Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paxter

Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

Recommended Posts

I stand up for my beliefs, I just don't try to force them on others. There's a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I stand up for my beliefs, I just don't try to force them on others. There's a difference.

I get standing up for your beliefs (or non-beliefs in my case).  But what Folau et al are doing is making a basic contract issue into something it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Jeor said:

 You only have to look at America to see what excessively codifying things into law means.

I wouldn't dismiss the American model so easily - I think Australia is weaker on individual rights than it should be and deserves a bit of criticism. Even the UK, with no written constitution, has significantly higher protections (at the moment) through its signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm more than happy to criticise the US though for a partisan judiciary!

ETA: Personally I'm happy with the ACL's stance. It is asking the difficult questions of people like my parents who sit on the fence with this sort of stuff. Either they stand with the believers who think I'm going to hell or they start making up their own minds about me.

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stubby said:

I get standing up for your beliefs (or non-beliefs in my case).  But what Folau et al are doing is making a basic contract issue into something it isn't.

For the Folau case I read an article just today that says the case revolves around one piece of law that hasn't been tested in the courts yet:

Quote

Folau has launched his claim under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act, which details all the reasons an employer cannot use to terminate a worker's contract.

Religion is one of them.

So, Folau's argument is quite simple in principle. He will say Rugby Australia sacked him for practising his religion, and therefore the termination was unlawful.

So the argument is that no matter what a code of conduct says, it can't be used to terminate employment if it's used in a discriminatory manner. So the outcome may come down to whether an honest belief that Gay people will go to hell is essential to his religion. Seems to me that this non-discrimination provision in the fair work act can't be absolute as it could be used to advocate for some truly abhorrent attitudes and be immune form employment consequences, because "It's my religion bro". One interpretation of the Old Testment is gay people should be killed, so a Jew, Christian or Muslim saying that would be protected from sacking because it's part of their religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So the argument is that no matter what a code of conduct says, it can't be used to terminate employment if it's used in a discriminatory manner.

And that will be the crux of the matter.  RA will argue that they have not in any way infringed on IF's religion.  He is still free to believe what he wants.  The ACL & IF want to make this all about what they perceive to be religious discrimination, when it is really just about his hate speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stubby said:

And that will be the crux of the matter.  RA will argue that they have not in any way infringed on IF's religion.  He is still free to believe what he wants.  The ACL & IF want to make this all about what they perceive to be religious discrimination, when it is really just about his hate speech.

If the majority of work places can decide your religion gives them an “image problem”, and therefore you must shut up or be fired, then you are effectively being discriminated against for expressing your religious views. Hence the law should protect you against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If the majority of work places can decide your religion gives them an “image problem”, and therefore you must shut up or be fired, then you are effectively being discriminated against for expressing your religious views. Hence the law should protect you against that.

It’s a bit sad that you think this is about an “image problem”. Thinking back to when I was younger and in the closet, and had serious self-hate for being gay, I wouldn’t have liked to hear a respected sports say that I’m going to hell. It’s about protecting people, not just image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If the majority of work places can decide your religion gives them an “image problem”, and therefore you must shut up or be fired, then you are effectively being discriminated against for expressing your religious views. Hence the law should protect you against that.

When there is actual evidence that religious ranting about gay people contributes to suicide, it's not an "image problem".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If the majority of work places can decide your religion gives them an “image problem”, and therefore you must shut up or be fired, then you are effectively being discriminated against for expressing your religious views. Hence the law should protect you against that.

I fundamentally believe my god thinks my race is superior, and all other races must be subservient to my race or go to hell. And if I constantly yell out on the street my bigoted ideas across my place of employment on how blacks are superior, my employer who is also not of my race, fires me, I’m the true victim. 

My words shouldn’t actually have consequences.:crying:

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it does come down to having an image problem, why should religion get an exemption for giving an organisation an image problem when it is used to be offensive toward others? The law should protect people from being fired because they belong to a religion, but it should not protect people from being fired for promoting discriminatory attitudes dressed up as religion.

There are plenty of devout Christian Rugby (and other sports) players who refuse to play on Sunday. They do not get fired because of this.

And in any case, any close reading of the Bible and an understanding of the society of the time will show that clearly Folau, and everyone else who thinks gay people will go to hell, got it wrong. So his own holy book does not back him up. I doubt RA will call the Bible as a witness, but they should, because it would completely destroy Folau's complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Even if it does come down to having an image problem, why should religion get an exemption for giving an organisation an image problem when it is used to be offensive toward others? The law should protect people from being fired because they belong to a religion, but it should not protect people from being fired for promoting discriminatory attitudes dressed up as religion.

There are plenty of devout Christian Rugby (and other sports) players who refuse to play on Sunday. They do not get fired because of this.

