Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Themanbun]

Very sound reasoning.

But as a society dont we need to protect vulnerable people (like gay teens)?

Izzy didn't ask for all this talent, but with what it brings, comes a higher level of impact when he expresses his opinions.

Assuming the warning he received covered the genuinely disastrous potential of such expression, then the consequences are absolutely justified.

The meme he posted becomes truly malevolent in that context, and as a high profile representative of the ARU, they should have every right to punish him.

Where do we draw the line at 'high profile'?

As far as almost every company on earth is concerned, its workers are all part of its 'brand' so to speak.

 

[Orange Peanut]

Where do we draw the line at 'high profile'?

As far as almost every company on earth is concerned, its workers are all part of its 'brand' so to speak.

Not sure where we draw the line, but representing a national sporting team would probably fall above it .

 

[Snake_Baker]

The constitution, in this case, refers directly to a restriction upon the Commonwealth enacting legislation.

There have been instances, such as in the Lange case, where the High Court has seen fit to imply a constitutional guarantee/right. There, in my very rough terms, they moulded defamation law to fit with an implied freedom of political communication (well, a constitutional defence to defamation was the end result). That freedom had to be implied by the court and did not have an explicit restriction on it or reference to its scope, as s116 does, which refers only to the Commonwealth's power to legislate.

Come on mate, you are reading this far too literally.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law...........for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

This refers to prohibiting that free exercise either directly or indirectly.

If constitutions could be circumvented indirectly then there would be no point in having constitutions in the first place!

Look at the rulings in the High Court regarding religions and state taxation. Taxation laws weren't ever designed to specifically target any particular religion, but they have been deemed unconstitutional by way of interpretation of section 116.

Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society. The chief function in the law of a definition of religion is to mark out an area within which a person subject to the law is free to believe and to act in accordance with his belief without legal restraint. Such a definition affects the scope and operation of s. 116 of the Constitution and identifies the subject matters which other laws are presumed not to intend to affect. Religion is thus a concept of fundamental importance to the law. Moreover, although this case does not arise under s. 116 of the Constitution or under any part of its fourfold guarantee of religious freedom, it is inevitable that the judgments in the Supreme Court, so long as they stand without consideration by this Court, will influence the construction placed upon s. 116 of the Constitution by other Australian courts...........

As has been said, each case must be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced. With all respect to those who have seen the matter differently, we do not consider the present case, when approached on that basis, to be a borderline one. Regardless of whether the members of the applicant are gullible or misled or whether the practices of Scientology are harmful or objectionable, the evidence, in our view, establishes that Scientology must, for relevant purposes, be accepted as "a religion" in Victoria.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html

I rest my case.

Anyway, we are starting to ascend in to a rabbit hole here. My initial point was to identify how out of touch Chad is with fundamental legal principles.

 

[Themanbun]

Not sure where we draw the line, but representing a national sporting team would probably fall above it .

That's the thing though. This isn't framed as a person representing our country, but an employer-employee relationship and a termination of a contract of employment. That has flow on effects for the millions of workers who aren't national sporting representatives.

 

[Chadwiko]

What is so distressing about Christians voicing the biblical interpretation that homosexuals are bound for hell? Is this some type of revelation that only just recently lurched up at people and caught them off guard?

You're referring to Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, for it is an abomination"

If Israel Folau wants to believe this as part of his religion, he is certainly free to do so.

Although, I must point something out...

Leviticus 19:19
"You shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material"


Hmmmmmm

WARATAHS PRIMARY PRO JERSEY 2019

92% Polyester 8% Elastane Reverse Pique 270gsm

 

[Snake_Baker]

You're referring to Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, for it is an abomination"

If Israel Folau wants to believe this as part of his religion, he is certainly free to do so.

Although, I must point something out...

Leviticus 19:19
"You shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material"


Hmmmmmm

WARATAHS PRIMARY PRO JERSEY 2019

92% Polyester 8% Elastane Reverse Pique 270gsm

View attachment 675312

Chad, this has become a serious discussion between manbun and myself now. Go and make us some coffee. I'm pretty sure that's what your employed to do anyway.

 

[Themanbun]

Come on mate, you are reading this far too literally.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law...........for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

This refers to prohibiting that free exercise either directly or indirectly.

