1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by The_Fisher_King, Apr 12, 2019.

  1. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,949
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    RF is not the employer of any members. It doesn't cajole, control our lives, demand our entire schedule or otherwise behave in a cult like fashion. In other words it doesn't try to own us.

    Its to keep the government from getting involved with religion. I think people should be civilly liable for saying damaging things.

    True, however a national employer should not be censoring employees when they are not working. Its not their business, even if in some way his life affects their company. Its still his life. The civil suit if any goes to him not to his league. If the boss of the league has a problem with his activity after hours let the boss sue. Do not give the boss carte blanche control of employee off time.

    In my opinion this is a different issue and is about employers taking over worker's lives, acting like a mini government. He expresses his religious opinions in his off hours, and his boss gets to tell him no? You realize that millions and millions of people work for just 1 or 2 employers? That amounts to a lot of censoring and control.

    I'm sure that you don't mean that you'd undermine your own country's political system just to effect this one change. I also don't think you really believe that government religion is better than independent religion, unless you do. In that case I appeal to you to change your mind.

    True, but employers shouldn't be censoring employees for things said off the clock. That's not employment or mere representation but ownership. A Spankee's fan shouldn't have to worry if his boss is a Redclock fan. That's not an appropriate employer employee relationship, and while it is a typical one it shouldn't be legalized.

    Its all about who decides what can be said and when.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,593
    Ratings:
    +2,677
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Yes I know hence why my point was about talking to people so they express those views which in turn I can get them fired for.


    Silence is violence har har. Again I question how the officials judged his comment and the reaction of those offended.

    As the religious did create a number of laws over time to protect their religions. There is a history.

    Sure. However freedom of speech is also a fact.

    Again I question how "damaging it is" for him to express his view. Seems like people have thin-skin and do not want hearing opinions they do not like.

    This is a point I agree with.

    So people can be disrespectful toward a person due to the religion but the religion can not tell you their view of the afterlife and what gets people on list A or list B? Do as I say not as I do?

    I am against such acts as it smacks of radical anti-theism.

    Nonsense. This goes right back to my point that activists have become about validation not merely live and let live. Religions must now changes their views lest people become upset. Ridiculous coddles.

    Argued against sure. Fired? Ridiculous again. Again demanding validation and modification of religion for overly emotional people.

    Nope. Plenty of people have pointed out homophobia has become an umbrella terms for anything theses days.

    It does not seem like they are being protected as per this very thread.

    Sure for legal purposes as lawmakers couldn't be bothered to reform the law itself.


    I propose people just accept what they are told and do not think about the issue further. Hence why anything against gays is taken as homophobia. Again just coddling for the overemotional.
     
    #162 Shad, Apr 14, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,593
    Ratings:
    +2,677
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    You defended a contract and policy you seem to have not read. Ergo my request and your burden.

    Which quotes exactly?

    Yes I believe that as 1. The majority does not make something a fact nor moral. All you have admitted to is being party to tyranny of the majority. You have no issues reducing the rights of the minority because of subjective whims of the majority.

    Parents vs government. This just is another example of your thinking when you compare government and an employer to a parent.

    The military is not under civilian law.

    I am against mandated respect

    You rolling over for restrictive speech is your problem. It isn't mine.


    Or like me disagrees with the very idea of restricting speech lest it offend some random people on the internet.

    Once, while on call as an intern, I was asked to pronounce dead the patient of a neurosurgeon who was attending to that patient during a months long coma. When I opened the chart to record the note about the death, I saw that this physician had written nothing but the single word "unchanged" dozens and dozens of times, filling several pages with nothing but "unchanged" and a scribbled signature. This is far below acceptable medical standards for charting a visit. There's no evidence that the patient was even examined.

    I knew that I might catch hell for it, but I thought that writing just "Changed" and nothing else was pretty funny, funny enough to take the risk. I was called onto the carpet and dressed down for it by the head of the house staff program at our hospital, but I got a big laugh and a good story in exchange.
    [/QUOTE]

    So you messed with a patient's charts for your amusement...... Instead of perhaps making a report or inquiry. All while you are arguing against people talking about their view of the afterlife on twitter. Holy crap....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,593
    Ratings:
    +2,677
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Of course that why Kaep never sued the league for a contract he never got.

