|
|
Post by goz on Jun 23, 2019 22:03:13 GMT
www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/im-exhausted-by-the-whole-thing-peter-fitzsimons-slams-israel-folau-for-asking-for-money-to-pay-for-his-legal-defence/ar-AADiu8O?ocid=spartandhpThe story so far. I posted about it a couple of months ago. Australia's best rugby player is an evangelical Christian. He is also a professional sportsman paid several million dollars to play his sport. It is his Christian belief that He was warned not to do this as it was against his contract, he did so repeatedly and unashamedly. Like other 'Christians' in this kind of position, he is claiming 'freedom of religion' to support his bigotry. The game of rugby is quite unequivocal that it is a game for all, inclusive and accepting of all races and religions and sexualities, and that the behaviour by this player is against the interests and stated aims of the game. The example is local however the principle is universal to my mind. I fully accept the rights of religious people to follow their religion.. HOWEVERthey DO NOT have the right to affect others, especially by vilification and threats. The fact that as an evangelical Christian makes you think that you have a right to tell others what YOURreligion/God preaches goes way far beyond what is acceptable in a secular society … Your views are on you. You are being in fact un-Christian laying your view on others despite your need to tell everyone else you believe to be true. IT IS NOT YOUR PLACEAs the article said, Crowd Funding should be for poor people in desperate situations and NOT multi-millionaire religious bigots, paying their self imposed legal fees.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 23, 2019 22:11:20 GMT
How was he affecting others with his religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 23, 2019 22:25:23 GMT
How was he affecting others with his religion? He was using his celebrity as our best footballer to push his religion on social media, which included vilification of gay players (etc) which is expressly against the code's stated aims and in his contract. In other words he placed his religious belief over his secular contract worth millions of dollars. The fact that he is called on it under secular law and needs legal fees is entirely on him. I can't believe it is not obvious to people like you, however you are an evangelical like him in the true sense, so I guess it is not unusual for you to have to ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 23, 2019 23:00:27 GMT
How was he affecting others with his religion? He was using his celebrity as our best footballer to push his religion on social media, which included vilification of gay players (etc) which is expressly against the code's stated aims and in his contract. In other words he placed his religious belief over his secular contract worth millions of dollars. The fact that he is called on it under secular law and needs legal fees is entirely on him. I can't believe it is not obvious to people like you, however you are an evangelical like him in the true sense, so I guess it is not unusual for you to have to ask. Well, his beliefs should be over his secular contract. I'm not quite sure how sucky Australia is but a contract normally would not supersede a protection. It is odd that Australians have never heard of a hellfire teaching or that religions often teach concepts such as sinners. Considering how many deadly critters are there, I thought they were made of sturdier stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 23, 2019 23:23:05 GMT
"Sacking"? Not sure what that means within that context. Is that Austrailian slang?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 23, 2019 23:34:52 GMT
"Sacking"? Not sure what that means within that context. Is that Austrailian slang? No, it is common parlance. It means the same as the American 'fired' or dismissed. His contract was rescinded due to his persistent breaking of its terms, by using his celebrity profile to vilify gays and other 'sinners' (in his opinion).
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 23, 2019 23:42:50 GMT
"Sacking"? Not sure what that means within that context. Is that Austrailian slang? No, it is common parlance. It means the same as the American 'fired' or dismissed. His contract was rescinded due to his persistent breaking of its terms, by using his celebrity profile to vilify gays and other 'sinners' (in his opinion). I see. Well his comments are disgusting, but now he does get to play the victim. Right wing idiots will probably compare him to Rosa Parks or something. I remember a similar incident with Kim Davis(county clerk that refused to grant gay marriage certificates), that evangelical jackoff Mike Hubackbee even praised her as a "hero".
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 24, 2019 0:06:02 GMT
No, it is common parlance. It means the same as the American 'fired' or dismissed. His contract was rescinded due to his persistent breaking of its terms, by using his celebrity profile to vilify gays and other 'sinners' (in his opinion). I see. Well his comments are disgusting, but now he does get to play the victim. Right wing idiots will probably compare him to Rosa Parks or something. I remember a similar incident with Kim Davis(county clerk that refused to grant gay marriage certificates), that evangelical jackoff Mike Hubackbee even praised her as a "hero". Why can't they understand that other people's rights are AS important as their own EVEN if they claim that God is on their side? It shits me to tears!
