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

[Dawnofhope]

I found his comments to be unrelated to me and therefore not personally offensive but still out there on his flying saucer. We aren't talking about someone running a nuclear missile silo but just a ball player. He's not killing anybody by being an idiot. If he were talking about me I'd be pretty upset about it, but I wouldn't expect the sports league to go after him. It would be a civil matter between him and myself.

His comments affect us all. We’re part of a community so the injury of one is the injury all. If my friend whose gay is hurt then I’m hurt to. Besides it’s not just gays that are going to hell according to his worldview but all those who aren’t Christian in the way he is Christian.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Hateful ideologies begin with words and the result can be discrimination and prejudice. Sometimes hate is expressed in physical assault or worse.

On the positive side I'm glad that Christians can be legally oppressed for holding views that are contrary to popular acceptance and which could hurt someone's feelings.

I don’t believe Israel Folau’s comments were inspired by Christ, not even remotely. His comments are just as damaging for Christianity as for Australian rugby. I’m sure many Christians find his remarks shameful. Many don’t and would agree with him though. Australian rugby can do the right thing and fire him for his clear breach of contract. He was warned for the same thing last year so it’s hardly an innocent mistake.

I hope one day this young man of outstanding talent can one day recognise his error and makes positive changes.

 

[SomeRandom]

IMO this is just not right though. His opinions have nothing to do with how he plays rugby.

He can have whatever opinions he wants. He still has no legal or moral complaint. He expressed sentiments that were incompatible to those of his employer. He can’t claim ignorance, players have been fined or even fired for saying or doing stupid things off field for literally decades. Generations even.

If he wanted to express his hatred of sinners, he should have done so privately among friends. Not post it to a public social media profile that is associated by default to Rugby Australia (or New Zealand.)That’s beyond dumb and most likely a violation of his contract. Which part of that do you not get?

 

[Rival]

He can have whatever opinions he wants.

He can't though. He's being forced to hide them from the public.

 

[Shad]

He can have whatever opinions he wants. He still has no legal or moral complaint. He expressed sentiments that were incompatible to those of his employer. He can’t claim ignorance, players have been fined or even fired for saying or doing stupid things off field for literally decades. Generations even.

So can I fire a religious believer for holding a view that is incompatible with my view as an atheist?

Sound like religious discrimination given the facade of public good.

 

[Augustus]

He wasn't fire. He opt-ed out of his own contract for a better deal.

That's completely untrue. He "opted-out" after he had been told the club was going to release him.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Yes,” Lynch said regarding whether Kaepernick would have been cut if he hadn’t opted out, “and we had that conversation with him. So I don’t want to characterize it as he made a decision to leave here."

 

[SomeRandom]

So can I fire a religious believer for holding a view that is incompatible with my view as an atheist?

Sound like religious discrimination given the facade of public good.

But his comments were homophobic. That’s what the league (who has already warned him in the past) specifically took issue with. He could be an atheist and still be facing the exact same consequences for expressing similar sentiments. To hide behind religion is cowardly and a dishonest way to claim martyrdom in this scenario.
But if you had specific clauses in the mutually agreed upon contract that forbade expressing religious beliefs incompatible to your company values, potentially you could. Not sure what those would be. A satanist run flower shop catering specifically to anti theists?

 

[Shad]

That's completely untrue. He "opted-out" after he had been told the club was going to release him.

So he preempted them. He still did it.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Yes,” Lynch said regarding whether Kaepernick would have been cut if he hadn’t opted out, “and we had that conversation with him. So I don’t want to characterize it as he made a decision to leave here."

PR

 

[Shad]

But his comments were homophobic.

By what definition? It is the absurd standard of "Anything that disagrees with X is homophobic" defination?

That’s what the league (who has already warned him in the past) specifically took issue with. He could be an atheist and still be facing the exact same consequences for expressing similar sentiments.

One is about religion which does have various levels of protection, or lack of in this case, regarding employment. Atheism is not a religion so does not have such protection in many cases.

To hide behind religion is cowardly and a dishonest way to claim martyrdom.

Projection.

 

[SomeRandom]

By what definition? It is the absurd standard of "Anything that disagrees with X is homophobic" defination?
.