And in any case, any close reading of the Bible and an understanding of the society of the time will show that clearly Folau, and everyone else who thinks gay people will go to hell, got it wrong. So his own holy book does not back him up. I doubt RA will call the Bible as a witness, but they should, because it would completely destroy Folau's complaint.

This is the most absurd post of the thread. You are 100% wrong in your claims of what the Bible says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is the most absurd post of the thread. . 

Nope, that would be your post where you  feigned ignorance on why some people get offended at being told they deserve to be tortured.

50 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Even if it does come down to having an image problem, why should religion get an exemption for giving an organisation an image problem when it is used to be offensive toward others? The law should protect people from being fired because they belong to a religion, but it should not protect people from being fired for promoting discriminatory attitudes dressed up as religion.

Sure. You could literally use some thin pretext of religion for being discriminatory for anything. I mean there are those who see interracial marriage a sin. I imagine/hope most people wouldn’t see that as sufficient grounds for a landowner to deny an interracial couple housing. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

For the Folau case I read an article just today that says the case revolves around one piece of law that hasn't been tested in the courts yet:

So the argument is that no matter what a code of conduct says, it can't be used to terminate employment if it's used in a discriminatory manner. So the outcome may come down to whether an honest belief that Gay people will go to hell is essential to his religion. Seems to me that this non-discrimination provision in the fair work act can't be absolute as it could be used to advocate for some truly abhorrent attitudes and be immune form employment consequences, because "It's my religion bro". One interpretation of the Old Testment is gay people should be killed, so a Jew, Christian or Muslim saying that would be protected from sacking because it's part of their religion?

Surely it comes down to whether that religion not only says that gays gomtonhell, but that Christians HAVE to tell them that they're going tonhell, AND that freedom from religious discrimination trump's freedom from sexual discrimination.

 

IF is allowed to believe whatever he likes. He's not in breach of contract for holding beliefs (es evidence by being given a new contract after making his beliefs known). He's in breach of contract for pontificating about his beliefs and actively propagating hate speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Surely it comes down to whether that religion not only says that gays gomtonhell, but that Christians HAVE to tell them that they're going tonhell, AND that freedom from religious discrimination trump's freedom from sexual discrimination.

 

IF is allowed to believe whatever he likes. He's not in breach of contract for holding beliefs (es evidence by being given a new contract after making his beliefs known). He's in breach of contract for pontificating about his beliefs and actively propagating hate speech.

For Pete’s sake. It is not hate speech. He openly stated that he loves the people he is speaking of. He is speaking out of love, wanting to save them.

Never once did he state or imply that he hates gay people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For Pete’s sake. It is not hate speech. He openly stated that he loves the people he is speaking of. He is speaking out of love, wanting to save them.

Never once did he state or imply that he hates gay people

Just because you say you love someone, doesn't mean your words and actions aren't actually harming people. You can say you are 'speaking out of love' as much as you want.

ETA: Just to illustrate my point, take a look at some of the summary stats on LGBT suicidality:

Quote

Compared to the general population, LGBTI people are more likely to attempt suicide in their lifetime, specifically:

  • LGBTI young people aged 16 to 27 are five times more likely
  • Transgender people aged 18 and over are nearly eleven times more likely
  • People with an Intersex variation aged 16 and over are nearly six times more likely
  • LGBT young people who experience abuse and harassment are even more likely to attempt suicide

 

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For Pete’s sake. It is not hate speech. He openly stated that he loves the people he is speaking of. He is speaking out of love, wanting to save them.

Never once did he state or imply that he hates gay people

In theory maybe.

But it's a theory that has been proven wrong time and time again.

Izzy's tweet was hate speech, whether you personally agree with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For Pete’s sake. It is not hate speech. He openly stated that he loves the people he is speaking of. He is speaking out of love, wanting to save them.

So it is perfectly okay to tell vulnerable strangers that they are doomed to an eternity of torture unless they live exactly the life you tell them to lead, provided only that you also tell them you are saying this because you love them?

That gives you a free pass for everything and means that nobody can object to you doing so under any circumstances?

For Pete's sake ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For Pete’s sake. It is not hate speech. He openly stated that he loves the people he is speaking of. He is speaking out of love, wanting to save them.

Never once did he state or imply that he hates gay people

I think if you declare that a class of humans deserves to be tortured for eternity the only sensible conclusion is that you hate that class of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Stubby said:

I think if you declare that a class of humans deserves to be tortured for eternity the only sensible conclusion is that you hate that class of humans.

Actually, he was referring to all humans, unless they accept salvation. Which is exactly what the Bible says.

The activists simply latched onto one small category within his much longer list. A list which includes every one of us, if we are honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This is the most absurd post of the thread. You are 100% wrong in your claims of what the Bible says. 

I'm not wrong. I've read the exact passage Folau is paraphrasing, including examinations of the original language, and he's / his church / every gay hating church completely misrepresented it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×