Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Folau

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

FrakturedHalo said:
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take precedence over others, one commonwealth act can’t take precedence over another (except of course where it’s been superceded) in such a manner, besides if we get back to the original thing we were talking about which is Folau’s case, the sex discrimination act isn’t at all even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
Click to expand...
Seriously?! You need to work on your punctuation and use plain English if you want people to accept your argument.

"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,"...and that's only the first part of that sentence. I didn't read any further.
 
FrakturedHalo said:
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
Click to expand...
He only needs to get the breach lowered to a lower level misconduct charge to win that hearing, which I am reasonably sure will be the case (basically, Rugby Australia won't be able to terminate his contract without paying it out unless the misconduct charge remains severe enough to warrant it, i.e. serious misconduct). I think Rugby Australia is fine wanting to part ways with him, but I don't think it's feasible without paying out his contract or at least coming to some sort of settlement. I can't see them winning an appeal. It wouldn't do Rugby Australia any favours to have this drag out into the high court, either. It's too transparent what they're trying to do at this point: basically, they want the misconduct charge to be severe enough to warrant a summary dismissal without them being liable to pay out his contract. Izzy only needs to argue that his dismissal was a disproportionate response to his actions. They may try to argue that they gave him a warning, but that's only a viable argument if it's relative and consistent with terms set out in his employment contract.
 
Professor Knowall said:
Another complication for Rugby Australia to consider -
https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby...a/news-story/5d3d727bd52e7f4b782c02bf51b7a935
Click to expand...

That's some pretty silly stuff from Tupou. No-one has a problem with anyone being a Christian. No-one has a problem with Kerevi's post.

But using your religion to disguise attacks on others - well, some people do have a problem with it. Particularly (if I'm reading the article right), he was told not to post stuff like that and went ahead and did it anyway. Which again, if I've read it right, was a breach of a contract he signed (hence the RU breach of contract notice).
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

R Chee Manning said:
We need him for our world cup campaign.

Punish Izzy and you punish Australia.
Click to expand...
Why are so many of our best international sportsmen complete campaigners? Folau, Tomic, Kyrgios, Warner. It's baffling.

Winning with a team of campaigners would damage the international image of Australia in much the same way Trump damages the American brand.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Chucky_23 said:
God hope he bankrupts Rugby. One less sport for footy to compete with in QLD. That sport is on its knees in this country.
Click to expand...


Hang on... Why can't we co-exist..?

I'm a Kiwi. I live 4 minutes walk from my local rugby club... I'm also fan of AFL... that doesn't mean I hate rugby.

I watched my son play at Yeronga yesterday - Lions v Suns U16. I watched my daughter play this morning at Burpengary - Vultures v Crows.

I live at Auchenflower and rugby is the #1 sport here where I live...

Why do we need to bankrupt other sports?

Rugby is hardly on its knees here in Auchenflower.


1557045365789.png
 
R Chee Manning said:
Hang on... Why can't we co-exist..?

I'm a Kiwi. I live 4 minutes walk from my local rugby club... I'm also fan of AFL... that doesn't mean I hate rugby.

I watched my son play at Yeronga yesterday - Lions v Suns U16. I watched my daughter play this morning at Burpengary - Vultures v Crows.

I live at Auchenflower and rugby is the #1 sport here where I live...

Why do we need to bankrupt other sports?

Rugby is hardly on its knees here in Auchenflower.


View attachment 668146
Click to expand...

Because it's a small country/economy and every bit of resource that is given to one sport is ultimately taken from another sport. I'm a footy person and QLD is particularly not a footy place where we compete for media space and resources against sports like rugby even though they put pathetic effort into their juniors and grass roots outside of private schools. That pic is the Wests rugby club. It's a fantastic facility that was built on the back of political and buisness support to secure funding and override local planning regulations. There aren't any footy clubs in the western suburbs of Brisbane (apart from the AFLQ head office at Yeronga if you count them as sort of Western suburbs) that can call on that kind of support to unblock a 50 year old toilet let alone build a palace like that.
 
Maybe Alan Joyce & Qantas can toss a few pennies into the RA kitty to save it from impending insolvency if it does chance to eventuate what those articles say is a possibility. After all if it wasn’t for AJ driving it behind the scenes RA would have just sat on their hands again and done a big fat lot of not much...which may not have been all that bad of an idea if they are in such dire straits as it sounds.
 
Chucky_23 said:
Because it's a small country/economy and every bit of resource that is given to one sport is ultimately taken from another sport. I'm a footy person and QLD is particularly not a footy place where we compete for media space and resources against sports like rugby even though they put pathetic effort into their juniors and grass roots outside of private schools. That pic is the Wests rugby club. It's a fantastic facility that was built on the back of political and buisness support to secure funding and override local planning regulations. There aren't any footy clubs in the western suburbs of Brisbane (apart from the AFLQ head office at Yeronga if you count them as sort of Western suburbs) that can call on that kind of support to unblock a 50 year old toilet let alone build a palace like that.
Click to expand...
Barracking for fundie bigots against anyone is un-Australian. ;)

Boooo!
 
