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

[Woberts]

Yes. He's being a bigoted dick, and deserves to be treated as such.

 

[Shad]

What do you think about his sacking?

Pandering to avoid a backlash.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So does anyone have any information on what kind of contract he signed? Did it include a clause about his behavior off the field on his own time? Did it bring no such things up? What sort of policies does the organization have that might be problematic for such a statement?
At the very minimum, it's very rude and disrespectful to many of his team mates and other rugby players, who come from a variety of religions, sexual orientations, and so on. Does he harp on about "Jesus saves" when the All Blacks present their haka to his team?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

So does anyone have any information on what kind of contract he signed?

I don't. This for me is the crucial thing. If he's truly in breach of contract, then his employer has every right to sack him. Can his employer's code of conduct - which he does seem to have breached - be considered a form of contract for these purposes? Perhaps so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't. This for me is the crucial thing. If he's truly in breach of contract, then his employer has every right to sack him. Can his employer's code of conduct - which he does seem to have breached - be considered a form of contract for these purposes? Perhaps so.

If he is expected to uphold their code of conduct in his personal daily thingies (such as social media), then they would be correct to sack him.

 

[lukethethird]

Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?
Sacking is mild compared to what he wishes upon so called others.

 

[Enoch07]

The Australian rugby player is to be sacked after a social media post in which he also said "drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters" should "repent" because "only Jesus saves".

In a statement, Rugby Australia said the post "does not represent the values of the sport and is disrespectful to members of the rugby community", adding that its integrity unit had been "engaged on the matter".

Israel Folau has made similar posts before and managed to escape punishment.

More on this story here: Israel Folau: Rugby bosses meet with player and position is 'unchanged'.

What do you think about his sacking?

The way I feel about it is, yes it should be allowed. Not because I condone it though. Here's why.

It's good to be able to be free to voice an opinion. Because now he has spoken his opinion and I can go ok that guy is not very nice, I don't want anything to do with him. Then I can walk away.

If he wasn't allowed to speak it publicly, he would hide in backrooms and the deepest parts of the internet with others like him, secluded in their echo chambers where their ideas only get more and more extreme because no one is there to say "whoah whoah whoah".

Free speech while it might hurt someone's feelings, ultimately can help protect us from the actual actions of those people.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pandering to avoid a backlash.

How silly for businesses or organizations for not wanting to be associated with bigoted or any other sort of embarrassing public display.

 

[Father Heathen]

The way I feel about it is, yes it should be allowed. Not because I condone it though. Here's why.

It's good to be able to be free to voice an opinion. Because now he has spoken his opinion and I can go ok that guy is not very nice, I don't want anything to do with him. Then I can walk away.

If he wasn't allowed to speak it publicly, he would hide in backrooms and the deepest parts of the internet with others like him, secluded in their echo chambers where their ideas only get more and more extreme because no one is there to say "whoah whoah whoah".

Free speech while it might hurt someone's feelings, ultimately can help protect us from the actual actions of those people.

But his freedom of speech wasn't infringed; he can still speak his mind. The rugby organization simply exercised its right to not be associated with him or his words. If someone were at your dinner table and started saying nasty things about your mother, would kicking him out of your house be a violation of free speech? Let's not twist this into something that that isn't.

 

[Enoch07]

But his freedom of speech wasn't infringed; he can still speak his mind. The rugby organization simply exercised its right to not be associated with him or his words. If someone were at your dinner table and started saying nasty things about your mother, would kicking him out of your house be a violation of free speech? Let's not twist this into something that that isn't.

I agree with ya. I was just saying yes, he should be allowed to say it. Of course whatever consequences he suffers from saying it he will just have to deal with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wouldn't matter if it was done at the factory or not. The point was a factory worker isn't in the eye of the public and no one would care.

When you are in the eye of the public, and the public associates you with that team on field and off field,, you need to mind your P's and Q's.

Someone I know who worked in a warehouse was fired for his comments on social media, so that does happen, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's good to be able to be free to voice an opinion.

He was free to speak his opinion.

What didn't have was the right to avoid the consequences of voicing that opinion.

 

[Enoch07]

He was free to speak his opinion.