By saying gay people will burn in Hell. That’s kind of homophobic even in some Christian circles. And clearly Rugby Australia deemed it as such, which they are perfectly free to do so.
Not seeing the problem. If I were to say express anti idolatry sentiments and hid behind religion, pretty sure I’d have to face the consequences of my speech, regardless.
Being potentially fired is a mutually agreed upon consequence that Israel agreed to abide by. No one forced him to. Like what do you want? He violated code of conduct, most likely violated his contract. Now he faces the consequences of his own actions.

One is about religion which does have various levels of protection, or lack of in this case, regarding employment. Atheism is not a religion so does not have such protection in many cases.
.

Religion doesn’t preclude players of the code from specifically violating the agreed upon terms of employment. That’s not really how it works in society. Religion doesn’t magically protect you from consequences that one agrees to when signing a contract with their employer. Which Israel did. I’m not seeing the problem. It’s sad that such a stellar career could potentially end, I guess. I doubt his family will starve either way. But no one forced him to make a social media faux pas that could potentially see him fired. He did that to himself. Maybe he can claim drunkenness and get a suspension or something. But he should know better than to tick off the people employing him. Just saying.

Projection.

If you say so. I do see posters trying to claim some sort of persecution on his behalf though. What part of that doesn’t scream martyrdom?

 

[Brickjectivity]

His comments affect us all. We’re part of a community so the injury of one is the injury all. If my friend whose gay is hurt then I’m hurt to. Besides it’s not just gays that are going to hell according to his worldview but all those who aren’t Christian in the way he is Christian.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Hateful ideologies begin with words and the result can be discrimination and prejudice. Sometimes hate is expressed in physical assault or worse.

Now you have brought up 'Hateful ideologies' which is a political term used to silence political speech rather than a well defined term. What you propose here is unworkable in a free land. It eventually binds your own mouth from speaking when you have concerns. So many things can be defined as hateful speech. For example in the USA when people spoke out against child labor it was allowed, because at that time there was fortunately no such thing as hate speech. In modern times in Australia however you could define it thus and gag those who objected. Any employee of the league could be instructed not to speak against child labor. If you think this would never happen just look at history and how things get redefined to suit. Once the fetters are forged they will fit on any pair of wrists.

I don’t believe Israel Folau’s comments were inspired by Christ, not even remotely. His comments are just as damaging for Christianity as for Australian rugby. I’m sure many Christians find his remarks shameful. Many don’t and would agree with him though. Australian rugby can do the right thing and fire him for his clear breach of contract. He was warned for the same thing last year so it’s hardly an innocent mistake.

I hope one day this young man of outstanding talent can one day recognise his error and make positive changes.

His freedom of speech is infringed, meaning the employer can gag him when he is not working.

 

[Augustus]

So he preempted them. He still did it.

That's an incredibly stupid argument.

"We're going to release you, would you like to stay on for a while longer even though you aren't working or getting paid but can't look for a new job? It's actually a good deal as if you stay then some people on the internet won't be able to make a moronic argument about how you opted out to get a better deal. I mean, that's so obviously false to anyone with half a brain, but they'll believe it anyway as ideology trumps logic every time. So are you staying?"

PR

The guy who was going to release him said he was going to release him, but you know better? Of course you do...

 

[Shad]

By saying gay people will burn in Hell.

So the absurd standard. Gotcha. You know what a punishment/reward dynamic is right?

That’s kind of homophobic even in some Christian circles. And clearly Rugby Australia deemed it as such, which they are perfectly free to do so.

So why are they not up in arms about thieves, atheists, adulterers, etc? Why is it the one group that seems require validation being protected?

Not seeing the problem. If I were to say express anti idolatry sentiments and hid behind religion, pretty sure I’d have to face the consequences of my speech, regardless.

Projection due to the hiding remark. You fail to consider that the religion is the source of the view itself.

Being potentially fired is a mutually agreed upon consequence that Israel agreed to abide by. No one forced him to. Like what do you want? He violated code of conduct, most likely violated his contract. Now he faces the consequences of his own actions.

Link the contract.

Religion doesn’t preclude players of the code from specifically violating the agreed upon terms of employment.

Link the contract.

That’s now really how it works in society.

Actually up here people are not fired for having a religious view. Shocking isn't it.

Religion doesn’t magically protect you from consequences that one agrees to when signing a contract with their employer.

Actually in some nations by law it is.

Which Israel did. I’m not seeing the problem.

Mandating what religious views people can express in public outside employment environments dictated by the employer and protected by the state is a major problem. Consider the power of this in the wrong hands.

