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

[Brickjectivity]

And he was always free to express most of his opinions as we all are, even here on Religious Forums, where we have agreed not to express ourselves in certain proscribed ways.

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.

Somehow, the religious feel that they are entitled to protections not available to others for speaking their minds if they can claim that it is their religious belief.

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

If they wish to express their hatreds outside of protected environments, expression which is damaging to the targets of that hatred, they do so at their own risk just as an atheistic white supremacist would.

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.

The religious want too much. They also want to be able to impose their values on society using the force of government. I support the right to private religion (or no religion) as I described it above. If you enter the marketplace of ideas with a mixed crowd of participants, you might find that your religion is not only not respected, it is disrespected for what it has taught you.

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 support anything legal that promotes the attrition of the church and its cultural hegemony. I want that church to cease teaching people to hate. This matter will damage the church.

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.

No. He can gag himself - or not if he's willing to pay the price for socially unacceptable speech. That's what freedom is.

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.

I've become far less enamored of the principle of free speech in the second half of my life.

Its all about who decides what can be said and when.

 

[Shad]

Once again, it's not about holding a view. It's about when and where it is proper to express it, and what the consequences of provocative or offensive speech might be. Sometimes, it is appropriate to discontinue a financial relationship such as employment agreement or sponsoring agreement based on language or actions that are legal, but reflect poorly on the one writing the checks.

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.

You can fire him for expressing that opinion under certain circumstances, not for holding it.

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

Somehow, the religious feel that they are entitled to protections not available to others for speaking their minds if they can claim that it is their religious belief. Why should that matter more than if one were expressing any other type of belief?

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

To me, freedom of religion means the freedom to believe what you like, to pray, to read holy books, to engage in legal religious rituals such as baptism, to commune with like-minded people in places like homes and churches, to proselytize to those that want to hear it, to wear crucifixes and adorn their cars with religious bumper stickers, to write books or form Internet sites promoting their faith, to decorate their homes and businesses for religious holidays, and similar activities that don't affect outsiders that don't choose to be affected..

Sure. However freedom of speech is also a fact.

That should be enough. If they wish to express their hatreds outside of protected environments, expression which is damaging to the targets of that hatred, they do so at their own risk just as an atheistic white supremacist would. The fact that your hatred is religiously inspired should not be grounds for offering protections not available to others not claiming a religious motivation.

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.

The religious want too much. They also want to be able to impose their values on society using the force of government.

This is a point I agree with.

I support the right to private religion (or no religion) as I described it above. If you enter the marketplace of ideas with a mixed crowd of participants, you might find that your religion is not only not respected, it is disrespected for what it has taught you. In this sense, it's helpful when people like this athlete speak up publicly to show the world what his church teaches him, and to show him and his church what how people feel about that..

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 support anything legal that promotes the attrition of the church and its cultural hegemony. I want that church to cease teaching people to hate. This matter will damage the church.

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

Yes, anything that disagrees with homosexual people being acceptable people is homophobic.

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.

It doesn't matter if you sincerely believe that homosexuals are hell-bound and are only trying to help them avoid perdition. If you tell the world that homosexuals are considered appropriate for destruction in the lake of fire according to the values of a morally perfect and loving god, you are spreading harmful homophobic memes and may well be chastised for so doing.

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

People that disapprove of homosexuality who aren't sure what comments about homosexuals are considered offensive probably ought to be still on the matter.

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

I can't find a reason for treating religious people and institutions as being entitled to more than equal protection under the law.

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

As you probably know, in the States, atheism has been declared equivalent to religion for certain purposes:

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion."&# 8194; In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."

source​

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

I disagree. Most people objecting to what they call homophobic behavior are in accord about what that is. Basically, it is any disparaging or demeaning comment about homosexuals or homosexuality. Why does one need to express disapproval of homosexuality. Why should one even care?

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.

 

[Shad]

Feel free to Google any of the language quoted and alleged to be from that agreement in this thread if you'd like to read the entire code of conduct.

