Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
It's all just window dressing, he sold his rights to "free speech" by signing a RA contract .................. and then he breached it because he believes he is bigger than the game and bigger than the law

It sickens me that the man can have so much money and yet attempt to crowdsource funds for a legal battle when so many other much more worthy individuals deserve a few crowdsourced dollars, what a joke!

Paddles, you cannot sign away basic human rights like free speech or freedom of religion, any contract that tries to remove your basic human rights is unenforceable, that's really just common sense otherwise we could see contracts where people could be enslaved.

Saying this is all ego driven on his part is just joining the mob mentality that is surrounding him, so much hate directed at him by people who like to think they are tolerant. I would not be surprised if he was thrown into a mob of his critics that he most likely would not make it out alive such is the vitriol present on social media atm for him. Ripped apart by a angry mob of tolerant people, ironic.

And for what crime, preaching his religion, preaching sinners go to hell. Hate speech everyone calls it, does a minister hate his congregation when he tells them from the pulpit on a sunday morning they must repent of their sin lest hell awaits them. I don't think so.

As for crowd funding, if you don't agree don't support him, others do support him and want to play a small part in standing up against this attack on free speech and freedom of religion.

cammd, he still has a right to his beliefs and "free speech" to some degree, but he's obviously breached his contract pure and simple. My argument is that if he didn't wish to accept RA's terms then he shouldn't have accepted their contract.

Let me throw a "free speech" hypothetical your way that you might find easier to understand; The Wallabies have a naming rights sponsor that is an airline. If a contracted player went into the public domain and said that they thought the service on the sponsor's airline was krap so they preferred to use a competitor's airline, would you find it acceptable for that player to be stood down because they have breached the conduct requirements of their contract? It's a commercial contract cammd, if you sign up then you have acknowledged and accepted the terms. This notion of "free speech" is an emotional myth

Select to expand quote

Paddles B'mere said..
cammd, he still has a right to his beliefs and "free speech" to some degree, but he's obviously breached his contract pure and simple. My argument is that if he didn't wish to accept RA's terms then he shouldn't have accepted their contract.

Let me throw a "free speech" hypothetical your way that you might find easier to understand; The Wallabies have a naming rights sponsor that is an airline. If a contracted player went into the public domain and said that they thought the service on the sponsor's airline was krap so they preferred to use a competitor's airline, would you find it acceptable for that player to be stood down because they have breached the conduct requirements of their contract? It's a commercial contract cammd, if you sign up then you have acknowledged and accepted the terms. This notion of "free speech" is an emotional myth

Your argument doesn't recognise that the law says, specifically the fair work act says, you cannot discriminate based on religion. Izzy was sacked for being a Christian, he was sacked because he followed his faith that requires him to preach his beliefs. Even if his contract said he must keep his beliefs private and cannot acknowledge them in public, which I very much doubt he would have signed such a thing, it would still be unenforcable. A contract that discriminates against a particular religion in such a way would be illegal.

I think if you want people to not be able to practice their religion you need to get the fair work act changed and possibly the constitution.

As to suggesting Izzy should not have signed the contract if he didn't accept the terms , what terms do you refer to, no posting hate speech on social media I guess. Is asking sinners to repent to avoid hell hate speech, Izzy wouldn't see it that way, every preacher in every pulpit on every Sunday that tells their congregation to repent of their sins to avoid hell would not see it that way either. To prove that is hate speech you need to prove all Christian churches hate their congregations and seek to vilify them and exclude them, a ridiculous notion, one RA will struggle to argue in court. He was sacked because PC social warrior types don't like that Christians regard homosexuality as a sin.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Paddles B'mere said..
cammd, he still has a right to his beliefs and "free speech" to some degree, but he's obviously breached his contract pure and simple. My argument is that if he didn't wish to accept RA's terms then he shouldn't have accepted their contract.

Let me throw a "free speech" hypothetical your way that you might find easier to understand; The Wallabies have a naming rights sponsor that is an airline. If a contracted player went into the public domain and said that they thought the service on the sponsor's airline was krap so they preferred to use a competitor's airline, would you find it acceptable for that player to be stood down because they have breached the conduct requirements of their contract? It's a commercial contract cammd, if you sign up then you have acknowledged and accepted the terms. This notion of "free speech" is an emotional myth

Your argument doesn't recognise that the law says, specifically the fair work act says, you cannot discriminate based on religion. Izzy was sacked for being a Christian, he was sacked because he followed his faith that requires him to preach his beliefs. Even if his contract said he must keep his beliefs private and cannot acknowledge them in public, which I very much doubt he would have signed such a thing, it would still be unenforcable. A contract that discriminates against a particular religion in such a way would be illegal.

