Religion as an excuse for homophobia in sport

[Unknown user]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48714601

 

Here's an Australian rugby player who's devoutly Christian and been sacked for tweeting that hell awaits gays. He's seeking donations to take this to court (despite having a property portfolio worth millions!) as he reckons he's being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, but I don't think that argument stands up.

 

Ignoring what christianity does or doesn't teach, surely the issue here is that he can hold whatever views he likes in private, but publicly there are consequences of saying things that society finds abhorrent - there are laws against hate speech for a reason.

 

The guy's been warned by his employer about what's acceptable and what isn't, so does he have a leg to stand on? I say no.

 

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48714601

 

Here's an Australian rugby player who's devoutly Christian and been sacked for tweeting that hell awaits gays. He's seeking donations to take this to court (despite having a property portfolio worth millions!) as he reckons he's being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, but I don't think that argument stands up.

 

Ignoring what christianity does or doesn't teach, surely the issue here is that he can hold whatever views he likes in private, but publicly there are consequences of saying things that society finds abhorrent - there are laws against hate speech for a reason.

 

The guy's been warned by his employer about what's acceptable and what isn't, so does he have a leg to stand on? I say no.

 

 

Of course he doesn't!

[AlphonseCapone]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48714601

 

Here's an Australian rugby player who's devoutly Christian and been sacked for tweeting that hell awaits gays. He's seeking donations to take this to court (despite having a property portfolio worth millions!) as he reckons he's being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, but I don't think that argument stands up.

 

Ignoring what christianity does or doesn't teach, surely the issue here is that he can hold whatever views he likes in private, but publicly there are consequences of saying things that society finds abhorrent - there are laws against hate speech for a reason.

 

The guy's been warned by his employer about what's acceptable and what isn't, so does he have a leg to stand on? I say no.

 

 

If I said what he did my employer would empty me as well. The fact he's seeking donations makes him an even bigger *****. As much as religious freedom is important, it ranks below basic human rights and therefore it isn't an excuse to be homophobic, racist or any other protected characteristic.

 

Personally, religious freedom to me extend as far as being allowed to attend any place of worship you wish without any hassles, but no more. Religion isn't special and shouldn't be treated as such. 

[Norm]

He's entitled to his opinion. It's a stupid one but he's entitled to it. However, the league rules states players must be respectful on social media. He's failed that so has to take his medicine. 

[Boris]

So his argument is he is being discriminated against due to his religious beliefs.

 

So he'd be fine if some real nutbar religious zealot murdered his family as they were infidels.  Obviously any action against said nutbar would be discriminating against their religious beliefs.

 

 

[i8hibsh]

Religion 

 

 

 

[Victorian]

The basic premise is that one's piety takes precendent over human rights.    Which is obviously wrong and a bit narcissistic.     

 

My land of make believe rights > your legal human rights.     

[Tazio]

Pretty much most jobs have social media behaviour as part of the clauses nowadays. 

 

 

[Cade]

Hate and equality laws cannot simply be ignored by playing the religion card.

 

Organised religion is a scourge on society and has been holding back the human race for thousands of years.

[Sharky999]

He was sacked by his employer, he's now wanting to fight it by not using his millions, and using his believers cash

He's getting it pretty tight in Australia.

[Maple Leaf]

Anyone who violates their Conditions of Employment can have no excuse when they're fired.

 

If a person thinks that the COE violate their rights they should not have taken the job in the first place.  

 

The person in question probably doesn't see the irony in complaining about his rights, after abusing someone else's rights.

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

Anyone who violates their Conditions of Employment can have no excuse when they're fired.

 

If a person thinks that the COE violate their rights they should not have taken the job in the first place.  

 

The person in question probably doesn't see the irony in complaining about his rights, after abusing someone else's rights.

I agree , though I would add a caveat that when the job you love ( rugby) essentially co-erces you to sign a contract that contains clauses you don't like - because if you don't then you cannot work- then that seems a bit unfair.

Having said that- stuff him, he's a bigot

[Maple Leaf]

13 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I agree , though I would add a caveat that when the job you love ( rugby) essentially co-erces you to sign a contract that contains clauses you don't like - because if you don't then you cannot work- then that seems a bit unfair.

Having said that- stuff him, he's a bigot

 

I completely agree on the highlighted bit.

 

As for the contract part, the guy can't have it both ways. If he wants to play rugby, and get rich in the process, he has to sign the contract.  The holder of the contract fulfils their end of the deal, now the guy has to fulfil his end. It seems he had been previously warned about his behaviour.

 

He broke the contract and suffered the consequences, deservedly so.

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I completely agree on the highlighted bit.

