for their employers in the future. The Damage to the people they are persecuting is a little different !, People who love their partners AND their families ? Sit these guys down and explain to them Why Jesus had to come to earth and suffer because of stupidity and sin of man. Hatred, Greed ,Ego, Spite, glutony, envy,.....You know ,that kind of Shite. Where do they stand on that ?

.

 

[BatteredFlake]

Anyway .... "Blessed are the Cheesemakers!"

 

[Inferno]

Would it be unreasonable to expect people of faith to be comfortable supporting something that contradicts a key underpinning in their beliefs as Christians or derivatives thereof?
Notwithstanding the fact it was communicated at the 11th hour when clearly there was no due consultative process with the actual football team for something that has understandably been in the pipelines of planning for some time?

They were asked to wear a couple of coloured stripes on a part of their uniform which is part of their employment. That is not unreasonable. Just because some religious people don’t want to do it doesn’t make it unreasonable.
Also who said they supported anything. If they hadn’t said a word no one would have had any idea what their feelings were towards LGBTQ people. I certainly wouldn’t have assumed the strip was made because the individual players were asking to wear it.
Do you think every player supports every sponsor on their kit? Do you think players are consulted at every turn for their feelings towards particular designs, colours or sponsors?

Personally yes I think that is an unreasonable expectation placed upon those those players.

You don't drop grenades and ask questions later with a matter this sensitive to both camps.

Again this was hardly a grenade, it was asking for them to wear a modified jersey for a single round, not to go and march on a mardi gras float.

This alone precluded them from having meaningful open dialogue on the matter that was about to be dropped in their laps.

What meaningful dialogue could have been had? They expressed their feelings, Manly enquired whether it was possible to accommodate their request and were told no, they sat out with zero repercussions, got an apology for the boss and will be straight into the team next week.

Yes, there was no alternative to participate in the game being the core line of business.
Play in support of the cause or stand down on religious grounds.
For some, the former may never be an option given their religious standing so the hand is forced.

To suggest they had no option because their religious standing is absurd. They have free will, they had a choice and they exercised it. People pick and chose what tenets of religious doctrine they’re prepared to follow and what they don’t. The bible is full of contradictions.

This has every possibility of disadvantaging these players into the future.
The negative publicity this has brought can have untold ramifications for them on many fronts moving forward.

You’re misunderstanding how disadvantaging them works in this context. If you’re claiming discrimination by an employer it’s disadvantage in their employment. Again Manly has done every conceivable thing to accommodate them.

In any event, they’ve now brought more negative publicity on themselves and given they choice they freely exercised, it’s hard to have any sympathy for them.

 

[bad boy bubby]

I have to say that I am surprised, nay, I am shocked, that I have not seen one person, albeit in the media and LU, mention how far Manly have progressed from the days of Manly Warringah legend, Rex Mossop.
One sure bet..... Rex would most definitely be rolling in his grave!

Edit: the link works, just click on it

 

[Quicksilver]

We are all different

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

They were asked to wear a couple of coloured stripes on a part of their uniform which is part of their employment. That is not unreasonable. Just because some religious people don’t want to do it doesn’t make it unreasonable.

you're diminishing someone's religious perception through your own lense. what's not unreasonable to you may be unreasonable to someone else and vice-versa. do you speak for everyone?

Also who said they supported anything. If they hadn’t said a word no one would have had any idea what their feelings were towards LGBTQ people. I certainly wouldn’t have assumed the strip was made because the individual players were asking to wear it.

the entire marketing campaign is around inclusion.
Group photos of players in the pride jersey.
the message being sold is a collective message from the club which includes all the players.
why would the players request it?
Its a club initiative.

Do you think every player supports every sponsor on their kit? Do you think players are consulted at every turn for their feelings towards particular designs, colours or sponsors?

No I don't.
We have an example in SBW who requested the exclusion of certain sponsorship on religious grounds.

Again this was hardly a grenade, it was asking for them to wear a modified jersey for a single round, not to go and march on a mardi gras float.

National and international headlines is not a grenade?
Again you are diminishing the impact this has had through your own lense.
Ask those involved whether they agree with you.
They may very well but I doubt it.

What meaningful dialogue could have been had? They expressed their feelings, Manly enquired whether it was possible to accommodate their request and were told no, they sat out with zero repercussions, got an apology for the boss and will be straight into the team next week.

There should have been dialogue about what the club planned to do and when so there was adequate time to work through any and all issues surrounding a sensitive matter in event of finding common ground and not national/international headlines.

Being cognisant to the fact that this may not sit well with all the players.
For obvious reasons that we are all well aware of.

To suggest they had no option because their religious standing is absurd. They have free will, they had a choice and they exercised it. People pick and chose what tenets of religious doctrine they’re prepared to follow and what they don’t. The bible is full of contradictions.

I'm not debating the schematics of the bible.
Again that's your perception.
The illusion of choice, when really there was only one outcome for some.

You’re misunderstanding how disadvantaging them works in this context. If you’re claiming discrimination by an employer it’s disadvantage in their employment. Again Manly has done every conceivable thing to accommodate them.

In any event, they’ve now brought more negative publicity on themselves and given they choice they freely exercised, it’s hard to have any sympathy for them.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.
The context of employment and potential disadvantages to be had is broad.