    Actually there is. Dead money. Kaep had over 4 million in dead money if released. By opting out no other team would need to deal with SF's dead money contract. It made him look more appealing as other teams wouldn't need address the issue


    He was released. You keep conflating terms as if all terms mean the same thing. His contract was not terminated, he was not fired. Get your terms straight.

    You are using the wrong words as you have no idea what terms are to be used. Your problem not mine.


    Coach are not under the same type of contract as players nor do coaches have a union nor CBA.

    Which makes it a release not being fired. You do not get paid after being fired. Again wrong terms used by people that seem to have no grasp of the proper terminology

    It makes a difference. You just want to ignore those difference as you point collapses.

    Yup. Ergo the lawsuit.

    Which I edited to correct. A fact you still ignore.

    Only when you ignore my edit. Have fun with that.

    I corrected the firing point. Kaep wasn't fired. Do keep in mind you claimed being fire means he does not get paid yet now you point out Kaep still get money. So you contradicted yourself. Try again/


    Alternatively it was changed to make him more trade appealing. No one wants an overrated player with an inflated contract.

    I do not believe that.

    It is based on previous interaction and how fast you jumped on to Kaep after like a year or nothing about him.

    Again my view is based on previous interactions and how fast you jumped on one specific topic.

    You mean like the gems you posted?

    "To 'correct' someone who said he got fired by say he opted out to "for a better deal" rather than because he was told he was getting fired, was no longer getting paid, and thus had no reason to stay, is deliberately misleading."

    Yet he is still getting dead money ergo getting paid. Again that is the difference between being fired and released. The later still get paid. The former doesn't. Hilarious. More so you admitted it later without being phased. Again a fine demonstrated that you have no grasp of terminology at hand.
     
  5. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,169
    Ratings:
    +2,988
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    The one thing you might notice about this, is that while he lists a bunch of things he doesn't particularly like, the fact that he claims "only Jesus saves" says nothing about whether Jesus may, or may not, save people who aren't into any of those things.

    I'd go further and suggest that the Christian religion supposes that Jesus won't save any number of people who DON'T do anything of those things. And that he might be one of them, since he seems to have forgotten that Jesus told everyone to love others as they love themselves, which he clearly is not doing.

    Oops!
     
  6. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +2,120
    Religion:
    ?
    This is your prerogative. My only point this entire time is to point out that people should make sure that the "punishment" duly fits the "crime."

    The bolded bit above... not my point at all. My point is more to also make sure the corollary is stated: that is, that neither is a business entitled to the money that anyone has at their disposal to spend. If opinions matter so much that a financial relationship can be severed with an employee, then opinions also matter so much that a financial relationship between business and customer can also be severed. It is only 100% fair, equal, and to be expected.

    And do you feel that we should have lawful support in place for "sanctioning" individuals of a particular profession who express opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with that profession?
     
  7. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,128
    Ratings:
    +38,990
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I've fired people for cause before.
    But never thought of it as punishment.
    Twas just that their employment had to cease.
    I don't want government granting job protection to employees
    who say things publicly which harm business. Employers &
    employees each expect things from the other, & this can be a
    complicated relationship...something much more than paying
    the worker to do a task. Public relations matters. Woody Allen
    & Netflix are exploring this complexity & the consequences.
     
  8. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +2,120
    Religion:
    ?
    The use of the term "consequences" is what makes me turn to the use of the term "punishment." If an action needs taken due to negative action on the part of one party, and that action necessarily has a negative impact on the party in question, then I would tend to call that "punishment." It certainly isn't "reward," and it can't be claimed to be "neutral," since on all angles looking in, the outcome is decidedly negative.

    Didn't imply this in the slightest. You were the one talking government sanctions - but you only had examples to give in which the opinions in question directly related to the business being conducted. I asked if you support sanctions being imposed for public statement of opinions that had nothing at all to do with the business being conducted. Because that's the scenario that the topic of this thread addresses.
     