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 24, 2019 0:13:56 GMT
He was using his celebrity as our best footballer to push his religion on social media, which included vilification of gay players (etc) which is expressly against the code's stated aims and in his contract. In other words he placed his religious belief over his secular contract worth millions of dollars. The fact that he is called on it under secular law and needs legal fees is entirely on him. I can't believe it is not obvious to people like you, however you are an evangelical like him in the true sense, so I guess it is not unusual for you to have to ask. Well, his beliefs should be over his secular contract. I'm not quite sure how sucky Australia is but a contract normally would not supersede a protection. .It is odd that Australians have never heard of a hellfire teaching or that religions often teach concepts such as sinner Considering how many deadly critters are there, I thought they were made of sturdier stock. Why can't they understand that other people's rights are AS important as their own EVEN if they claim that God is on their side? Then he should not fight it in the courts and expect others to agree, let alone fund it. What 'protection' would that be? We have vilification laws here. Why is that an issue? What has that to do with ANYTHING?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 0:27:56 GMT
"Freedom of religion" is coming to mean "the right to discriminate against others". This is what christians always mean by the phrase.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 24, 2019 0:31:28 GMT
Well, his beliefs should be over his secular contract. I'm not quite sure how sucky Australia is but a contract normally would not supersede a protection. .It is odd that Australians have never heard of a hellfire teaching or that religions often teach concepts such as sinner Considering how many deadly critters are there, I thought they were made of sturdier stock. Why can't they understand that other people's rights are AS important as their own EVEN if they claim that God is on their side? Then he should not fight it in the courts and expect others to agree, let alone fund it. What 'protection' would that be? We have vilification laws here. Why is that an issue? What has that to do with ANYTHING? Hes not taking anyone’s rights away. This is really only about whether someone’s feelings can be hurt. If he is evangelical and belongs to a particular religious group then how exactly can he not be in trouble even if he said nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 24, 2019 0:46:29 GMT
Why can't they understand that other people's rights are AS important as their own EVEN if they claim that God is on their side? Then he should not fight it in the courts and expect others to agree, let alone fund it. What 'protection' would that be? We have vilification laws here. Why is that an issue? What has that to do with ANYTHING? Hes not taking anyone’s rights away. This is really only about whether someone’s feelings can be hurt. If he is evangelical and belongs to a particular religious group then how exactly can he not be in trouble even if he said nothing? If it is only about hurt feelings, then how come we have vilification laws? You didn't answer what 'protection' he has for breaking vilification law. NOT vilify people on social media and just address his congregation where he might still be committing an offence, just not in public. and hence not so likely to be reported. The end game is that religious people should not vilify others for having different beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 24, 2019 9:12:47 GMT
Freedom of religion my ass. More like freedom to be a fucking asshole.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 24, 2019 13:20:12 GMT
Freedom of religion my ass. More like freedom to be a fucking asshole. It can be both. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 24, 2019 13:25:52 GMT
Hes not taking anyone’s rights away. This is really only about whether someone’s feelings can be hurt. If he is evangelical and belongs to a particular religious group then how exactly can he not be in trouble even if he said nothing? If it is only about hurt feelings, then how come we have vilification laws? You didn't answer what 'protection' he has for breaking vilification law. NOT vilify people on social media and just address his congregation where he might still be committing an offence, just not in public. and hence not so likely to be reported. The end game is that religious people should not vilify others for having different beliefs. Do your vilification laws say that it can dictate what a religion believes or preaches. The notion that these groups mention in the post are without any religious precedent is silly. Social media by definition is social. If he is not representing his employer and breaking no laws then why would the employer concern themselves until he is no use to them. They may as well not hire any evangelicals as, whether the team owners know it or not, their views are identical to the post. It’s odd that people would rather pretend that religions don’t believe what they believe instead of just outright banning that religion. Belief is not supposed to be a light switch and as long as he is not beating up his lying, adulterous, or gay teammates then this is a nothing burger except that people want make something of it. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 24, 2019 21:07:04 GMT