If constitutions could be circumvented indirectly then there would be no point in having constitutions in the first place!

Look at the rulings in the High Court regarding religions and taxation. Taxation laws weren't ever designed to specifically target any particular religion, but they have been deemed unconstitutional by way of interpretation of section 116.

Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom of conscience, is of the essence of a free society. The chief function in the law of a definition of religion is to mark out an area within which a person subject to the law is free to believe and to act in accordance with his belief without legal restraint. Such a definition affects the scope and operation of s. 116 of the Constitution and identifies the subject matters which other laws are presumed not to intend to affect. Religion is thus a concept of fundamental importance to the law. Moreover, although this case does not arise under s. 116 of the Constitution or under any part of its fourfold guarantee of religious freedom, it is inevitable that the judgments in the Supreme Court, so long as they stand without consideration by this Court, will influence the construction placed upon s. 116 of the Constitution by other Australian courts...........

As has been said, each case must be determined on the basis of the evidence adduced. With all respect to those who have seen the matter differently, we do not consider the present case, when approached on that basis, to be a borderline one. Regardless of whether the members of the applicant are gullible or misled or whether the practices of Scientology are harmful or objectionable, the evidence, in our view, establishes that Scientology must, for relevant purposes, be accepted as "a religion" in Victoria.

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/40.html

You really need to brush up on this stuff as it may very well assist you in future cases.

Anyway, we are starting to ascend in to a rabbit hole here. My initial point was to identify how out of touch Chad is with fundamental legal principles.

The criticisms and commentary of the limited scope of our s.116 were written *after* the Scientology case mate.

And, from that case itself:

"But the area of legal immunity marked out by the concept of religion cannot extend to all conduct in which a person may engage in giving effect to his faith in the supernatural. The freedom to act in accordance with one's religious beliefs is not as inviolate as the freedom to believe, for general laws to preserve and protect society are not defeated by a plea of religious obligation to breach them.2"

That case, in particular, was with reference to taxation legislation. Not the common law of contract.

You can't just pick and choose what to read from a case, and your criticisms of my narrow reading of that constitutional provision and being 'circumvented' by the indirect operation of the common law are precisely the same criticisms of the operation of that s116 which have been written by the ALRC and various human rights bodies. They have recognised that it is not a wide reaching protection and are thus pushing the Gov. to float a bill of rights.

What I'm saying is that I, and the ALRC, agree with you that it provides little protection if the indirect operation of common law principles of contract can have the effect anyway, that is exactly why there have been several papers commissioned to the government begging them for a bill of rights.

Happy to leave it there after your next reply.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

What is so distressing about Christians voicing the biblical interpretation that homosexuals are bound for hell? Is this some type of revelation that only just recently lurched up at people and caught them off guard?

No, it's as old as Christianity itself.

However, the extremely obvious point that you keep ignoring, is that this interpretation is not a religious tenet that is protected by constitution, statute or common law.

So, he breached his contract. The argument now revolves around how serious the breach is. Dismissal or something less? This is the only reason it's being fought in court. But they're not going to win by arguing it wasn't a breach.

The Constitution, which you keep quoting, is irrelevant. Statutes such as the FWA are relevant to the extent that they are applicable to employment contracts, but in this case gives him no protection.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

You're referring to Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, for it is an abomination"

If Israel Folau wants to believe this as part of his religion, he is certainly free to do so.

Although, I must point something out...

Leviticus 19:19
"You shall not wear clothing made of two kinds of material"


Hmmmmmm

WARATAHS PRIMARY PRO JERSEY 2019

92% Polyester 8% Elastane Reverse Pique 270gsm

View attachment 675312

I'm now waiting to be told we can't own Canadians as slaves.

 

[Chadwiko]

I'm pretty sure that's what your employed to do anyway.

What would you know about 'being employed'?

 

[Snake_Baker]

No, it's as old as Christianity itself.

Correct. It's absurd I agree, but it is a basic tenet of the religion, and is therefore protected under s.116.

Folau is constitutionally allowed to have that religious belief. He is free to express that religious belief. However, he is not free to broadly act on that belief.

He is, as far as he's concerned, citing "God's words", not his own words.

