Religion Folau

[raskolnikov]

Would you have said the same if he had included pedophiles in his list instead of homosexuals?

Are you really that stupid?

 

[skipper kelly]

Can't disagree with that, sometimes it seems to be OTT but imo this time isn't one of them.

Respect your opinion. For me I still can't get over the outrage from people who also believe hell is a part of a fairy tale.

 

[randyzany]

Lol uppity homosexual.

******* moron.

Would you have preferred self-important, arrogant, a flog with book sized tickets on himself? He clearly sees himself as being above Folau and probably all Christians hence his over-the-top response to this fairly inconsequential incident that sparked this. I thought it was rather tame calling him uppity, he deserves much worse.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Are you really that stupid?

You seemed to be singling out people who have or don't have some kind of choice over their behaviour based on their sexual proclivities.

 

[raskolnikov]

You seemed to be singling out people who have or don't have some kind of choice over their behaviour based on their sexual proclivities.

Paedophilia is illegal and involves sex with a minor. You're stupid if you can't see the difference.

 

[Evolved1]

If Folau accepts a settlement in this case, will that hurt the 'free speech' victimhood narrative he's concocted?
Since freedom of religion and speech are the stated goals, there's no financial carrot that could tempt Israel to back down.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If Folau accepts a settlement in this case, will that hurt the 'free speech' victimhood narrative he's concocted?

This question isn't loaded enough for my liking.

 

[raskolnikov]

They're sh*tting boulder sized bricks because deep down they know their side doesn't have a leg to stand on if this case makes it all the way to the High Court. A verdict not in their favour will have huge repercussions that would put them at a disadvantage in promoting their insidious so-called progressive agenda on the rest of society unabated, as it has been to this point in time.

The LGB/SJW ferals were counting on Folau being a good meek little Christian who would eventually quietly surrender with his tail between his legs never to be seen or heard off again. They underestimated his resolve and are now doing everything within their power to put as many stumbling blocks in his way as possible hoping against hope that it'll dissuade him from pursuing this course of action.

Too late my pc fascist friends, you've open Pandoras box and there's a reckoning coming your way. And this all because some uppity homosexual CEO thought he had the right to destroy someone's livelihood for no other reason than because a player minding his own business outside of his official duties dared to preach Christine doctrine that was merely uncomplimentary about his sexuality.

It had nothing to do with hate speech or anything like that, Alan Joyce just couldn't bear someone that he believed he had some control over stating things he personally (and other oversensitive fragile souls) found offensive and wanted to use this incident as both a warning and an example to intimidate any other employee working for Qantas or RA from ever contemplating doing the same thing. He couldn't put his over-inflated ego to one side and realise that this wasn't a hill that a smart wise person would want to die on and not helpful to the LGBGT cause one little bit.

Yeah. Gay people should just take every beat down that they're handed out. But if they retaliate they're the perpetrators.

 

[Evolved1]

They're sh*tting boulder sized bricks because deep down they know their side doesn't have a leg to stand on if this case makes it all the way to the High Court. A verdict not in their favour will have huge repercussions that would put them at a disadvantage in promoting their insidious so-called progressive agenda on the rest of society unabated, as it has been to this point in time.

The LGB/SJW ferals were counting on Folau being a good meek little Christian who would eventually quietly surrender with his tail between his legs never to be seen or heard off again. They underestimated his resolve and are now doing everything within their power to put as many stumbling blocks in his way as possible hoping against hope that it'll dissuade him from pursuing this course of action.

Too late my pc fascist friends, you've open Pandoras box and there's a reckoning coming your way. And this all because some uppity homosexual CEO thought he had the right to destroy someone's livelihood for no other reason than because a player minding his own business outside of his official duties dared to preach Christine doctrine that was merely uncomplimentary about his sexuality.

It had nothing to do with hate speech or anything like that, Alan Joyce just couldn't bear someone that he believed he had some control over stating things he personally (and other oversensitive fragile souls) found offensive and wanted to use this incident as both a warning and an example to intimidate any other employee working for Qantas or RA from ever contemplating doing the same thing. He couldn't put his over-inflated ego to one side and realise that this wasn't a hill that a smart wise person would want to die on and not helpful to the LGBGT cause one little bit.

Is that you, Israel?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Yeah. Gay people should just take every beat down that they're handed out. But if they retaliate they're the perpetrators.

View attachment 698896

The extent of the response is the issue. Gay folks weren't liberated from cotton fields last week.

For all intents & purposes they are normal members of society, just like the drunks and the adulterers..

 

[Evolved1]

The book should be the target.

In what way?

 

[Downhill Skier]

Choosing not to act on one's sexual orientation necessitates living a sexless, loveless life. And acting on one's sexual orientation hurts no third party. Adultery is an act that hurts a third party, possibly two third parties and it does not at all cut off one's possibility of a sex life if not acted on. It's a ridiculous comparison.

What does hurting a third party have to do with it .Is it a choice or is it not a choice ?

 

[raskolnikov]

What does hurting a third party have to do with it .Is it a choice or is it not a choice ?

It's a choice to act on it. Orientation is not a choice.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Paedophilia is illegal and involves sex with a minor. You're stupid if you can't see the difference.

Paedophilia is not illegal. The acts are. Homosexual acts used to be illegal until fairly recently. Did homosexuals have a choice about their behaviour when it was illegal?

You are completely tangling yourself up. Of course people have varied and unusual sexual proclivities including some that would be illegal if acted upon under current legislation. People always have a choice to act on their desires or refrain.

 

[Sainteric]

Thanks for that background; you clearly know a lot more about employment law than me.

But I reckon if the court DOES find that contract law takes precedence over the relevant employment regulations, well, given that he breached once and was warned, Folau will have a very hard time doing a Gilbert O’Sullivan and convincing the court that he signed the contract when not in full knowledge of the implications of the clauses it contained.

No chance, fairwork rules them all. It's a Labor initiative to centralise and get the state govts out of employment.

Regardless if he was in almost any other state it's a reasonable chance no matter what was in his contract or code of conduct it would been descrimination to sack him for expressing his religious beliefs as he did. Not that I know the ins and outs of taking a case like this to court but I think they would have preferred or more comfortable with that and bigger $$ may have been available.

Fairwork will be inteteresting.

 

[Sainteric]

Nobody's trying to restrict his freedom of religious expression in his church.

But he loses his job because of it

 

[raskolnikov]

Paedophilia is not illegal. The acts are. Homosexual acts used to be illegal until fairly recently. Did homosexuals have a choice about their behaviour when it was illegal?

You are completely tangling yourself up. Of course people have varied and unusual sexual proclivities including some that would be illegal if acted upon under current legislation. People always have a choice to act on their desires or refrain.

You're the one tangling yourself up. No law is broken if homosexual desire is acted on. It is with paedophilia. Do you see the difference?

 

[Downhill Skier]

It's a choice to act on it. Orientation is not a choice.

And I completely agree with that .

 

[Kurve]

But he loses his job because of it

Poor Izzy.

 

[raskolnikov]

Poor Izzy.

Yet the same people who sympathise with Izzy have no compassion when gay people are sacked from Christian organisations when their sexuality is made known.

 

[randyzany]

Is that you, Israel?

In a sense, I suppose so. He represents the fate of every person who hasn't drunk the progressive kool aid and wants to bring about the end of the ridiculous progressive ideology that has been rammed down the throat of society in general for the last 2 decades or so.

 

[raskolnikov]

In a sense, I suppose so. He represents the fate of every person who hasn't drunk the progressive kool aid and wants to bring about the end of the ridiculous progressive ideology that has been rammed down the throat of society in general for the last 2 decades or so.

Can you explain this progressive ideology some more? Do you mean gay people achieving equality?

How evil.

 

[randyzany]

Can you explain this progressive ideology some more? Do you mean gay people achieving equality?

How evil.

The Folau brouhaha is case in point. Other examples are idiocy such as advocating gender fluidity for teens under 18, toxic feminism and their propensity to blame men for all their failures and shortcoming instead of looking first in the mirror. etc..

 

[Frank Bunn]

You're the one tangling yourself up. No law is broken if homosexual desire is acted on. It is with paedophilia. Do you see the difference?

You started this by claiming some people don't have a choice over their behaviour because of their sexual proclivities. Now you are saying they do have a choice - because of the restrictions of the prevailing law at a particular point in time and society. Makes no sense.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There is definitely a level of outrage that corporation respond to these days.

Guess there's dollars in it.

Or lost dollars if they're not seen to be taking a stand.

Sometimes wonder if the free market zealots realise what they've unleashed.

Reduce everything to a financial equation, and who'd a guessed? Everything gets reduced to a financial equation.