Religion Folau

Remove this Banner Ad

Stuff all this political correctness.

He refused to pull his head in and play to his contract conditions. If players can give up drinking during the season, Folau can pull his head in and play for the team.

Preach all you like, but we will withdraw your million dollar contract offer. Play by our rules (contract), or go off to the Cook Islands and preach.

He has never been stopped from practicing his religion.

Folau needs to chat to Bachar Houli, that is a man who has earned respect for getting on with his team mates and administration.
 
chelseacarlton said:
I couldn’t care less whether or not he’s being punished for his particular brand of cult worship.
He is merely being punished by an organisation that he was in their employ.
Your victimisation of him is rather cute though, albeit creepy.👍
Click to expand...
Already discussed further - my comment is nothing to do with him. :thumbsu:
 
randyzany said:
I applaud Senator Abetz for intervening on Folaus behalf on this issue. Any reasonably minded person will never consider accusations of immorality (alcoholism, adultery, etc...) as something that qualifies as 'hate speech'. It's a totally ludicrous inane position to take that only disingenuous types with extreme political agendas disagree with.

Heck I personally am physically 'revolted/disgusted' whenever I come across sexual acts involving same sex individuals. It's an involuntarily reflex akin to watching an obese person in a state of undress, (had difficulty keeping my eyes open during the opening credits of Nocturnal Animals), human faeces apart from my own, Indian currry (the stench makes me feel instantly ill) etc,etc, etc... Apparently some far lefty types define me as a homophobe for my brain responding in this subconscious uncontrollable manner. lulz

It doesn't mean though that I have the right to demand that that sort of behaviour be banned to assuage and appease my own sensibilities simply because such attitude reeks of draconian fascism and it's not a cause of action that should be contemplated and carried out in a truly democratic secular society.

But the number 1 issue that is of utmost importance and that this case has brought to the surface is that as long as an employee is not inciting genuine hate speech (i.e. killing, beating, etc... homosexuals for their sexuality) than no boss/employer has the right to terminate their employees' employment based on what they express outside of their workplace, whether religious or not.

That uppity little Irish leprechaun twerp has delusions of grandeur and arrogantly overreached by treating Qantas as his personal little toy kingdom that he can use to strong-arm a sporting code they happen to sponsor and force them to fall in line with his own delicate sensibilities. The sooner he's put back in his box the better and RA are no better for being yellow bellied cowards for not standing up to his stupidity and allowing him to dictate employees perfectly legal conduct outside his place of work.
Click to expand...
You could have stated that you were no more nor no less than a monkey and be done with it.
So many words, so little substance.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

randyzany said:
I applaud Senator Abetz for intervening on Folaus behalf on this issue. Any reasonably minded person will never consider accusations of immorality (alcoholism, adultery, etc...) as something that qualifies as 'hate speech'. It's a totally ludicrous inane position to take that only disingenuous types with extreme political agendas disagree with.

Heck I personally am physically 'revolted/disgusted' whenever I come across sexual acts involving same sex individuals. It's an involuntarily reflex akin to watching an obese person in a state of undress, (had difficulty keeping my eyes open during the opening credits of Nocturnal Animals), human faeces apart from my own, Indian currry (the stench makes me feel instantly ill) etc,etc, etc... Apparently some far lefty types define me as a homophobe for my brain responding in this subconscious uncontrollable manner. lulz

It doesn't mean though that I have the right to demand that that sort of behaviour be banned to assuage and appease my own sensibilities simply because such attitude reeks of draconian fascism and it's not a cause of action that should be contemplated and carried out in a truly democratic secular society.

But the number 1 issue that is of utmost importance and that this case has brought to the surface is that as long as an employee is not inciting genuine hate speech (i.e. killing, beating, etc... homosexuals for their sexuality) than no boss/employer has the right to terminate their employees' employment based on what they express outside of their workplace, whether religious or not.

That uppity little Irish leprechaun twerp has delusions of grandeur and arrogantly overreached by treating Qantas as his personal little toy kingdom that he can use to strong-arm a sporting code they happen to sponsor and force them to fall in line with his own delicate sensibilities. The sooner he's put back in his box the better and RA are no better for being yellow bellied cowards for not standing up to his stupidity and allowing him to dictate employees perfectly legal conduct outside his place of work.
Click to expand...

What a rant 🤣🤣🤣
 
randyzany said:
Heck I personally am physically 'revolted/disgusted' whenever I come across sexual acts involving same sex individuals.
Click to expand...
You have a habit of coming across same sex couples involved in sexual acts? Bravo their for being so open about what gets you off! :thumbsu:
 
Well I guess he did allude to it by calling himself “randyzany”.
 