 

As for the contract part, the guy can't have it both ways. If he wants to play rugby, and get rich in the process, he has to sign the contract.  The holder of the contract fulfils their end of the deal, now the guy has to fulfil his end. It seems he had been previously warned about his behaviour.

 

He broke the contract and suffered the consequences, deservedly so.

I agree, you abide by the terms of your contract.

I have been in a position though where the contract was so one-sided as to make me baulk, but I had no choice but to sign it anyway.

I don't think a "no bigot" clause is unreasonable though

[Lovecraft]

I'm gonna stick my neck out and say he's thick as mince.

 

 

[I P Knightley]

15 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

I'm gonna stick my neck out and say he's thick as mince.

 

 

A lot of high impact tackles in his position and with his pace; no doubt shaking his brain about a lot.

[Maple Leaf]

11 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

A lot of high impact tackles in his position and with his pace; no doubt shaking his brain about a lot.

 

No doubt some lawyer will jump on that as a novel defence for bigotry.

 

He's not a bigot, m'lud, it's PTSD

[PortyJambo]

Here's 20,000 idiots that will probably contribute to his appeal....although they're likely to send the money to the wrong bank account.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48718038 

Edited June 21, 2019 by PortyJambo

[AlphonseCapone]

5 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

No doubt some lawyer will jump on that as a novel defence for bigotry.

 

He's not a bigot, m'lud, it's PTSD

 

Only tangiently related but a book I was reading was talking about sleep terrors and a guy who murdered his wife while sleepwalking and escaped conviction;

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/20/brian-thomas-dream-strangler-tragedy

 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

No doubt some lawyer will jump on that as a novel defence for bigotry.

 

He's not a bigot, m'lud, it's PTSD

The female can use Pms/pmt as a defence for murder. They have done south of the border.

[Norm]

3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Anyone who violates their Conditions of Employment can have no excuse when they're fired.

 

If a person thinks that the COE violate their rights they should not have taken the job in the first place.  

 

The person in question probably doesn't see the irony in complaining about his rights, after abusing someone else's rights.

Has he actually abused anyone's rights though? As far as I can tell, he said he believes gay people are going to go hell when they die. I'm not sure what rights that statement infringes upon. 

 

If he believes gay people are going to go to hell, he should be allowed to say so. If he said "Gay people should all be exterminated", then that's different. He's inciting violence. But all he said was gay people are going to go to a place that doesn't even have any evidence that it exists.

 

He should be fired from his job as he broke his contract, and people are just as entitled to say he's an arsehole and express their opinion on social media as he has. But I don't think, based on the statement, he's infringed on anyone's rights. 

[Maple Leaf]

9 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

Has he actually abused anyone's rights though? As far as I can tell, he said he believes gay people are going to go hell when they die. I'm not sure what rights that statement infringes upon. 

 

If he believes gay people are going to go to hell, he should be allowed to say so. If he said "Gay people should all be exterminated", then that's different. He's inciting violence. But all he said was gay people are going to go to a place that doesn't even have any evidence that it exists.

 

He should be fired from his job as he broke his contract, and people are just as entitled to say he's an arsehole and express their opinion on social media as he has. But I don't think, based on the statement, he's infringed on anyone's rights. 

 

It's not cut-and-dried, I agree. 

 

But I believe that people have the right to not be treated differently because of their colour, age, religion, ethnic background, sex, sexual orientation, etc. And, in my opinion, that treatment extends to making derogatory or abuse comments. 

[Norm]

28 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's not cut-and-dried, I agree. 

 

But I believe that people have the right to not be treated differently because of their colour, age, religion, ethnic background, sex, sexual orientation, etc. And, in my opinion, that treatment extends to making derogatory or abuse comments. 

I think people shouldn't be treated differently in law. There should be no legal discrimination based on any of those. And I know I don't give a shit about any of that stuff. I generally take people as they come. And people who do abuse folk over that stuff are displaying peak arsehole behaviour. 

 

But.... 

 

I genuinely belive people should have a right to say "I don't like >insert specific group here< and I think they're evil and wrong." People should be allowed to hate whatever or whoever they like, and should be free to express it. What they shouldn't be free to do, is encourage violence against said group. "Kill the >insert specific group here<." would be wrong but just "I don't like 'em."? 

 

Na. People should be allowed to be arseholes. It shouldn't be a crime to be a dick. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Normthebarman

[Maple Leaf]

6 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

I think people shouldn't be treated differently in law. There should be no legal discrimination based on any of those. And I know I don't give a shit about any of that stuff. I generally take people as they come. And people who do abuse folk over that stuff are displaying peak arsehole behaviour. 