Have they done everything conceivable?
That's debatable given an apology was immediately forthcoming.

This is reactive on the players behalf to a club decision that was poorly planned and executed.

How exactly have they brought this on themselves?

 

[Frenzy.]

We are all different

 

[Inferno]

you're diminishing someone's religious perception through your own lense. what's not unreasonable to you may be unreasonable to someone else and vice-versa. do you speak for everyone?

So is unreasonable an objective or subjective test?

The white supremacist who doesn’t want to wear the indigenous jersey, is that reasonable or unreasonable?

The player who doesn’t want to wear the anzac jersey because of historical colonisation is that reasonable or unreasonable?

How about the colour blind person who can’t see red properly?

Are you the arbiter of what’s reasonable and what isn’t?

the entire marketing campaign is around inclusion.
Group photos of players in the pride jersey.
the message being sold is a collective message from the club which includes all the players.
why would the players request it?
Its a club initiative.

Exactly, so the point is their individual beliefs would not have been known and no one would have asked them.

No I don't.
We have an example in SBW who requested the exclusion of certain sponsorship on religious grounds.

That’s exactly the point. Aside from 1 rare example you accept then as a general rule players don’t have any say over what goes on a jersey. Yet you’re being critical because it wasn’t done in this instance.

National and international headlines is not a grenade?
Again you are diminishing the impact this has had through your own lense.
Ask those involved whether they agree with you.
They may very well but I doubt it.

Well you could argue their response made it that way. It was barely a story until the group of players decided they’d rather sit a game out than wear some coloured stripes.

There should have been dialogue about what the club planned to do and when so there was adequate time to work through any and all issues surrounding a sensitive matter in event of finding common ground and not national/international headlines.

Being cognisant to the fact that this may not sit well with all the players.
For obvious reasons that we are all well aware of.

Right so this should be done even though as you’ve already acknowledged it rarely ever happens.

I'm not debating the schematics of the bible.
Again that's your perception.
The illusion of choice, when really there was only one outcome for some.

Lol, are you really suggesting there are no contradictions in the bible? That’s not a perception it’s a fact.
It’s not the illusion of choice. They’re grown adults who make choices. Just because they were brought up in a religion which has particular beliefs does not mean they don’t have a choice. Feeling like you don’t have a choice does not negate the fact you do.

I'm not misunderstanding anything.

Actually you are. You're suggesting a disadvantage could include negative repercussions from external parties following a free choice of any player to wear the jersey. It does not.

The context of employment and potential disadvantages to be had is broad.

Have they done everything conceivable?
That's debatable given an apology was immediately forthcoming.

This is reactive on the players behalf to a club decision that was poorly planned and executed.

What more could the club have done?

Personally I don’t think they owed any player an apology but that’s a matter for their club.

How exactly have they brought this on themselves?

That’s not really a serious question is it?

The fact the players will do nothing but suit up and get on the field next week is pretty clear proof they haven’t been discriminated against whatsoever.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

So is unreasonable an objective or subjective test?

The white supremacist who doesn’t want to wear the indigenous jersey, is that reasonable or unreasonable?

The player who doesn’t want to wear the anzac jersey because of historical colonisation is that reasonable or unreasonable?

How about the colour blind person who can’t see red properly?

Are you the arbiter of what’s reasonable and what isn’t?



Exactly, so the point is their individual beliefs would not have been known and no one would have asked them.


That’s exactly the point. Aside from 1 rare example you accept then as a general rule players don’t have any say over what goes on a jersey. Yet you’re being critical because it wasn’t done in this instance.



Well you could argue their response made it that way. It was barely a story until the group of players decided they’d rather sit a game out than wear some coloured stripes.


Right so this should be done even though as you’ve already acknowledged it rarely ever happens.



Lol, are you really suggesting there are no contradictions in the bible? That’s not a perception it’s a fact.
It’s not the illusion of choice. They’re grown adults who make choices. Just because they were brought up in a religion which has particular beliefs does not mean they don’t have a choice. Feeling like you don’t have a choice does not negate the fact you do.




Actually you are. Being asked to wear a jersey with some coloured stripes which is not a disadvantage. Just because some people in a person’s private life isn’t happy with some aspect of their work is not a disadvantage.

Exercising their free will with no repercussions is also not a disadvantage.



What more could the club have done?

Personally I don’t think they owed any player an apology but that’s a matter for their club.



That’s not really a serious question is it?

The fact the players will do nothing but suit up and get on the field next week is pretty clear proof they haven’t been discriminated against whatsoever.

Inferno, we are going round in circles here mate.

I've given you my thoughts regarding discrimination in this instance.

I respect your opinion and right to reply but I don't agree with you.

I think there are grounds, you do not.

 

[Frenzy.]

Inferno, we are going round in circles here mate.

I've given you my thoughts regarding discrimination in this instance.

I respect your opinion and right to reply but I don't agree with you.

I think there are grounds, you do not.

Really? HAHAHAHA

 

[The Lounge Lizard]

The dumbest thread I've ever seen in my nine months on LU.

WTF is mention of Manly doing in a Sharkies sub forum? In the title FFS!