You defended a contract and policy you seem to have not read. Ergo my request and your burden.

What do you think the chances of the quotes seen in this thread that are alleged to have come from that document not being in that document, the one that formed the basis of the firing?

Which quotes exactly?

Like @Rival , you seem to consider free expression the highest or nearly the highest value. I don't. I value tolerance of one another over that. Restricting speech using social means is fine with me.

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.

All my life, I have accepted restrictions on my speech, beginning with telling my little sister that I hated her and being chided by my mother. I could have been punished at home for using obscenities, suspended from school for unacceptable language, disciplined in the Army for not addressing an officer properly, disciplined for certain forms of expression during my post-graduate medical training*, cited for contempt of court addressing a judge disrespectfully, treated worse by a policeman for disrespectful language, treated worse by TSA or customs for looking at them cross-eyed, etc..

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.

It's a fact of life, and not a very difficult one to accommodate. This athlete either failed to learn that lesson or chose to ignore the possibility of being disciplined or fired, and is now paying the price, hopefully willingly.

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

Spoiler: amusing anecdote

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....

 

[Shad]

Again spinning it to sound like he chose to be unemployed because he was too demanding.

Of course that why Kaep never sued the league for a contract he never got.

SF was making him unemployed so there was literally no reason not to "opt out".

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

Having your employment contract terminated because your employer doesn't believe you are performing at the level they expected is getting fired in any other job in the world. We just call it something different for athletes.

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.

When a coach or GM is released from their contract for performance reasons we say they were fired even though this is not for a contract violation.

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

"The Cleveland Browns have fired both head coach Hue Jackson and offensive coordinator Todd Haley, the team announced Monday."

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

They still get whatever guarantees were in their contact.

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

I'm happy enough to use cut though as it makes zero difference to the point.

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

"He opt-ed out of his own contract for a better deal."

Yup. Ergo the lawsuit.

"No as it is stating a fact that he still opt-ed out. I gave no indication over his motive."

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

There's 2 for a start.

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

To 'correct' someone who said he got fired by say he opted out "for a better deal" rather than because he was told he was getting cut due to his contract being too large, was no longer getting paid, and thus had no reason to stay as it served no purpose other than legally prohibiting him form seeking new employment, is deliberately misleading.

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/

Yes, regardless of any kneeling he would have been cut because his contract was no longer deemed value for money. He renegotiated his contract to basically allow himself to play for the rest of the season as if he hadn't voided injury guarantees they wouldn't have risked playing him.

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

I have a need to defend what actually happened rather than letting people spout politically motivated ignorance.

I do not believe that.

Not sure how pointing out he was getting cut due to having a contract that was too large is 'defending' him, but whatever floats your boat.

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

If noting he didn't opt out "for a better deal", but because he had been told he was getting cut (so would never do another minute's work or be paid another cent) is being a fanboy then your ideological bias is stronger than I thought.

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

No doubt you'll reply with some spin and bad-faith quibbling, so I'll leave it at that.

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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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".

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!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My decisions are obviously based upon my personal priorities.
So my business matters to me & to a great many associates,
even if not to outsiders. Employees whose private actions
harm my business will find that I'll sever that relationship.
I'm not their parent, & thus not required to support them.

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."

About money....
Many people decry businesses for being so focused upon it.
But if I were to fire an employee whose pubic speech outside
of the workplace which caused me financial loss, they'd defend
the employee because he's entitled to the money I pay...the
money he hindered my making. Very odd.
It becomes about the money for the critics of business.

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.

My views on the 1st Amendment....
It's about government not interfering with our right to speech.
It is not about eliminating consequences for publicly speaking
out in one's relationship with others.
And even government recognizes this in licensing law, which
can sanction me for wrongful speech by my agents. Moreover,
I am prohibited from publicly holding view which could be seen
as violating fair housing laws.

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?

 

[Revoltingest]

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."

I've fired people for cause before.
But never thought of it as punishment.
Twas just that their employment had to cease.

