dafman:

 

The secret of a successful religion is when an unscrupulous wealthy few convince a gullible not-so-wealthy many that they need to give up their cash. And what better demonstration of this than the last few days.

 

 

 

 If you donated to Folau this week, and you are reading this, you've been well and truly had (honest opinion).

 

A good example is Destiny. Same rhetoric. My definition of church and sermons doesn't include cult like religion centres

Again, it is just one bigot seeking vindication for his prejudice. Moderate christians (the overwhelming majority) have moved beyond this issue and have no problem with gays in the church. Many self-professed christians are gay. This is not about freedom of religion, though strenuous efforts are being made to suggest that. It is also not about freedom of speech. It is entirely about one individual's sense of entitlement and perceived right to be a jerk.

(edited by author)

Handle9:

 

This article is very good touching on the employment law. Basically it says the exact matter is untested as these cases generally settle.

 

The closest examples are those around political speech. Well worth a read.

 

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/one-unresolved-legal-question-at-the-heart-of-israel-folaus-case/news-story/387b057b25ab325d35ea494b9ed087b3

 

Good read.

No matter what we all think or whats right, it depends on the exact legal wording. If he won on that technicality he is still a loser. If RA settle, does that not harm them? Gave in, type of thing.

Rikkitic:

 

Again, it is just one bigot seeking vindication for his prejudice. Moderate christians (the overwhelming majority) have moved beyond this issue and have no problem with gays in the church. Many self-professed christians are gay. This is not about freedom of religion, though strenuous efforts are being made to suggest that. It is also not about freedom of speech. It is entirely about one individual's perceived right to be an a$$hole.

 

You are of course welcome to your opinion. But remember that plenty of people have opposite views to yours, and strongly believe they are right. 

Folau argues it is about freedom of religion. He is right. 

Some say it is about free speech. They are right.

Some say it is about hate speech. They are right too. 

Or about expectations outside the office. This is right too. 

There is no right or wrong answer. Its a social situation in which people need to collectively agree on acceptable behaviour. 

There is no case law.  Similar cases have always been settled pre-court. 

The verdict will depend on the judge of the day as there are no deterministic set of laws or relevant precedents. 

I think there is a possibility they'll settle with Folau. Give him 80% of what he is asking.  Unless Folau is determined to stand on principle.

I hope it does go to court, as it will be an fascinating case. They'll be arguing many of the points made in this thread. 

Handle9:

 

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/one-unresolved-legal-question-at-the-heart-of-israel-folaus-case/news-story/387b057b25ab325d35ea494b9ed087b3

 

I agree... Good read.

I wonder whether RA could argue Folau is being unfair in selecting only some groups (gays, adulterers, idolaters, etc) but not others (unclean, witches, etc).

If, as Folau asserts, his religion compels him to post "loving" warnings of the hellish perils of various types of behaviour, then surely he's discriminating against the unclean and witches by not specifically warning them in large yellow letters?

surfisup1000:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Again, it is just one bigot seeking vindication for his prejudice. Moderate christians (the overwhelming majority) have moved beyond this issue and have no problem with gays in the church. Many self-professed christians are gay. This is not about freedom of religion, though strenuous efforts are being made to suggest that. It is also not about freedom of speech. It is entirely about one individual's perceived right to be an a$$hole.

 

 

You are of course welcome to your opinion. But remember that plenty of people have opposite views to yours, and strongly believe they are right. 

 

Folau argues it is about freedom of religion. He is right. 

 

Some say it is about free speech. They are right.

 

Some say it is about hate speech. They are right too. 

 

Or about expectations outside the office. This is right too. 

 

There is no right or wrong answer. Its a social situation in which people need to collectively agree on acceptable behaviour. 

 

There is no case law.  Similar cases have always been settled pre-court. 

 

The verdict will depend on the judge of the day as there are no deterministic set of laws or relevant precedents. 

 

I think there is a possibility they'll settle with Folau. Give him 80% of what he is asking.  Unless Folau is determined to stand on principle.

 

I hope it does go to court, as it will be an fascinating case. They'll be arguing many of the points made in this thread. 

 

Its not freedom of religion as he and others have posted under the RA banner. Its his discrimination about gays

Give him 80% of 10 Million???  2 million or we go all the way. Rugby will suffer. But then again he doesnt wnat to hurt rugby or RA so he will walk away, more lies

surfisup1000:

 

I hope it does go to court, as it will be an fascinating case. They'll be arguing many of the points made in this thread. 