FrakturedHalo said:
Maybe Alan Joyce & Qantas can toss a few pennies into the RA kitty to save it from impending insolvency if it does chance to eventuate what those articles say is a possibility. After all if it wasn’t for AJ driving it behind the scenes RA would have just sat on their hands again and done a big fat lot of not much...which may not have been all that bad of an idea if they are in such dire straits as it sounds.
Click to expand...
How dare sponsors protect their brand image!
 
Evolved1 said:
How dare sponsors protect their brand image!
Click to expand...
Well if they truly wanted to protect their brand image and align themselves with organisations that reflect the values that majority of Australians find acceptable then they would end their close and cosy commercial partnerships with two airlines owned by nation states that sanction and uphold the wholesale discrimination of women, conduct public stonings and beheadings for women charged with adultery, turn a blind eye to imams carrying out female circumcision, will only grant men the right to unilaterally divorce their spouse yet women have to apply to a Sharia court...the list goes on. Not to mention their views on homosexuality either, in fact it remains a crime punishable by 10 years imprisonment for “sodomy” they still call it. And other archaic and brutal various punishments as prescribed under Sharia law. Hypocrites much?
 
Last edited:

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Evolved1 said:
How dare sponsors protect their brand image!
Click to expand...
Besides I certainly didn’t see Qantas making any public stands or whispers of behind the scenes machinations to get rid of certain individuals when there’s been rape scandal after gang rape scandal after domestic violence scandal come out involving various rugby players - yes some Wallaby’s too - over the years. Awful silent on those, so Qantas is OK with discrimination and real life abuses being perpetrated against women, but post some rather tame by evangelical standards biblical religious garbage on social media about homosexuals going to hell (along with a whole lot of the rest of us which honestly who believes a word of that anyway) and you’re practically a war criminal??
 
sameolds33 said:
Seriously?! You need to work on your punctuation and use plain English if you want people to accept your argument.

"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,"...and that's only the first part of that sentence. I didn't read any further.
Click to expand...
Well I’m glad you didn’t read any further as I wouldn’t want to confuddle your little head there if you can’t understand plain English. Sure my use - - or lack thereof - of punctuation needs some attention however given this is a community forum it is not unthinkable that someone would type/post exactly how they would speak having such a discussion...it’s not a dissertation so thanks but you can keep your unsolicited and rather unproductive and petty feedback to yourself. If you don’t have anything to contribute or offer the discussion other than nasty and what could otherwise be considered personal attacks (or would be if I actually gave a heck about whether you can comprehend what I’ve written or not) then kindly shut your hole Wang Chung
 
FrakturedHalo said:
Well I’m glad you didn’t read any further as I wouldn’t want to confuddle your little head there if you can’t understand plain English. Sure my use - - or lack thereof - of punctuation needs some attention however given this is a community forum it is not unthinkable that someone would type/post exactly how they would speak having such a discussion...it’s not a dissertation so thanks but you can keep your unsolicited and rather unproductive and petty feedback to yourself. If you don’t have anything to contribute or offer the discussion other than nasty and what could otherwise be considered personal attacks (or would be if I actually gave a Damn about whether you can comprehend what I’ve written or not) then kindly shut your hole Wang Chung
Click to expand...
Actually, not only was your piece difficult to read, it was also mean, judgmental and condescending. Rather like your reply to my comment and no more or less valid - or on point - than mine. My "little head" has managed to understand enough to get me through two university degrees (including a law degree) so I was quite interested in what you had to say from a legal perspective. However, I was defeated not only by the density of your sentence construction but also the nastiness of your tone.
 
sameolds33 said:
Seriously?! You need to work on your punctuation and use plain English if you want people to accept your argument.

"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,"...and that's only the first part of that sentence. I didn't read any further.
Click to expand...

Discrimination is protected under the discrimination act, can you show me where the hate speech laws are covered under federal statute in relation to gender , sexual orientation etc etc . Federal hate speech laws as far as I can tell only relate to racism under the racial vilification act .

Queensland has state laws covering hate speech regarding sex, gender, sexual orientation and I think Tassie may aswell but can you show me where it is covered under Federal Law.
 
Last edited:
Downhill Skier said:
Discrimination is protected under the discrimination act, can you show me where the hate speech laws are covered under federal statute in relation to gender , sexual orientation etc etc . Federal hate speech laws as far as I can tell only relate to racism under the racial vilification act .

Queensland has state laws covering hate speech regarding sex, gender, sexual orientation and I think Tassie may aswell but can you show me where it is covered under Federal Law.
Click to expand...
I make no claim to be knowledgeable about the relevant legislation. My post was to say I didn't understand the point being made by the poster whose text is quoted - that is the part of my post in quotation marks. Let me know what you find out, my brain is too small to work it out, apparently!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom