Religion Folau

[FrakturedHalo]

Folau is a fundie Christian. He believes that homosexuals deserve Hell, which is a place of eternal torment.

I'm trying to keep things simple for you. Are you lost?

Lol you just keep rolling them out don’t you, ad hominem. Probably not a great idea to try and argue points that are not based in any way on verifiable fact but instead based on your own biased interpretation and unsubstantiated opinion unsupported - actually no, outright disputed - by any kind of evidence with a barrister, but anyway

 

[Evolved1]

Lol you just keep rolling them out don’t you, ad hominem. Probably not a great idea to try and argue points that are not based in any way on verifiable fact but instead based on your own biased interpretation and unsubstantiated opinion unsupported - actually no, outright disputed - by any kind of evidence with a barrister, but anyway

I lost a couple IQ points just reading that verbosity.

Do you have a point?

 

[FrakturedHalo]

In my experience, atheists (myself included) will fight religion for any reason, and it generally works for the benefit of society as a whole. Atheists protect homosexuals, women, races of all kinds, scientists/science, children, and even Christians and Muslims when we're needed.

I’m not sure just what brand of atheism or whatever it is that you’re calling whatever it is you think you are doing to “protect” anyone to fight religion, you appear to be just as prone to make believe and misguided faith in the righteousness of your own dogma above others’ as any other garden-variety religious nutter?

 

[Evolved1]

I’m not sure just what brand of atheism or whatever it is that you’re calling whatever it is you think you are doing to “protect” anyone to fight religion, you appear to be just as prone to make believe and misguided faith in the righteousness of your own dogma above others’ as any other garden-variety religious nutter?

Atheism is a disbelief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no brand of atheism.

Try to keep your points succinct. Verbosity isn't working for you.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

I lost a couple IQ points just reading that verbosity.

Do you have a point?

Yes my point is you are precisely the kind of moronic BF poster I was originally talking about, but even worse because you seem to be wilfully fabricating and misrepresenting other people’s arguments to present your own position as being reasonable and right, but all this kind of dishonesty serves to do is undermine honest rational discussion, and is rather manipulative and unproductive. But you do it for fun right?

 

[FrakturedHalo]

Atheism is a disbelief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no brand of atheism.

Try to keep your points succinct. Verbosity isn't working for you.

For an atheist you sure seem to claim to know a lot about what fundamentalist christians believe, and think that you know what a tweet containing a verse of scripture is meant to be communicating?

 

[Cuzz09]

Im not religious. I think Id be an athiest but dont give it a title.

I think we just evolved over millions of years.

I dont stop others believing in what they want.

I also don't want to hurt people over what they believe in.

[emoji173] Take it Easy

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Downhill Skier]

Folau is a fundie Christian. He believes that homosexuals deserve Hell, which is a place of eternal torment.

I'm trying to keep things simple for you. Are you lost?

No, he believes ALL sinners will go to hell unless they repent.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yet another one who doesn’t seem to know what the words mean they accuse someone of. Ok genius so please explain to me, which or what part of any of my posts are based upon some erroneous belief? My belief that everyone is entitled to hold their own religious/moral/sexual/other beliefs and lifestyle choices and not be publicly vilified for them? Or my belief that people should at least know the definition of the accusations they are directing at people before making them? Or my belief that people in general need to be more open to listening and rational discussion without being as totally intolerant and ignorant as the people they are accusing of that very thing? Please, enlighten me

In the workplace there are many rules.
You are blinded by your ignorance.

Issy knew he was being provocative , he had been warned, his homophobic remarks will see him lose his job and why people are defending that i dont understand. How can homophobia be a reasonable stance to take in the workplace???

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, he believes ALL sinners will go to hell unless they repent.

Why are you justifying his homophobia??

 

[Downhill Skier]

Why are you justifying his homophobia??

Just because . Just like I will justify your right to be anti religion .

You are as intolerant as he is

 

[Downhill Skier]

In the workplace there are many rules.
You are blinded by your ignorance.

Issy knew he was being provocative , he had been warned, his homophobic remarks will see him lose his job and why people are defending that i dont understand. How can homophobia be a reasonable stance to take in the workplace???

I have lots of rules at my workplace . They actually only apply to my workplace though and a personal twitter/Instagram account is not my workplace .

 

[nobbyiscool]

I have lots of rules at my workplace . They actually only apply to my workplace though and a personal twitter/Instagram account is not my workplace .

If your social media identified your workplace, and if you posted that all gays are going to hell, I reckon you'd find out pretty quickly that this isn't the case.

 

[Swanny69]

Former party boy turns religious bigot. Is there any other route to finding truth? Lol

That's the problem with dumb people; they exchange one form of stupidity for another, then think they've earned the right to a microphone and pulpit.