 
Given that he's offered the NRL unprecedented control over his social media in a desperate attempt to grab a contract it looks like Issy isn't quite as righteous as he'd have us believe. It might have finally occurred to this dickhead that his future in either code of rugby is about as rosy as mine and that throwing away a $4 million, 4 year contract for some imaginary friend might not have been as clever as he first thought it was.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Evolved1 said:
How often do you come across two people of the same sex in the middle of sexual acts?

If you stop looking at gay pr0n, you wont have that problem.
Click to expand...
Elroo said:
You have a habit of coming across same sex couples involved in sexual acts? Bravo their for being so open about what gets you off! :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
You both need to get out more.
My first experience was rounding Middle Head in Sydney at a place called Cobblers Beach.
It was a lovely day on the water, punctuated by the nauseating sight of two fat blokes going hard at it on the rocks, like a couple of those elephant seals u see on the nat geo channel.

We joked about throwing snapper leads at them to break it up as we passed, but decided not to risk killing them. With hindsight, had I known this unfortunate experience would be permanently burnt into my eyes forever, we should have made more of an effort to break it up. Considering they must have seen us approaching, we have since agreed we could have stopped, anchored within a short distance, and provided a running performance commentary.

This is Sydney, and whilst its nowhere near as carefree as it was 30+ years ago, i'm told you can still accidentally witness this type of visual atrocity on a nightly basis if you wander the inner eastern streets, and perhaps even the odd harbour beach to this day.

Sadly I have seem my share of unholy things in my short time on this planet, but few have provided more bbq laughs than this over the years. Funnily enough, whilst blokes laugh and cringe, most women just seem to take exception to it and see nothing remotely funny. Like the two other blokes onboard that fateful day, i just wish we never saw it.

There is something beautiful in accidentally coming across a man and woman getting a bit cosy. There is also an unwritten rulebook about leaving people in peace when nature takes over. However i do admit that the certain sub species of homosexual that prefers to take it public will always be vomitworthy...unless they are slim attractive lesbians with big jugs of course.
 
Is there freedom of religious expression in Australian workplaces? What are the laws / legislation around this?

Can I create a contract with an employee that allows me to ban them from expressing certain opinions on their social media accounts?

Very interesting case.
 
mouncey2franklin said:
Is there freedom of religious expression in Australian workplaces? What are the laws / legislation around this?

Can I create a contract with an employee that allows me to ban them from expressing certain opinions on their social media accounts?

Very interesting case.
Click to expand...

Historically employers have no right to dictate the speech of their employees especially outside of the workplace. If they are representing the company on an official basis then can be a different story. This should will probably get to the Supreme Court eventually, very interesting.
 
ChampRevesby said:
Historically employers have no right to dictate the speech of their employees especially outside of the workplace. If they are representing the company on an official basis then can be a different story. This should will probably get to the Supreme Court eventually, very interesting.
Click to expand...

One of my kids is well into a six figure salary and has signed an employment contract with a social media clause, she's very careful about what she posts. So careful in fact she's asked me to untag her in conversations with "Can you untag me out of this I've got a ****** job!" She even deleted me once. Twice maybe.
 
shellyg said:
One of my kids is well into a six figure salary and has signed an employment contract with a social media clause, she's very careful about what she posts. So careful in fact she's asked me to untag her in conversations with "Can you untag me out of this I've got a ****** job!" She even deleted me once. Twice maybe.
Click to expand...
Thats why I said historically. No idea what was in his contract but if he is taking legal action then I'm guessing it wasn't explicitly stated. I find it a little frightening that employers are taking steps to regulate the speech of their employees.
 
In the job she has l thought it was fair enough, the discussion had become controversial and politically charged
ChampRevesby said:
Thats why I said historically. No idea what was in his contract but if he is taking legal action then I'm guessing it wasn't explicitly stated. I find it a little frightening that employers are taking steps to regulate the speech of their employees.
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 
ChampRevesby said:
Historically employers have no right to dictate the speech of their employees especially outside of the workplace. If they are representing the company on an official basis then can be a different story. This should will probably get to the Supreme Court eventually, very interesting.
Click to expand...

Champ you get what most do not get in this thread

But it won't end up in the supreme Court it will end up in the Federal Court. He is not going the contract route but unlawful dismissal. He will probably win this.

10 million dollar Issy, will bankrupt Rugby Australia.
 
Last edited:
Sainteric said:
But it won't end up in the supreme Court it will end up in the Federal Court. He is not going the contract route but illegal dismissal. He will probably win this.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope he doesn't because it will embolden and pave the way for religious bigotry that could be far worse on platforms raised on sporting fame. Folau didn't get over 100,000 followers just on twitter for his ministry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top