What didn't have was the right to avoid the consequences of voicing that opinion.

Ok, not sure what your on about.

I never suggested he should not face consequences.

 

[Enoch07]

Of course people have the right to express their opinion, but employers also have the right to sever ties with those who violate their policies.

An employer does not have power over your personal life though.

Now if a employee makes an innapropriate comment while on the clock, while representing the company, yes that violates company policy, fire away. No rights being impeded.

Being on the clock, and expressing a personal opinion on your personal social media is not violating company policy. If they get fired for posting an opinion on their personal social media while on the clock. This is a violation of their civil rights. This is thought policing.

If they are off the clock at home and express an opinion, then get fired for it. That is a direct violation of their civil rights, at least in the U.S. that is. Your employer is not entitled to your thoughts/free time. That is using force/intimidation to suppress free speech. This is thought policing.

What didn't have was the right to avoid the consequences of voicing that opinion.

This bothers me, because I didn't suggest no consequences. I simply just didn't stipulate my opinion of what those consequences should be, until now.



I would suggest everyone here who is so hung up on punishing someone for expressing an opinion to stop and reflect for a bit. Because you need to realize it's a 2 way street. Today your punishing someone for their opinion, tomorrow it could be you being punished for yours.

Here is a prime example. A guy reports some white supremacist on Twitter. He then gets his own account temporarily suspended for posting abusive tweets towards the white supremacist.

Twitter locked me out of my account for reporting on extremists

You wanted censorship against abusive behavior, and well you got it. The regressive left is so busy digging a grave for its enemies it doesn't realize it is dangerously close to collapsing on top of them and becoming their own grave.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Detente is so much easier.

This combined with your earlier, decisive statements brought to mind a funny little set of scenarios:

Mr. Business: "Mr. Employee, your non-work activities are drawing negative attentions to the business, which is affecting my bottom line."
Employee: "Wait... are you firing me? Can't we talk about this?"
Mr. Business: "This concerns the health of the business, and my financial welfare, so no, you're fired."

And then, on the flip side:

Customer: "Mr. Business, I feel your non-business related views and activities are negatively affecting society, which I feel is an assault on my principles."
Mr. Business: "Are you saying you're no longer going to spend your money here? Can't we talk about this?"

At which point Mr. Business is strongly hoping for a little "détente," isn't he? Interesting in this hypothetical scenario what he offered his employee in response to the same question.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Did he breach the terms of the contract he voluntarily signed?

 

[Revoltingest]

This combined with your earlier, decisive statements brought to mind a funny little set of scenarios:

Mr. Business: "Mr. Employee, your non-work activities are drawing negative attentions to the business, which is affecting my bottom line."
Employee: "Wait... are you firing me? Can't we talk about this?"
Mr. Business: "This concerns the health of the business, and my financial welfare, so no, you're fired."

And then, on the flip side:

Customer: "Mr. Business, I feel your non-business related views and activities are negatively affecting society, which I feel is an assault on my principles."
Mr. Business: "Are you saying you're no longer going to spend your money here? Can't we talk about this?"

At which point Mr. Business is strongly hoping for a little "détente," isn't he? Interesting in this hypothetical scenario what he offered his employee in response to the same question.

Ultimately, Mr Business will do that which is best for his business.
This means accommodating or not accommodating employees or customers.
Others will differ, & they should run their businesses accordingly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, not sure what your on about.

I never suggested he should not face consequences.

So you're okay with him being fired, then? Your earlier posts suggested you weren't.

 

[Rival]

Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?
Sacking is mild compared to what he wishes upon so called others.

'Wishes upon' and 'believes will happen' not 'is going out actively helping gay people on their way.' It's not illegal to think bad things about people. All of this is only in his head. If we sacked every person for what he or she ever thought bad or that we disagreed with, no-one would ever have a job.

 

[lukethethird]

'Wishes upon' and 'believes will happen' not 'is going out actively helping gay people on their way.' It's not illegal to think bad things about people. All of this is only in his head. If we sacked every person for what he or she ever thought bad or that we disagreed with, no-one would ever have a job.

He broadcast his thoughts on social media, he did not keep them in his head as you suggest which is apparent because we all know what he was on about.