POTY candidate .. just for its raw truth

 

[FrakturedHalo]

If your social media identified your workplace, and if you posted that all gays are going to hell, I reckon you'd find out pretty quickly that this isn't the case.

To be fair I’ve gone through his entire Twitter and seen only one (well two if you count Miranda Devine’s tweet to him about his tweet but it’s one and the same) example of where he says gays are going to hell (along with the rest of us). He actually gives it far more to other Christians he considers to be inauthentic con artists than he does to any other group??



Then there’s also a good dash of stuff like this:


I don’t think he’s anywhere near the monster that people are making him out to be, by all accounts he appears to be a fairly decent person who has some at times misguided, blindly passionate (slightly brainwashed) views that aren’t everyone’s cup of tea but to say he is inciting hate via his social media accounts is being rather outrageous

 

[nobbyiscool]

To be fair I’ve gone through his entire Twitter and seen only one (well two if you count Miranda Devine’s tweet to him about his tweet but it’s one and the same) example of where he says gays are going to hell (along with the rest of us). He actually gives it far more to other Christians he considers to be inauthentic con artists than he does to any other group??

View attachment 662498View attachment 662499View attachment 662500View attachment 662501

Then there’s also a good dash of stuff like this:
View attachment 662502

I don’t think he’s anywhere near the monster that people are making him out to be, by all accounts he appears to be a fairly decent person who has some at times misguided, blindly passionate (slightly brainwashed) views that aren’t everyone’s cup of tea but to say he is inciting hate via his social media accounts is being rather outrageous

This is kind of the point - his sacking is nothing to do with his religion. The only time it's been an issue is when he's denigrated gay people. He got a warning the first time, he got sacked the second time. That's absolutely fair and just, and I think it's along the lines of what would happen to a lot of us, especially those in professional environments.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

This is kind of the point - his sacking is nothing to do with his religion. The only time it's been an issue is when he's denigrated gay people. He got a warning the first time, he got sacked the second time. That's absolutely fair and just, and I think it's along the lines of what would happen to a lot of us, especially those in professional environments.

You are being a bit tricky with words there, and this is going to be the precise point upon which his court case is going to be argued I can guarantee it. To say it has nothing to do with his religion per se may in theory sound correct, and is to an extent in that he has not been dismissed simply for being a Christian of whoever knows what church or denomination that would be clear cut unlawful discrimination. He has however been dismissed on the basis of his religious expression, which he is free to do and is also protected under the Act. It is also protected under the Act that people can freely express their sexuality, whether it’s gay, straight, bi, trans whatever it is that floats your boat you’re free to prance about in a tutu with your sack hanging out the bottom if you wish...until however it causes another person to feel victimised by it. And herein lies the catch 22: does one persons right not to feel victimised by the actions of another who is carrying out their freedom to express whatever it is (religious/sexuality/breastfeeding in public/any of the rest of the protected freedoms) that they are lawfully allowed to do - who’s rights trumps the others?? Both are equally protected under the Act, both people have rights to express and right not to feel victimised (which is NOT simply being offended or outraged, there’s clear and definitive parameters set out in order for victimisation to have occurred), so how does one decide who’s in the wrong and deserves penalty or sanction? Is it the person who makes the most noise, is it the person who claims they are the biggest victim? Is it the person who has the most people hanging off their bandwagon? You tell me?

 

[FrakturedHalo]

THAT was the entire point of what I’ve been trying to say this entire thread of however many pages, it’s not about defending Folau being discriminatory (which in fact he hasn’t been at all, nothing about this issue is to do with discrimination unless you are talking about Folau v Rugby Australia/NSW), it’s not about employment contract law, it’s not about if he is homophobic or if he’s not, it’s about why is it automatically the public opinion that only the gay/LGBTI+ identifying group have any right to feel victimised and their entitlement to do so absolutely enshrined in gospel (no pun intended) and those offending that position must be publicly held up, castigated, castrated then cast out, and their right takes precedence and priority over any other groups...who actually are afforded equal footing in the eyes of the law? It wasn’t a biased or loaded question, it’s a serious question that every person and the whole of society should be asking ourselves and taking steps to ensure equality is being dealt to everyone, not just one group or person above another

 

[Dixie Normous]

Hope this bloke has money put away because he seems as dumb as dog shit. Would be iucky to get a night job stacking shelves at Coles

 

[ziad]

No, he believes ALL sinners will go to hell unless they repent.

sounds fair enough for a good eagles supporter

 

[nobbyiscool]