  9. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,128
    Ratings:
    +38,990
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    While being fired might feel like punishment to the one fired,
    it is not my intent. When a glass becomes cracked, & is no
    longer useful to safely drink from, I don't punish it. But I do
    terminate it's employment. (And I properly recycle it.)
    I've noticed that we're talking past each other somewhat.
    I take blame for this.
    Your posts are nuanced, & I'm a little distracted.
     
  10. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,079
    Ratings:
    +5,109
    Religion:
    None
    The Australian Rugby league and Religious Forums both have restrictions on what opinions can be expressed, and both will boot you for violating them. I don't find that oppressive at all. If I did, I'd find work elsewhere in the first case, and post elsewhere in the second.

    We need government to protect us from religion. There is no reason to think that the church would not still be killing witches, arresting the impious, and establishing inquisitions if it had the power to do so. Only government can come between us and that. If it doesn't, you end up with oppressive theocracies like Salem, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, with state sponsored violence at the behest of the church.

    Church-state separation is an odd name for that relationship. The state is to be free of the church, but not the other way around. The church must obey the law of the land, meaning it is not the state's separate but equal partner, but its subordinate. It's the state that gives the church and its members whatever rights they have, and if the people choose to amend their constitution, those rights could change - even disappear if that were the will of the people.

    The separation I want is between me and the church, not the state and the church. I depend on the state to keep the church out of my life. We all do.

    I don't see how supporting legal means that promotes the attrition of the church and its cultural hegemony is undermining my country's political system. This rugby matter comes out of Australia, not the country I was born in (America) or the one I moved to ten years ago (Mexico).

    And I'm not suggesting a change. I am content with the status quo on this matter. It is presently legal to ask employees to refrain from activities, and to take corrective action if they don't. Others are objecting to that, not I.

    By government religion do you mean an official, state-sponsored church? If so, no, I don't support that.

    Actually, I don't support any religion, nor faith-based thinking in general (as with climate deniers), but I have no interest in interfering with the private devotions of the faithful - just the organized, politicized aspect of the church and its incessant effort to pierce the state-church wall and turn the power of government toward enforcing the church's values.

    The athlete agreed to censor himself in exchange for celebrity status and many millions of dollars. Very little was asked of him, and violated his promise. That's not ownership. It's the opposite. The athlete owns himself, and willingly trades with his employer or not.

    I disagree. If you are a celebrity that a business has contracted with, and you have agreed to refrain from certain types of provocative or potentially offensive language, you're obligations to respect that promise don't end when the rugby match does. You are expected to honor your promise 24/7.

    And if you violate you promise and make a comment that damages that employer or sponsor, of course it's their business.

    That represents a lot of freedom - people offering their time and skills, and agreeing to workplace restrictions that may include requirements for hygiene, dress, and language in exchange for a paycheck. You, @Shad , and @Rival don't think that that is fair. You see that as ownership of the employee by the employer. I really don't know why.
     
  11. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,079
    Ratings:
    +5,109
    Religion:
    None
    It's bigotry. How damaging is any bigotry? He's telling the world that certain types of people are properly thought of as inferior, since that is how he believes that his god feels. I just saw the gay mayor of South Bend explaining about his initial self-loathing regarding his sexual orientation. Is that damage? Some never recover from that. Some end their lives. Where do you suppose that comes from?

    As I indicated elsewhere, I support these people voicing their hatreds. Let the world see what his church and scriptures are teaching him. It's certainly not to love one another, an idea they may give lip service to and claim the moral high ground for repeating. We see what they actually learn, which ought to cost them their tax breaks in the States. All tax payers, including atheist and gays, are helping underwrite an institution that demeans them inappropriately.
    • "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson
    No, people can say what they want if they're willing to take responsibility.

    Well, I have no burden to support any claim unless I want to be believed

    This had been posted when you asked:
    Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

    This has been posted since (see bold words):
    Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

    I felt no need to confirm that these two posters had copied-and-pasted those words from that code of conduct, especially given the firing of the athlete for violations of rules like those.

    What we are all party to is our society collectively determining its social mores through a process of each of us expressing our preferences, the vector sum of them all determining what words and actions are laudable, neutral, or scandalous until that changes again.