It’s sad that such a stellar career could potentially end, I guess. I doubt his family will starve either way. But no one forced him to make a social media faux pas that could potentially see him fired. He did that to himself. Maybe he can claim drunkenness and get a suspension or something. But he should know better than to tick off the people employing him. Just saying.

Sure he did it himself. I question the leagues rational and the policing of people outside of work for thought-crimes.

If you say so. I do see posters trying to claim some sort of persecution on his behalf though. What part of that doesn’t scream martyrdom?

I do not accept that view point myself. He is not being targeted due to being Christian. I see no evidence of actual anti-Christian views. At best it would be a lack of protection.

 

[SomeRandom]

He can't though. He's being forced to hide them from the public.

Forced to hide them doesn’t magically erase them from his brain.
Neo nazis probably have to hide their opinions when grocery shopping or something. Meh.
Even I had to publicly hide my distaste for my employer when I worked retail. So what?

 

[Shad]

That's an incredibly stupid argument.

No as it is stating a fact that he still opt-ed out. I gave no indication over his motive beside the deal. IT is a fact he wanted to be a starter not 3rd string. I corrected the point that he was fired.

"We're going to release you, would you like to stay on for a while longer even though you aren't working or getting paid but can't look for a new job? It's actually a good deal as if you stay then some people on the internet won't be able to make a moronic argument about how you opted out to get a better deal. I mean, that's so obviously false to anyone with half a brain, but they'll believe it anyway as ideology trumps logic every time. So are you staying?"

Never said that so strawman. What I said was the comment was public relations not propaganda. Try again son. Less fiction in your head

The guy who was going to release him said he was going to release him, but you know better? Of course you do...

Again less listening to the fiction in your head and more reading what I actually posted.

 

[Rival]

Forced to hide them doesn’t magically erase them from his brain.

No but he might want to have a place for himself on social media like most other people?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Now you have brought up 'Hateful ideologies' which is a political term used to silence political speech rather than a well defined term. What you propose here is unworkable in a free land. It eventually binds your own mouth from speaking when you have concerns. So many things can be defined as hateful speech. For example in the USA when people spoke out against child labor it was allowed, because at that time there was fortunately no such thing as hate speech. In modern times in Australia however you could define it thus and gag those who objected. Any employee of the league could be instructed not to speak against child labor. If you think this would never happen just look at history and how things get redefined to suit. Once the fetters are forged they will fit on any pair of wrists.


His freedom of speech is infringed, meaning the employer can gag him when he is not working.

I'm actually referring to what is legal too. Australia and New Zeland are very diiferent countries from the USA. In Australia and New Zealand we have laws against hate speech. In the USA there are none. It is for every country to decide the approach it takes to hate speech as with gun countrol and racial discrimination. So what is legal in the USA may well be illegal in Australia.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Hate speech laws in Australia - Wikipedia

New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting ... matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons ... on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

Hate speech - Wikipedia

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[9] There are several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories.[98][not in citation given] Court rulings often must be reexamined to ensure the U.S. Constitution is being upheld in the ruling on whether or not the words count as a violation.[99]

Proponents of hate speech legislation in the United States have argued that freedom of speech undermines the 14th Amendment by bolstering an oppressive narrative which demeans equality and the Reconstructive Amendment's purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

Hate speech - Wikipedia

I'm please I live in New Zealand and have Australia as my neighbour. This issue is obviously political for Americans and so its become an issue of whether or not hate speech should be allowed. Australia and New Zealand resolved those issues long ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, on their turf. On the rugby field. Not on someone's social media page, away from work.

Tell me, if you publicly bad mouthed a business that you worked for on your own time could they fire you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That being the case I think it well within the NFL right to fire the Kap. If he wanted to get on his knees in front of the PD on his own time, no problem.

They would have to show that he voided his contract somehow. What he did did not violate any morality clause. He was protesting what he saw as an injustice. I may not agree with him but he did not appear to void his contract in any way.

 

[Rival]

Tell me, if you publicly bad mouthed a business that you worked for on your own time could they fire you?

Of course, but this had nothing to do with the business he worked for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, but this had nothing to do with the business he worked for.

But it did. As an employee of that company what he says and does personally reflects on the company that he works for. Do you understand that in the U.S. at least most public personal have a morality clause in their contract. That includes most pro-sports players. Companies have those clauses in their contracts because the public acts of their employees affects their image. Does as a person bad mouthing a company that he works for affects their image what he did affected his companies image. What he did could be seen as violating a morality clause. Spreading hate speech is immoral.