Select to expand quoteboofta said..Adriano said..tangohotel said..
I find it hard to believe that anyone educated in the last 100 years believes in religion. Amazing really but there you go. Once again, it isn't about what he said as such, it is about being a good employee. Being the most skillful worker doesn't guarantee you are the most valuable employee. I've seen the most skilled tradesman sacked because he was a cancerous, de-stabilizing presence in the work place. A real turd in the pool... Like Israel, he thought was indispensable. Guess what? He wasn't and could not believe he got the bullet. Neither can Folau. I bet you he didn't think they would sack him with the WC coming up. He was warned, did it anyway and here we are now. Nothing to do with religion though. Just stupidity...
TH...
Yep. Just stupidity.
Some people want to make it about religion and freedom of speech because they want an excuse for being bigoted turds.
It's the bigoted turds that insist on thought controlling what people say/think that is inspiring the donations.
Personally sent $500 today to the ACL website and voted for the senate proposal on the ACL site.
This is because I find it offensive to be told what I should think by anyone, let alone some gay git.
Also offended by getting SMS's and emails to shut this conversation down and banning Folau's go fund me account.
It's still a democracy you lefty bogans, UNTIL WE ALL VOTE otherwise
Sorry I'm missing a few things here?
who is the "gay git" telling you what to think?
who's sending texts and emails?
and
who tied izzy's boot laces before each match? Surely not himself, or did he have Velcro?
I'd make a donation to see Izzy play footy against Ian Roberts.
Looser goes to hell
Yes yes yes!! $1,851,642.00 and still climbing lets go christian you are doing it!!!
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Some people want to make it about religion and freedom of speech because they want an excuse for being bigoted turds.
You do realize that freedom of speech implies that people are also free to think for themselves and then voice those thoughts, without being stifled or forced to parrot the party line...?
You gotta read 1984 more carefully, comrade.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
pulled the race card
I wish he would. Could you imagine it? 
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Adriano said..
Some people want to make it about religion and freedom of speech because they want an excuse for being bigoted turds.
You do realize that freedom of speech implies that people are also free to think for themselves and then voice those thoughts, without being stifled or forced to parrot the party line...?
You gotta read 1984 more carefully, comrade.
Mate, George Orwell......Author of 1984.......lifelong SOCIALIST.......ok?
Select to expand quoteclarence said..dusta said..
but this whole thing isn't about his beliefs. It's about him breaching his contract with RA . Why should this overpaid athlete get any different treatment than what a normal person would if they did the same thing in their workplace and got the sack for the right reasons. Wish everyone would drop the religious avenue , got nothing to do with religion
You're right that it isn't specifically about religion- it is about free speech.
If someone's social media account is now seen as their "workplace", we should all be very worried.
Clarence
no it's not about free speech, it's about a breach of contract he had with his employer.... RA . nothing to do with religion or free speech .
So should this Pastor also lose his job?
www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-lgbt-uproar-bishop-rebukes-priest-who-warned-against-gay-pride-events
Oi beat it petermac, youve got a whole cordonned off section on this forum just for you. If there is anything that is going to stop christians donating their cash it will be when you start supporting the same cause. Sheesh man talk about the proverbial camel who stuck his head in the tent.
Ding ding ding $1,898,233.61 not long now and were at 2mill. Yewwwwwwww maybe even tonite!
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
You do realize that freedom of speech implies that people are also free to think for themselves and then voice those thoughts, without being stifled or forced to parrot the party line...?
"freedom of speech" can mean or imply anything you want as there is no constitutional right or law relating to it, therefore quoting protection of "free speech" is a great philosophical exercise but little else.
There are however laws around employment conditions...and in Falou's case he can 100% think what he wants no problem and he can voice what he wants 100% no problem - the only restriction is that if he wants to be paid a million bucks a year to represent his country in his chosen sport then he needs to abide to a code of conduct around that representation, and that code of conduct is a pretty reasonable humanitarian document. It is not just a Rugby Australia Code either. World Rugby has a similar code and so do all affiliated countries. If you think it's oppressive then please let me know which clause....because I can't find one.
This issue does not apply to normal people in normal jobs. No one gives a crap about your or my public rants. It applies only to high paid, high profile people representing their country, or a sporting code or even shock* a company..... People like Folau don't have a private media right. They represent 100% of the time all the time. There is no distinction between Isreal Folau the Australian Rugby Player and Isreal Folau.
You can try to make that sound all Orwellian or communist state, but I think maybe you are colouring outside the lines on this one.
Found this..