 

No one was holding a gun to his head and saying "play for Rugby Australia". Representing your country in a sporting code is not a human right. 

The reality is his employers had a stated set of values and he chose to, as an ambassador for that organisation, openly state his opposition to those values. 

He made himself unemployable. I strongly suspect this will come down to due process above anything else. 

GV27:

 

surfisup1000:

 

I hope it does go to court, as it will be an fascinating case. They'll be arguing many of the points made in this thread. 

 

 

No one was holding a gun to his head and saying "play for Rugby Australia". Representing your country in a sporting code is not a human right. 

 

The reality is his employers had a stated set of values and he chose to, as an ambassador for that organisation, openly state his opposition to those values. 

 

He made himself unemployable. I strongly suspect this will come down to due process above anything else. 

 

Yes, the code of conduct that was spelt out in Handle9 link was very clear as to what discrimination about others means. If he signed that, he knew. he also knew he can post religious posts which he did as others did, that were fine. So, when eh went over the line he was warned. Every opportunity to be aware and then some

I think he is also being manipulated by his father. I recall after the latest post, he had initially agreed with RA to take it down and apologise. Then he apparently talked to his father about it. After that he doubled down on it all and set the collision course with RA that led to losing his contract. In the meantime he has been very vocal and active in his father's church. Posting videos of him speaking to the congregation etc.

Varkk:

 

I think he is also being manipulated by his father. I recall after the latest post, he had initially agreed with RA to take it down and apologise. Then he apparently talked to his father about it. After that he doubled down on it all and set the collision course with RA that led to losing his contract. In the meantime he has been very vocal and active in his father's church. Posting videos of him speaking to the congregation etc.

 

that's what i read.

tdgeek:

 

Its not freedom of religion as he and others have posted under the RA banner. Its his discrimination about gays

 

Give him 80% of 10 Million???  2 million or we go all the way. Rugby will suffer. But then again he doesnt wnat to hurt rugby or RA so he will walk away, more lies

 

Meh..... one persons discrimination is anothers salvation. You need to compartmentalise opinion from fact.

Rugby Australia has already suffered, and should be seeking a solution to minimise further damage. If that means out of court settlement , then fine. 

surfisup1000:

 

tdgeek:

 

Its not freedom of religion as he and others have posted under the RA banner. Its his discrimination about gays

 

Give him 80% of 10 Million???  2 million or we go all the way. Rugby will suffer. But then again he doesnt wnat to hurt rugby or RA so he will walk away, more lies

 

 

Meh..... one persons discrimination is anothers salvation. You need to compartmentalise opinion from fact.

 

Rugby Australia has already suffered, and should be seeking a solution to minimise further damage. If that means out of court settlement , then fine. 

 

 

 

Its not opinion. he has posted as have others, freely, and so on. Im sure RA would be happy to throw 8 million at a loser. If they paid him out the 4, thats still a win for the loser, thats not justice.

tdgeek:

 

Yes, the code of conduct that was spelt out in Handle9 link was very clear as to what discrimination about others means. If he signed that, he knew. he also knew he can post religious posts which he did as others did, that were fine. So, when eh went over the line he was warned. Every opportunity to be aware and then some

 

The handle9 link is a good read. But, you don't seem to have read the entire article.  The author has no clue who will win. . . 

And then there’s also, always in these cases there’s the risk they (rugby australia) could lose.

It doesn't help your argument by quoting articles that say Rugby australia might lose. 

You are letting your strong beliefs cloud the reality that it is possible Folau might win. 

tdgeek:

 

Its not opinion. he has posted as have others, freely, and so on. Im sure RA would be happy to throw 8 million at a loser. If they paid him out the 4, thats still a win for the loser, thats not justice.

 

You just have no concept of fact and opinion. 

Here is the thing: If it is accepted that Folau or anyone else has a "god-given" (= religious conviction) right to threaten gays with hell for being gay, then surely Muslims have an equal right to demand that all christians and other non-believers be put to death for not being Muslim. I do not think for a moment that most Muslims feel this way, but it is in the Qur’an, just as the bible is full of stoning, rape, mass murder, human sacrifice, and other choice titbits. The religious belief argument is a ridiculous one, and Folau is an arrogant ignoramus.