You are being a bit tricky with words there, and this is going to be the precise point upon which his court case is going to be argued I can guarantee it. To say it has nothing to do with his religion per se may in theory sound correct, and is to an extent in that he has not been dismissed simply for being a Christian of whoever knows what church or denomination that would be clear cut unlawful discrimination. He has however been dismissed on the basis of his religious expression, which he is free to do and is also protected under the Act. It is also protected under the Act that people can freely express their sexuality, whether it’s gay, straight, bi, trans whatever it is that floats your boat you’re free to prance about in a tutu with your sack hanging out the bottom if you wish...until however it causes another person to feel victimised by it. And herein lies the catch 22: does one persons right not to feel victimised by the actions of another who is carrying out their freedom to express whatever it is (religious/sexuality/breastfeeding in public/any of the rest of the protected freedoms) that they are lawfully allowed to do - who’s rights trumps the others?? Both are equally protected under the Act, both people have rights to express and right not to feel victimised (which is NOT simply being offended or outraged, there’s clear and definitive parameters set out in order for victimisation to have occurred), so how does one decide who’s in the wrong and deserves penalty or sanction? Is it the person who makes the most noise, is it the person who claims they are the biggest victim? Is it the person who has the most people hanging off their bandwagon? You tell me?

Anyone arguing on behalf of Folau using employment law or his contract is guessing - none of us have seen it. I guess it's still interesting to discuss hypotheticals though.


I've bolded the most relevant part (IMO) - he hasn't been dismissed on the basis of religious expression, he's been dismissed for denigrating LGBTIQ+ people, which the ARU will argue breached the terms of his contract.

You're speaking conceptually about employment law. And while I haven't seen his contract either, I can speak to my own workplace EBA, which is what the ARU will probably do - speak to the specifics of its own contracts and codes of conduct. If this happened in my EBA, he'd have been deemed to have committed a serious breach of my organisation's code of conduct last year (ie. the first time this storm arose) because, as much as anything, he became a risk to my organisation, to it's commitment to equality and diversity, and to it's LGBTIQ+ employees.

That serious code of conduct breach would've resulted in a first and final warning - which probably has some parallels to the Folau situation, because it leaked at the time that ARU delivered this. And, depending on which FW Commissioner, or which Federal Court judge you appeared in front of, is now not appealable following a 2nd code of conduct breach.

Again, if this was in my workplace, he's now committed a 2nd code of conduct breach, which is appealable.


Here's where it gets interesting though - contrary to what you've said, in Federal law and in NSW law, religion is not specifically a protected attribute in discrimination law (in that there is no specific legislation outlawing it). Where there is an ethnic-religious link you are probably covered by the Racial Discrimination Act, but religion alone does not protect you - we don't have a religious discrimination act. The current Federal Government recently received a report suggesting it be introduced, but in my understanding of discrimination law (having studied it at uni, and having done plenty of union training - but obviously far less than legal experts), suggests that freedom of sexuality - which is unambiguously a protected attribute under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 - would outweigh an assumed freedom of religion where those two "freedoms" are conflicting in a discrimination context. Again, contrary to what you've said, I don't believe they are protected equally under our discrimination legislation.


I hasten to reiterate that we're all guessing, because none of us have seen his contract. But prima facie, on the balance of discrimination legislation, I'd rather be representing the ARU.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

Anyone arguing on behalf of Folau using employment law or his contract is guessing - none of us have seen it. I guess it's still interesting to discuss hypotheticals though.


I've bolded the most relevant part (IMO) - he hasn't been dismissed on the basis of religious expression, he's been dismissed for denigrating LGBTIQ+ people, which the ARU will argue breached the terms of his contract.

You're speaking conceptually about employment law. And while I haven't seen his contract either, I can speak to my own workplace EBA, which is what the ARU will probably do - speak to the specifics of its own contracts and codes of conduct. If this happened in my EBA, he'd have been deemed to have committed a serious breach of my organisation's code of conduct last year (ie. the first time this storm arose) because, as much as anything, he became a risk to my organisation, to it's commitment to equality and diversity, and to it's LGBTIQ+ employees.

That serious code of conduct breach would've resulted in a first and final warning - which probably has some parallels to the Folau situation, because it leaked at the time that ARU delivered this. And, depending on which FW Commissioner, or which Federal Court judge you appeared in front of, is now not appealable following a 2nd code of conduct breach.

Again, if this was in my workplace, he's now committed a 2nd code of conduct breach, which is appealable.