In the story, a man seeks shelter from a sandstorm in his tent but leaves his camel outside. The camel asks permission to put his nose in the tent, and the man gives it. The camel then progressively asks permission to put more and more of his body in the tent and finally the man has to leave the tent because his camel is taking all the space.
The moral of the story is "Don't allow even small malpractices, because they will grow big eventually." (The focus is on the "don't allow" part).
So the phrase means that what is happening is a mistake, which although small, should be stopped.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..You do realize that freedom of speech implies that people are also free to think for themselves and then voice those thoughts, without being stifled or forced to parrot the party line...? You gotta read 1984 more carefully, comrade.Adriano said..
Some people want to make it about religion and freedom of speech because they want an excuse for being bigoted turds.
This is nothing to do with free speech. That's my point.
Some people are making it about free speech in order to make excuses for Izzy being a bigoted idiot. He has the right to act like a bigoted idiot in public but in acting thus he also faces public scrutiny and the scrutiny of his employer.
He has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he did sign a contract specifically discouraging bullying and public vilification.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Found this..
In the story, a man seeks shelter from a sandstorm in his tent but leaves his camel outside. The camel asks permission to put his nose in the tent, and the man gives it. The camel then progressively asks permission to put more and more of his body in the tent and finally the man has to leave the tent because his camel is taking all the space.
The moral of the story is "Don't allow even small malpractices, because they will grow big eventually." (The focus is on the "don't allow" part).
So the phrase means that what is happening is a mistake, which although small, should be stopped.
So...you are saying that RA should have acted on this more strongly after the first transgression rather than waiting until it became such a "camel in the tent" issue?
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
He has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he did sign a contract specifically discouraging hate speech.
I don't like the word hate speech. It kinda distorts the actual intent. The actual clause is:
Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,
harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
and
Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do
not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as
a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
Paradox - there was no transgression or hate speech by Folou.
Any limiting of freedom of speech should have been hit on the head initially rather than expanded.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Adriano said..
He has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he did sign a contract specifically discouraging hate speech.
I don't like the word hate speech. It kinda distorts the actual intent. The actual clause is:
Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,
harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
and
Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do
not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as
a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
Fair enough. I agree. Edited my post.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..mazdon said..
there was a lawyer type on abc last night saying that $3 million is ridiculous for an unfair dismissal case. $300k would get you high quality representation and bells and whistles effort he said. From his snappy presentation, designer clothes and fancy office it was filmed in - that seems legit 
Spot on. People don't quite get that this is not a case about freedom of speech or freedom of religious expression. No court case will argue those points as there is no law regarding them.
It's an unfair dismissal case and his only avenue is through religious discrimination, and I cannot see how that can be successfully argued.
You can spend $3mil on legals, but wont get any better service than $300k. Someones getting a new penthouse and its going to be either Folau or his Laywers...
I did a quick search and found several Law Firms offering there services for Free
EG: www.avlawyers.com.au/employment-law/unfair-dismissal/
www.andersongray.com.au/?utm_source=reachlocal&utm_m
fairworkhelp.com.au/
So why doesn't one of them step up and take the case ?
Oh that's right, its unwinable
^ Got it in one.
It's un-winnable specifically because it's nothing to do with "free speech" and religion.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Paradox - there was no transgression or hate speech by Folou.
I'm not sure what you are saying there. The issue is whether he breached the clauses I posted above. That will be the basis of RA's termination defence.
The Code of Conduct tribunal found unanimously that he did breach it at a high level and termination was warranted. For the record that tribunal consisted of employment law experts. One was nominated by RA, one was nominated by the Players Union representing Falou and one independent expert that both parties (RA and Folau) both agreed was independent.
My understanding was the high level rating was reached because of his lack of remorse, refusal to remove the posts and high likelyhood of further breaches.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
Mate, George Orwell......Author of 1984.......lifelong SOCIALIST.......ok?
Oh sweetie, not the kind of socialist you think he is. Keep on reading, don't just stop at the bit you like.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
"freedom of speech" can mean or imply anything you want as there is no constitutional right or law relating to it, therefore quoting protection of "free speech" is a great philosophical exercise but little else.
There are however laws around employment conditions...and in Falou's case he can 100% think what he wants no problem and he can voice what he wants 100% no problem - the only restriction is that if he wants to be paid a million bucks a year to represent his country in his chosen sport then he needs to abide to a code of conduct around that representation, and that code of conduct is a pretty reasonable humanitarian document. It is not just a Rugby Australia Code either. World Rugby has a similar code and so do all affiliated countries. If you think it's oppressive then please let me know which clause....because I can't find one.
This issue does not apply to normal people in normal jobs. No one gives a crap about your or my public rants. It applies only to high paid, high profile people representing their country, or a sporting code or even shock* a company..... People like Folau don't have a private media right. They represent 100% of the time all the time. There is no distinction between Isreal Folau the Australian Rugby Player and Isreal Folau.