If it is only about hurt feelings, then how come we have vilification laws? You didn't answer what 'protection' he has for breaking vilification law. NOT vilify people on social media and just address his congregation where he might still be committing an offence, just not in public. and hence not so likely to be reported. The end game is that religious people should not vilify others for having different beliefs. Do your vilification laws say that it can dictate what a religion believes or preaches. The notion that these groups mention in the post are without any religious precedent is silly. Social media by definition is social. If he is not representing his employer and breaking no laws then why would the employer concern themselves until he is no use to them. They may as well not hire any evangelicals as, whether the team owners know it or not, their views are identical to the post. It’s odd that people would rather pretend that religions don’t believe what they believe instead of just outright banning that religion. Belief is not supposed to be a light switch and as long as he is not beating up his lying, adulterous, or gay teammates then this is a nothing burger except that people want make something of it. See, you fucking evangelicals just don't get it, do you? NONE of you? It is NOT your place to project YOUR religion onto others. If you vilify someone for something that they can't change ( or even their choice of worldview or whatever) you are committing a crime. In a team sport or community activity it is divisive, unchristian immoral and in many cases illegal. Just Shut The Fuck Up! What is your dire need to tell others how to live their lives? It is none of your fucking business.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 24, 2019 21:17:37 GMT
Do your vilification laws say that it can dictate what a religion believes or preaches. The notion that these groups mention in the post are without any religious precedent is silly. Social media by definition is social. If he is not representing his employer and breaking no laws then why would the employer concern themselves until he is no use to them. They may as well not hire any evangelicals as, whether the team owners know it or not, their views are identical to the post. It’s odd that people would rather pretend that religions don’t believe what they believe instead of just outright banning that religion. Belief is not supposed to be a light switch and as long as he is not beating up his lying, adulterous, or gay teammates then this is a nothing burger except that people want make something of it. See, you fucking evangelicals just don't get it, do you? NONE of you? It is NOT your place to project YOUR religion onto others. If you vilify someone for something that they can't change ( or even their choice of worldview or whatever) you are committing a crime. In a team sport or community activity it is divisive, unchristian immoral and in many cases illegal. Just Shut The Fuck Up! What is your dire need to tell others how to live their lives? It is none of your fucking business. one day you will have to figure out that just because I defend freedom of speech, that doesn’t mean I believe the thing I’m defending. You have wasted a lot of typing accusing of something there’s no indication that I am. When I defend satanism or atheism for the same rights, as I have routinely done, are you going to assume the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 24, 2019 21:55:06 GMT
See, you fucking evangelicals just don't get it, do you? NONE of you? It is NOT your place to project YOUR religion onto others. If you vilify someone for something that they can't change ( or even their choice of worldview or whatever) you are committing a crime. In a team sport or community activity it is divisive, unchristian immoral and in many cases illegal. Just Shut The Fuck Up! What is your dire need to tell others how to live their lives? It is none of your fucking business. one day you will have to figure out that just because I defend freedom of speech, that doesn’t mean I believe the thing I’m defending. You have wasted a lot of typing accusing of something there’s no indication that I am. When I defend satanism or atheism for the same rights, as I have routinely done, are you going to assume the same thing? One day you might realise the difference between freedom of speech and vilification. That is why there are laws against one and not the other. I am also not a mind reader. I take what you type at face value and in this thread you have been defending vilification of others as 'freedom of speech'.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 24, 2019 21:58:53 GMT
one day you will have to figure out that just because I defend freedom of speech, that doesn’t mean I believe the thing I’m defending. You have wasted a lot of typing accusing of something there’s no indication that I am. When I defend satanism or atheism for the same rights, as I have routinely done, are you going to assume the same thing? One day you might realise the difference between freedom of speech and vilification. That is why there are laws against one and not the other. I am also not a mind reader. I take what you type at face value and in this thread you have been defending vilification of others as 'freedom of speech'. i know what vilification is. After all I just experience. Vilification happens all the time in speech and the secret is to not worry about it when it’s people whose opinion you have no reason to respect. You are taking this guys words way too personal and it’s making you advocate for forced silence. Why on earth would that be something a decent person would champion? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 24, 2019 23:57:36 GMT
One day you might realise the difference between freedom of speech and vilification. That is why there are laws against one and not the other. I am also not a mind reader. I take what you type at face value and in this thread you have been defending vilification of others as 'freedom of speech'. i know what vilification is. After all I just experience. Vilification happens all the time in speech and the secret is to not worry about it when it’s people whose opinion you have no reason to respect. You are taking this guys words way too personal and it’s making you advocate for forced silence. Why on earth would that be something a decent person would champion? No, the thing is to not promote hate speech that is against the law on a public platform like social media and in the context of his celebrity being a high profile and highly paid sporting professional.
|
|