Here's where it gets interesting though - contrary to what you've said, in Federal law and in NSW law, religion is not specifically a protected attribute in discrimination law (in that there is no specific legislation outlawing it). Where there is an ethnic-religious link you are probably covered by the Racial Discrimination Act, but religion alone does not protect you - we don't have a religious discrimination act. The current Federal Government recently received a report suggesting it be introduced, but in my understanding of discrimination law (having studied it at uni, and having done plenty of union training - but obviously far less than legal experts), suggests that freedom of sexuality - which is unambiguously a protected attribute under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 - would outweigh an assumed freedom of religion where those two "freedoms" are conflicting in a discrimination context. Again, contrary to what you've said, I don't believe they are protected equally under our discrimination legislation.


I hasten to reiterate that we're all guessing, because none of us have seen his contract. But prima facie, on the balance of discrimination legislation, I'd rather be representing the ARU.

I love it, there’s always at least one bright spark who goes “I studied a couple of law subjects in my business/commerce/arts degrees/studied legal studies in year 12” and proceeds to detail to the barrister all the points where they deem the barrister is erring and wrong, then outlines what they consider to be a better approach, doesn’t matter whether the instruments they reference are even applicable in the case or not, or considering what exact outcome are you trying to achieve but hey. Can always spot them, they’re the only ones who actually use prima facie in a sentence

 

[iBeng]

I just love how he can be a condescending about his belief towards people who dont agree 100% with him, when he clearly hasnt read the part in the bible that says your shouldnt "mark your body".

Leviticus 19:28, which says, ”And a cutting for the dead you will not make in your flesh; and writing marks you will not make on you; I am the Lord. ”

But of course, the bible is meant to be interpreted, so you can pick and choose.

Being gay? Thats a SINFUL CHOICE! Says so!

Getting a Tattoo? Well, the bible is more of a guideline than strictly a rule, so...ink me up brah!

 

[nobbyiscool]

I love it, there’s always at least one bright spark who goes “I studied a couple of law subjects in my business/commerce/arts degrees/studied legal studies in year 12” and proceeds to detail to the barrister all the points where they deem the barrister is erring and wrong, then outlines what they consider to be a better approach, doesn’t matter whether the instruments they reference are even applicable in the case or not, or considering what exact outcome are you trying to achieve but hey. Can always spot them, they’re the only ones who actually use prima facie in a sentence

Yeah, I actually have a degree in law. I just never practiced it aside from arguing cases - some about unfair dismissal, some of them related to discrimination - at the Fair Work Commission.

But sure, I guess you play the man if you're out of your depth playing the ball? I even left a gaping hole in my logic for you to drive through.

 

[FrakturedHalo]

Yeah, I actually have a degree in law. I just never practiced it aside from arguing cases - some about unfair dismissal, some of them related to discrimination - at the Fair Work Commission.

But sure, I guess you play the man if you're out of your depth playing the ball? I even left a gaping hole in my logic for you to drive through.

I wasn’t playing the man you’re being a bit oversensitive, but I can see how that would occur, what so it’s ok to go through and one by one go through each item I’ve put forth and claim nope your point is wrong, mine is correct...ok so what, did you want me to basically go through each one of your items you’ve presented too and cut them down and tell you how they wouldn’t actually achieve what you think they will in the real world when you actually get to court? I thought that would have looked a bit petty not to mention bored everyone to tears but hey, no honey I’m not out of my depth this is my day job so that’s a good one, out of my depth lol

By the way little hint, which you should already know since you said yourself the sum total of your legal experience is arguing some fair work unfair dismissal cases which means you would be widely versed in the Fair Work Act...section 351. Religion and sexuality do have equal footing in the list of protected attributes. My use of the terms freedom of expression and right to not feel vilified was also key. I’m not sure what relevance it has to what we were discussing you bringing up all the other various discrimination legislative instruments trying to say this act takes precedence over this one? If you were doing what I am making an assumption you were trying to do and apply the various discrimination acts to what I had stated in my earlier post about religion and sexuality being equally protected and deduce that because one is protected under its own individual commonwealth statute and the other subject to a jumble of legislation dependent on jurisdictions etc, I can see your logic but in reality you wouldn’t ever use or reference these discrimination acts like that, unless it’s something like FW or health and safety laws which do take precedence over others, one commonwealth act can’t take precedence over another (except of course where it’s been superceded) in such a manner, besides if we get back to the original thing we were talking about which is Folau’s case, the sex discrimination act isn’t at all even relevant to this so it matters not. In fact it’s rare you would even bring your case using the discrimination acts at all, unless you are going in hard for damages or it’s some kind of public interest case. By all accounts Izzy doesn’t appear to be interested in going down that path at all unless it ends up getting to the high court as an appeal, he appears to just wants to play footy since they’re electing to have it heard as a conduct charge rather than unfair termination, which is interesting, and quite smart in my opinion, has a far better chance of achieving a positive outcome for him