 

But.... 

 

I genuinely belive people should have a right to say "I don't like >insert specific group here< and I think they're evil and wrong." People should be allowed to hate whatever or whoever they like, and should be free to express it. What they shouldn't be free to do, is encourage violence against said group. "Kill the >insert specific group here<." would be wrong but just "I don't like 'em."? 

 

Na. People should be allowed to be arseholes. It shouldn't be a crime to be a dick. 

 

No it shouldn't, otherwise we'd all be criminals at various times!

 

 

[XB52]

1 hour ago, Normthebarman said:

Has he actually abused anyone's rights though? As far as I can tell, he said he believes gay people are going to go hell when they die. I'm not sure what rights that statement infringes upon. 

 

If he believes gay people are going to go to hell, he should be allowed to say so. If he said "Gay people should all be exterminated", then that's different. He's inciting violence. But all he said was gay people are going to go to a place that doesn't even have any evidence that it exists.

 

He should be fired from his job as he broke his contract, and people are just as entitled to say he's an arsehole and express their opinion on social media as he has. But I don't think, based on the statement, he's infringed on anyone's rights. 

Sort of where I am. People in here having a go at him for his religious beliefs while laughing at religion. So him saying gays will go to hell means nothing as there is no such thing in their opinion. 

[Madjambo21]

Someone needs to tell him it's all made up ?

[The White Cockade]

Wonder if they still have Rule Number One in Aussie? ?

[The White Cockade]

 

[Doctor FinnBarr]

I got abuse on here by PM 5/6 years ago for making the statement "who cares which Hearts player attend church" so religious loonies exist everywhere.

 

PS, Mods/admin, I didn't report it as I think the poster maybe wasn't right

[ri Alban]

21 hours ago, Smithee said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48714601

 

Here's an Australian rugby player who's devoutly Christian and been sacked for tweeting that hell awaits gays. He's seeking donations to take this to court (despite having a property portfolio worth millions!) as he reckons he's being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, but I don't think that argument stands up.

 

Ignoring what christianity does or doesn't teach, surely the issue here is that he can hold whatever views he likes in private, but publicly there are consequences of saying things that society finds abhorrent - there are laws against hate speech for a reason.

 

The guy's been warned by his employer about what's acceptable and what isn't, so does he have a leg to stand on? I say no.

 

You find abhorrent

[Thumper]

20 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

Religion 

 

 

 

 

Not a fan then aye?

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

You find abhorrent

I do? Live and learn eh?

[A Boy Named Crow]

I think, in his eyes, what he was doing was trying to save people from hell, in that context you could make the argument that it wasn’t a hate crime.

 

However, he was warned multiple times that his social media output was inappropriate, he knew he was in breach of contract...and perhaps most strikingly, everybody knew that the CEO of his employer’s main sponsor is gay - so leaving aside all the debate around free speech and whether or not people think he had the right to say what he did, his actions were likely to have a negative commercial impact on his employer, he was told to stop it, but he didn’t. Not sure how you argue unfair dismissal from that!

[SpruceBringsteen]

Perhaps God will chuck a tenner into his GoFundMe, he must be absolutely  loaded by now after centuries of churches and lads like Jerry Falwell taking donations from the flock.

[i8hibsh]

23 hours ago, Thumper said:

 

Not a fan then aye?

 

To me it is the the lowest depth that the human race has sank to. An abomination in its entirity with not one redeeming quality. As despicable an invention one could ever create. Evil and rotten to it's core with a trail of death, misery and destruction everywhere it's barbaric presence has touched.  Utterly abhorent in it's nature, demands, lies and promises.  It will be the end of civilisation and shame and blame must be carried by all that sail in her.

[Pans Jambo]

Religion 

 

Asking for donations when youre already a millionaire to try and tell the world that you really are not a james hunt. 

[Taffin]

Surely if you believe in hell you also believe gay people should go there?

 

If you don't believe in hell then what's the issue? 

 

He's a tube though and as others have said broke his conditions of employment and deserved to be sacked.

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Surely if you believe in hell you also believe gay people should go there?

 

 

Not necessarily. There are lots of Christians who don't follow the "poofs ur evil, burn in hell!" nonsense. 

[Taffin]

23 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

Not necessarily. There are lots of Christians who don't follow the "poofs ur evil, burn in hell!" nonsense. 

 

Interesting, I thought it was quite a key part of the religions that adhere to the concept of hell.

 

Surely they don't get to pick and choose who goes to the hell they believe in otherwise that would be considered sacreligious, no?

 

Are they saying 'god' is wrong?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Taffin

[Justin Z]

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Interesting, I thought it was quite a key part of the religions that adhere to the concept of hell.