    As the number of people supporting the expression of religious bigotry diminishes and the number finding it unacceptable increases, the balance tips, and what was once socially acceptable no longer is. What you call the "tyranny of the majority" is a natural process that not only can't be stopped, there is no reason why it should be stopped if it could. It's the basis for the moral evolution of a society.

    And I certainly don't feel like the will of the majority is tyrannical. I am subjected to it just as you are, and I have no objection.

    Of course I do. Rights are a legal matter, and law-abiding minorities ought to have theirs defended by the state. This is not an issue of rights beyond the rights of the two parties to voluntarily enter into a financial arrangement

    Yes, I had a good laugh mocking the charting of the neurosurgeon, one I knew I might have to pay for, and did so willingly. I offered it as an example of a kind of social pressure to restrict expression. It's all around us every day. We continually need to be monitoring how we sound and what impression we make before we speak.

    And I am not "arguing against people talking about their view of the afterlife on twitter." I'm arguing that his employer has the right to ask him not to make certain kinds of statements publicly, and the athlete had the right to agree to those terms or walk away. I am arguing that the League had the right to enforce the agreement and terminate the athlete's contract. The athlete probably would not have been fired or censured merely for expressing a belief in an afterlife - of heaven and hell - and if he had, he would probably have had a winnable civil lawsuit.

    The violation was for offensive, demeaning language.
     
  12. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,949
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    I respect your wish to be unmolested but still disagree with you about church and state and employers creeping control over employee opinions. Religion is a fact and shows no sign of going away. If you put government in charge of it I believe you found a state church and contrapositively invite said church to tax you and get entangled into the government and that its only a matter of time unless you maintain duplex (both directions) separation. Its just like how business gets involved in government, because you can't have separation in only one direction.
     
  13. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,169
    Ratings:
    +2,988
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    You're probably right...

    But I never forget that I live in a world where sexual love is a huge taboo to be shown in public, but killing other humans can be as explicitly and graphically displayed as the creative mind can contrive. Do we have our priorities screwed up or, or don't we?

    Still, I'm not in favour of silencing private opinions, unless those opinions are made by one who can be legitimately shown to represent and speak for the opinions of an employer. In that case, the employer has the right to insist that only the employer's views are expressed by someone with the authority to speak for it.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,001
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nope. The National team desperately needs his skills. Whatever the rationale, it's not because they're looking for a reason to offload him.

    That's not comparable to this. If you're suggesting he should stick to his principles regardless of consequence, then sure. Otherwise the situations don't appear comparable at all.

    Did he make the statement publically, did it create a furore in the media, did your company have a policy on inclusiveness including an official position on marriage equality, had he done this before (a year previously), and did your business rely completely on media money and general public coming through the door?
    Because I'm not seeing much in the way of similarity.


    Hardly a slave. There are behavioral clauses in sporting contracts. That's not news to anyone. You can argue that espousing a position via tweet shouldn't be a sanctioned behaviour, regardless of content if you like, that would make sense. Or you can argue that this tweet is fine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,593
    Ratings:
    +2,677
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Disagree.

    So? You have yet to establish actual damage. As I pointed out a lot of people think I am going to Hell yet I am not whining about what he said. That is because I do not need validation by anyone/everyone.

    That is his problem.

    As you only provided "self" as a criteria it would be in the mind of the person.

    [quote[As I indicated elsewhere, I support these people voicing their hatreds. Let the world see what his church and scriptures are teaching him.[/quote]

    I agree on this part.

    This is just a rant. Jefferson had little issues with state religion (state as in states not nation-states.

    Sure. Again I disagree with the policy.



    So your point is really pointless then. Gotcha




    I disagree with the policy. Also it was not posted to me ergo was not posted when I asked.





    Again I disagree with the policy.

    Of course you didn't as you said about being believed.



    Tyranny of the majority and whims of the masses.

    Being natural does not make it right.

    Evolution of society or merely parroting by unthinking drones?

    That is because you side with the majority in this case and others.


    Minority isn't about demographics but the minority that disagree with the majority.

    Yes it is as it is regulation speech outside of work by the employer.

    You only demonstrated you are callous. That was social pressure it was professional misconduct. Try whitewashing again.