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?

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.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I've fired people for cause before.
But never thought of it as punishment.
Twas just that their employment had to cease.

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.

I don't want government granting job protection to employees who say things publicly which harm business.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll bet that he doesn't feel erased. And he was always free to express most of his opinions as we all are, even here on Religious Forums, where we have agreed not to express ourselves in certain proscribed ways.

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.

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.

Somehow, the religious feel that they are entitled to protections not available to others for speaking their minds if they can claim that it is their religious belief. Why should that matter more than if one were expressing any other type of belief?

Its to keep the government from getting involved with religion

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 support anything legal that promotes the attrition of the church and its cultural hegemony. I want that church to cease teaching people to hate. This matter will damage the church.

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.

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.

He can gag himself - or not if he's willing to pay the price for socially unacceptable speech.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You realize that millions and millions of people work for just 1 or 2 employers? That amounts to a lot of censoring and control.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I question how "damaging it is" for him to express his view.

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

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?

No, people can say what they want if they're willing to take responsibility.

You defended a contract and policy you seem to have not read. Ergo my request and your burden.

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

Which quotes [from the Australian Rugby League's code of conduct] exactly?

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.

All you have admitted to is being party to tyranny of the majority.

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.

You have no issues reducing the rights of the minority because of subjective whims of the majority.

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

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.

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What if I had a company that was right-wind oriented and I sacked people for saying gay people should be allowed to marry? There'd be hell on and people would tell me I am being this that and the other; if people are allowed to say gays can marry, people should be allowed to say that hell awaits them, otherwise it just becomes an echo chamber for leftists and isolates conservatives.

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.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

His job depends upon skillful manipulation of stuffed skins, and he doesn't represent the league. They'd like to claim he does, so that they can fire him. They just don't like him and are looking for a reason.

Nope. The National team desperately needs his skills. Whatever the rationale, it's not because they're looking for a reason to offload him.

I worked for a tech support company (for a few weeks) that wanted me to cheat customers, so I quit. That was me doing things to people, and it didn't matter that I was representing some low down no good cheaters. It was my responsibility and my reputation as an individual that counted.

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.

This is a rugby player -- one person. He can't represent all the other players unless he is making official statements. I have never managed a business, but I once worked for a foreman who hated all Jews and told me so. I did not quit. He didn't represent me. He was a different person.

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.

If I ran a business, and one of my employees was making antisemitic statements while representing my company I would be a pretty stupid employer. Saying that every employee represents the company and therefore must espouse my personal beliefs is enslavement talk.

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.

 

[Shad]

It's bigotry.

Disagree.

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.

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.

I just saw the gay mayor of South Bend explaining about his initial self-loathing regarding his sexual orientation. Is that damage?

That is his problem.

Some never recover from that. Some end their lives. Where do you suppose that comes from?

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.

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.

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

No, people can say what they want if they're willing to take responsibility.

Sure. Again I disagree with the policy.

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

So your point is really pointless then. Gotcha

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

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...ay-people-comments.219817/page-3#post-6064340

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

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?

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...ay-people-comments.219817/page-8#post-6065375

Again I disagree with the policy.

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.

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

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.

Tyranny of the majority and whims of the masses.

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.

Being natural does not make it right.

Evolution of society or merely parroting by unthinking drones?

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.

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

Of course I do. Rights are a legal matter, and law-abiding minorities ought to have theirs defended by the state.

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

This is not an issue of rights beyond the rights of the two parties to voluntarily enter into a financial arrangement

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

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.

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

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,

I disagree. There is no such right in law.

and the athlete had the right to agree to those terms or walk away.

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

I am arguing that the League had the right to enforce the agreement and terminate the athlete's contract.

Again I question the policy and see it as oppressive.

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.

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

The violation was for offensive, demeaning language.

No it was going again PC cult norms.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

You mean they actually leave their countries? Yes that is not like in the 'States where we have our own World Series in baseball.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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."