 

Surely they don't get to pick and choose who goes to the hell they believe in otherwise that would be considered sacreligious, no?

 

Are they saying 'god' is wrong?

 

Decent people who believe in things like the Bible or Qu'ran have to do a lot of compartmentalising and rationalising and flat out ignoring of their own religious texts in order to continue to be decent people. Honestly it should be considered a credit to them, tbf--they're taking the divine word of an omnipotent, omniscient being (in their eyes) and saying "nah, that's garbage, not gonna fly with me".

[Norm]

13 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Interesting, I thought it was quite a key part of the religions that adhere to the concept of hell.

 

Surely they don't get to pick and choose who goes to the hell they believe in otherwise that would be considered sacreligious, no?

 

Are they saying 'god' is wrong?

As I understand it, not every Christian believes the Bible is the literal word of God, just as not every Christian believes the pope is God's PR guy. Therefore, it's all open to interpretation. Put it this way, it'd be really weird for them to have gay ministers and clergy, which they do, if they all believe they go to hell. 

 

I eagerly await the upcoming barney between 2 of our members over this. And for them to explain it better. I'm not a religious person, I just know a few that are. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Normthebarman

[i8hibsh]

50 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

Not necessarily. There are lots of Christians who don't follow the "poofs ur evil, burn in hell!" nonsense. 

 

Ah good old the cherry picking of scripture.

[Norm]

4 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Ah good old the cherry picking of scripture.

It's not really cherry picking. There's so much contradictory stuff, it's literally impossible to follow everything because following one means breaking another. So at some point, you have to make a choice as to which one you think is correct.

 

The Christians I have time for are the ones that focus on JC and his teachings in the gospels. Because pretty much everything that's attributed to him is actually pretty sound. He sounds like a good guy and someone I'd like to have a beer with.

 

The fire and brimstone ****ers tend to be the ones who follow the rest of the bible, written by other guys with political agendas. 

[fabienleclerq]

He's only guilty of being an idiot. 

 

He's perfectly entitled to his views but to air them publicly is stupid and leaves his employer no option really. 

 

 

 

[Thumper]

4 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

To me it is the the lowest depth that the human race has sank to. An abomination in its entirity with not one redeeming quality. As despicable an invention one could ever create. Evil and rotten to it's core with a trail of death, misery and destruction everywhere it's barbaric presence has touched.  Utterly abhorent in it's nature, demands, lies and promises.  It will be the end of civilisation and shame and blame must be carried by all that sail in her.

 

Had a feeling you weren't a fan.  That sort of confirms it.

[maroonlegions]

On 21/06/2019 at 12:16, i8hibsh said:

Religion 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iantjambo]

1 hour ago, Thumper said:

 

Had a feeling you weren't a fan.  That sort of confirms it.

 

He’s pretty much spot on though to be fair.

[The White Cockade]

they are not Folau's words he is just quoting from the Bible

as far as I know nobody is asking for the Bible to be banned

i'm an atheist so no apologist for bible bashers but the reaction all seems a bit over the top to me

a rap on the knuckles would have sufficed

there are thousands  of worse things going on in the world at the moment than Christians quoting the Bible

[Maple Leaf]

19 minutes ago, The White Cockade said:

they are not Folau's words he is just quoting from the Bible

as far as I know nobody is asking for the Bible to be banned

i'm an atheist so no apologist for bible bashers but the reaction all seems a bit over the top to me

a rap on the knuckles would have sufficed

there are thousands  of worse things going on in the world at the moment than Christians quoting the Bible

 

Correct.  Such as Christian bakers refusing to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, or Christian restaurant owners refusing to serve gay couples who come in for a meal. Or Christians demonstrating with placards that declare "God hates f**g*ts", or "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

 

Those are worse than quoting the Bible. They are small incidents to be sure, but indicative of an attitude that says that discrimination against gays, for religious reasons, is acceptable.

[The White Cockade]

22 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Correct.  Such as Christian bakers refusing to sell a wedding cake for a gay marriage, or Christian restaurant owners refusing to serve gay couples who come in for a meal. Or Christians demonstrating with placards that declare "God hates f**g*ts", or "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

 

Those are worse than quoting the Bible. They are small incidents to be sure, but indicative of an attitude that says that discrimination against gays, for religious reasons, is acceptable.

 

Yes discrimination is wrong

However I think Australians should be more worried about the treatment of the Aboriginal Australians

discriminated against far worse than homosexuals and for a far longer period  and suffering far more

but obviously not the glam celebrity supported flavour of the day cause that LGBT rights is at the moment