    I disagree. There is no such right in law.

    Or they can get it changed while being part of the system.

    Again I question the policy and see it as oppressive.

    Of course. It is when the group that has members which need validation is when people cross the line right?

    No it was going again PC cult norms.
     
  16. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,949
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    That may be. Maybe they didn't want to get rid of him but misunderstood themselves to be his shepherds when he was not playing or somehow viewed his job as a religious institution. You make a good point, however its not fair to the individual. Discrimination is fair if you can discriminate against each other, but this is the only employer in the region for his kind of work.

    No to those very astute questions. Are sports leagues ethical when they create an arrangement in which they profit from the image of individuals in such a way that they then must craft that image?

    The problem is more specific than espousing just anything he likes. Has this man stated on twitter that he hates homosexuals or has someone politically redefined hatred so that his religion is considered a hate crime? Then it is an attempt to reform him into a universalist. It is like the US military's don't ask don't tell policy. "We'd prefer that you were straight."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,001
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Nope. I get that it's hard from the States to understand this, so I'm absolutely not judging, but Israel has played at the highest level in Australian Rules Football (where he was very highly paid), Rugby League (where he was very highly paid), and Rugby Union (where he was very highly paid).

    The only person to have that covered is Karmichael Hunt, who managed all of that, plus drank a cup of coffee with the San Francisco 49ers (and was deservedly not well paid there).

    Further, the sports are international (the 2 rugby codes) and guys regularly go and play in Europe or Japan for relatively big money.

    Wait...do you think sports leagues should concern themselves with ethics?

    But answering for myself, I'm glad Jabari Bird was sacked from the team I follow when charges of domestic violence were upheld. Now, I'm not conflating Folau's behaviour with a crime AT ALL, but at some level, at least, I want sports leagues concerned with ethics and morality.

    Nope, he hasn't. Only that the God he worships will send them to eternal damnation.
    Along with atheists, although no one seems too worried by that.

    No. It's an attempt to stop him making public comment contrary to stated league position. He can be Christian, and he can think all gays are going to hell, but...
    The league publically supported marriage equality. The CEO did so publically. What does Israel think of an organisation which publically supports gay marriage?

    His contract is with the league, not a team.
    (Not too important, just a difference to US sport in that most Australian sporting teams are franchises own by the league, not private investors).
    He's in breach of contract, and not for the first time on this same issue.

    Again, arguing that his contract should allow unfettered free speech on Twitter is one thing
    ..I'm just not sure that's what you're arguing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,949
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    You mean they actually leave their countries? Yes that is not like in the 'States where we have our own World Series in baseball.

    Sports teams over here exert a lot of control over players, particularly in college sports. Requiring them to be ethical is a band aid, because they just don't know what ethical means. I have in the past objected to sports leagues such as the NFL. I know they're popular, but they're still monstrous. It was very difficult for example to get them to recognize that their players were experiencing lifetime effects from football impacts, only because the knowledge was inconvenient and unprofitable to them. I get that the leagues want to profit, but you know what it doesn't justify controlling players lives either through contracts or big bucks. As I point out in a previous post they are cult like, they terrorize the players and they use unfair scheduling. Requiring players to represent the league is another way to control players, and when they are not playing or practicing the league ought not to have any control of them. Now you can argue that Australian rugby leagues won't have the same problems as US leagues if you want, but I still think the guy shouldn't be fired and shouldn't have been required to represent the league in a contract.

    I don't want to make the conversation be about Twitter. Sorry for any confusion. Since when does a rugby league get to make the players support a political position? Contracts don't make that Ok. If I sign a contract to jump off of a cliff and die I still shouldn't jump off of it. The contract is partly null even before it is signed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,949
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    I admit I'm not absolutely sure, because sports leagues aren't going away. Maybe the only way to muddle through is to compromise on speech, since apparently they refuse to understand anything that is not convenient to profit. I don't like though.
     
  20. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    53,709
    Ratings:
    +12,684
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    No, he isn't. He's still free to share them with whoever he pleases. It's just that his rugby team has said, effectively, "if you're going to keep on doing that, we aren't going to stand with you."
     
Loading...