You can try to make that sound all Orwellian or communist state, but I think maybe you are colouring outside the lines on this one.
Poor old Oz, you don't have it explicitly legalized but there's plenty of scope for it according to your High Court, with the exception of political speech which may explain why Egg Boy got a pass. There certainly are "hate" speech laws though. Yikes.
"No one gives a crap about your or my public rants."
Yeah they do, "normal" people have been in trouble for their public rants on social media etc; this isn't a just high-profile thing.
So what you're saying is, he's pretty much just a slave owned by AR? Yikes. Maybe Prince wasn't a whinger after all...
The two issues here are free speech and contractural obligations. He's discovered that one doesn't excuse you from the other. I have no problem with that
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
This is nothing to do with free speech. That's my point.
Some people are making it about free speech in order to make excuses for Izzy being a bigoted idiot. He has the right to act like a bigoted idiot in public but in acting thus he also faces public scrutiny and the scrutiny of his employer.
He has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he did sign a contract specifically discouraging bullying and public vilification.
*This* isn't, as Paradox clearly points out and I agree. Therefore I think we agree on that bit.
I'm also having a dig at your idea of what free speech is.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Adriano said..
He has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he did sign a contract specifically discouraging hate speech.
I don't like the word hate speech. It kinda distorts the actual intent. The actual clause is:
Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,
harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
and
Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do
not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as
a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
So if you read what Izzy said how does it breach the above, he says sinners will go to hell if they don't repent, then he says Jesus loves you and wants you to turn away from sin so you can be with him.
That is basic Christian doctrine, its a message the church has preached for 2000 years and for 2000 years everyone has understood that it is a message of love not hate.
I don't think any lawyer will be able to prove that is motivated by hate. Everyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand the message or more likely doesn't want to.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
^ Got it in one.
It's un-winnable specifically because it's nothing to do with "free speech" and religion.
Well the complaint made to fair work is one of unfair dismissal based on discrimination because of his religion so RA will be defending themselves against that very charge. The case will have everything to do with his religion, how he practices it, what his motivation is when he practices it and how he was treated by RA as a result of practicing it. RA will have to prove they didn't sack him because he posted a religious message consistent with 2000 years of Christian tradition. Pretty difficult in my view because that's what happened.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
So if you read what Izzy said how does it breach the above, he says sinners will go to hell if they don't repent, then he says Jesus loves you and wants you to turn away from sin so you can be with him.
He's literally saying that living a normal non-Christian life is morally wrong. That's not treating anyone with dignity, for a start.
DCM, Izzy.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..cammd said..
So if you read what Izzy said how does it breach the above, he says sinners will go to hell if they don't repent, then he says Jesus loves you and wants you to turn away from sin so you can be with him.
He's literally saying that living a normal non-Christian life is morally wrong. That's not treating anyone with dignity, for a start.
DCM, Izzy.
that's religion, no religion has ever promised everyone will go to the good place, you have to follow the rules, thats the model, start a campaign to outlaw it if you like, but for now its legal and its against the law to discrimate based on it.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
So what you're saying is, he's pretty much just a slave owned by AR? Yikes.
Really? I'm going to assume you are taking the piss there....
Select to expand quotecammd said..
that's religion, no religion has ever promised everyone will go to the good place, start a campaign to outlaw it if you like, but for now its legal and its against the law to discrimate based on it.
You really need to understand anti discrimination laws better. I seems that 90% of people out there supporting Folau don't understand either, but that doesn't make them correct.
Anti discrimination laws do not protect your right to DO whatever you like in the name of religion. They protect an individual from being treated differently BECAUSE of their religion. You still have to abide by the same laws and employment conditions as everyone else no matter your faith.
The key to winning a discrimination argument in this case would be to prove that a someone of a different (or no) religion would have been treated differently in the same circumstances. ie not terminated for the same breach.
So if lets say another player posted stuff on social media that breached that same clause - lets say he was racist for argument, went through the same warning and chances process - but was not sacked. That could be grounds for discrimination.
Ie Folau has to show that RA sacked him because of his religion. And to cut short the argument, religion being the motivating force behind the breach should not be a factor in a discrimination case, it would have to be the motivating factor in the termination decision.
Sure, the message is easy to understand - its simplistic, devoid of nuance or intelligence and picks on easy targets and asks you to chose a team. Its tribalism and we saw it at Auschwitz and everywhere else someone swallowed a easy to understand message. For this belief, discrimination is definitely one response. Freedom of religion is not all encompassing.