However, the extremely obvious point that you keep ignoring, is that this interpretation is not a religious tenet that is protected by constitution, statute or common law.

Rubbish. It's doctrine. FFS, Folau is not actually escorting anyone in to "hell"!!!!

I'm now waiting to be told we can't own Canadians as slaves.

Your attempt to extrapolate absurdity is in sync with your inability to raise anything by way of a decent argument. Your entire premise is built upon being offended. It's ridiculous.

What would you know about 'being employed'?

Enough to not be!

 

[Chadwiko]

The Constitution, which you keep quoting, is irrelevant. Statutes such as the FWA are relevant to the extent that they are applicable to employment contracts, but in this case gives him no protection.

Bingo x4

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Correct. It's absurd I agree, but it is a basic tenet of the religion, and is therefore protected under s.116.



Rubbish. It's doctrine. Folau is not actually escorting anyone in to "hell"!!!!

s.116 is irrelevant. So is the obvious fact that he's not escorting anyone to hell. The only thing relevant is the breach of contract.

But you surely know these things by now, you're just unwilling to back down and it's gone past pathetic.

PS - I'm not one bit offended by what Izzy said. I know and accept that people have different beliefs and values. Good for them, I say. Rather, I'm making an assessment of the situation based on my understanding of rights and obligations of contracts and the connection of contracts to statutes. The clear conclusion is that he breached his contract.

 

[Snake_Baker]

s.116 is irrelevant.

Tell that to the High Court.

Bingo x4

Bingo is about the extent of your legal knowledge.

 

[Chadwiko]

Enough to not be!

So for those keeping score at home, in the last 5~ pages of discussion, Snake has conceded the following;

• He is unqualified
• He is unemployed
• He has been in jail
• He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Australian constitution

Why are we still paying attention to him, again?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Tell that to the High Court.

I would, but they'd laugh at me for even bringing it up.

 

[Chadwiko]

I would, but they'd laugh at me for even bringing it up.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I would, but they'd laugh at me for even bringing it up.

LOL, you wouldn't have a ****ing clue.

So for those keeping score at home, in the last 5~ pages of discussion, Snake has conceded the following;

• He is unqualified
• He is unemployed
• He has been in jail
• He has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Australian constitution

Why are we still paying attention to him, again?

Ahh, the Simpson meme.

This would have taken up the entire 3rd year of your political science degree. You probably earned a distinction.

 

[Chadwiko]

This would have taken up the entire 3rd year of your political science degree. You probably earned a distinction.

Aaaahhh, the dodging of the question.

The classic sign someone knows they've lost.

Thanks for playing.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

However, he is not free to broadly act on that belief.

Oh, I see you added a bit.

So, breach of contract, then?

LOL.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Aaaahhh, the dodging of the question.

The classic sign someone knows they've lost.

Thanks for playing.

Jesus Christ, you have now reverted to an 8 year old child. Tell the truth, do your "degrees" have the words "American Samoa" printed on them?

You're embarrassingly stupid.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Oh, I see you added a bit.

So, breach of contract, then?

LOL.

Another child

 

[Chadwiko]

You're embarrassingly stupid.

You're still here?

You lost. It's over. Go home.

You've had multiple people tell you that you're wrong, and not one single person tell you they agree with you.

Take the hint.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You're still here?

You lost. It's over. Go home.

You've had multiple people tell you that you're wrong, and not one single person tell you they agree with you.

Take the hint.

You have succesfully brought the discussion down to your level (the sandpit). I congratulate you on your brilliant political strategizing.

 

[Chadwiko]

You have succesfully brought the discussion down to your level (the sandpit). I congratulate you on your brilliant political strategizing.

Ahhh, I love it when you try and lie. You're so bad at it that it's almost too easy to disprove.

But, you know what? I'm at home on paternity leave (legislation I wrote the drafting instructions for, by the way), so I'll hit you with the quick receipts.

My first post on this topic was this;

Freedom of speech means you are free from being persecuted by the government for what you say.

Not free from consequences from your employer.

Your retort was this;

...I can see why Chadwiko might overlook this. It's not the sort of thing that's freely published in "The Green Left"

But, sure buddy; it's other people who "brought the discussion down".

Hahaha. Ahh mate. You're so bad at this.