I think if you want people to not be able to practice their religion you need to get the fair work act changed and possibly the constitution.

As to suggesting Izzy should not have signed the contract if he didn't accept the terms , what terms do you refer to, no posting hate speech on social media I guess. Is asking sinners to repent to avoid hell hate speech, Izzy wouldn't see it that way, every preacher in every pulpit on every Sunday that tells their congregation to repent of their sins to avoid hell would not see it that way either. To prove that is hate speech you need to prove all Christian churches hate their congregations and seek to vilify them and exclude them, a ridiculous notion, one RA will struggle to argue in court. He was sacked because PC social warrior types don't like that Christians regard homosexuality as a sin.

Do you?

Select to expand quote

DARTH said..

cammd said..

Paddles B'mere said..
cammd, he still has a right to his beliefs and "free speech" to some degree, but he's obviously breached his contract pure and simple. My argument is that if he didn't wish to accept RA's terms then he shouldn't have accepted their contract.

Let me throw a "free speech" hypothetical your way that you might find easier to understand; The Wallabies have a naming rights sponsor that is an airline. If a contracted player went into the public domain and said that they thought the service on the sponsor's airline was krap so they preferred to use a competitor's airline, would you find it acceptable for that player to be stood down because they have breached the conduct requirements of their contract? It's a commercial contract cammd, if you sign up then you have acknowledged and accepted the terms. This notion of "free speech" is an emotional myth

Your argument doesn't recognise that the law says, specifically the fair work act says, you cannot discriminate based on religion. Izzy was sacked for being a Christian, he was sacked because he followed his faith that requires him to preach his beliefs. Even if his contract said he must keep his beliefs private and cannot acknowledge them in public, which I very much doubt he would have signed such a thing, it would still be unenforcable. A contract that discriminates against a particular religion in such a way would be illegal.

I think if you want people to not be able to practice their religion you need to get the fair work act changed and possibly the constitution.

As to suggesting Izzy should not have signed the contract if he didn't accept the terms , what terms do you refer to, no posting hate speech on social media I guess. Is asking sinners to repent to avoid hell hate speech, Izzy wouldn't see it that way, every preacher in every pulpit on every Sunday that tells their congregation to repent of their sins to avoid hell would not see it that way either. To prove that is hate speech you need to prove all Christian churches hate their congregations and seek to vilify them and exclude them, a ridiculous notion, one RA will struggle to argue in court. He was sacked because PC social warrior types don't like that Christians regard homosexuality as a sin.

Do you?

No, do you want to see Christians discriminated against due to their beliefs?

Still don't get it cammd.

It's a simple contractual matter.

Izzy signed.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

DARTH said..

cammd said..

Paddles B'mere said..
cammd, he still has a right to his beliefs and "free speech" to some degree, but he's obviously breached his contract pure and simple. My argument is that if he didn't wish to accept RA's terms then he shouldn't have accepted their contract.

Let me throw a "free speech" hypothetical your way that you might find easier to understand; The Wallabies have a naming rights sponsor that is an airline. If a contracted player went into the public domain and said that they thought the service on the sponsor's airline was krap so they preferred to use a competitor's airline, would you find it acceptable for that player to be stood down because they have breached the conduct requirements of their contract? It's a commercial contract cammd, if you sign up then you have acknowledged and accepted the terms. This notion of "free speech" is an emotional myth

Your argument doesn't recognise that the law says, specifically the fair work act says, you cannot discriminate based on religion. Izzy was sacked for being a Christian, he was sacked because he followed his faith that requires him to preach his beliefs. Even if his contract said he must keep his beliefs private and cannot acknowledge them in public, which I very much doubt he would have signed such a thing, it would still be unenforcable. A contract that discriminates against a particular religion in such a way would be illegal.

I think if you want people to not be able to practice their religion you need to get the fair work act changed and possibly the constitution.

As to suggesting Izzy should not have signed the contract if he didn't accept the terms , what terms do you refer to, no posting hate speech on social media I guess. Is asking sinners to repent to avoid hell hate speech, Izzy wouldn't see it that way, every preacher in every pulpit on every Sunday that tells their congregation to repent of their sins to avoid hell would not see it that way either. To prove that is hate speech you need to prove all Christian churches hate their congregations and seek to vilify them and exclude them, a ridiculous notion, one RA will struggle to argue in court. He was sacked because PC social warrior types don't like that Christians regard homosexuality as a sin.

Do you?

No, do you want to see Christians discriminated against due to their beliefs?

It may be what he believes but to a lot of people its all bull. He signed the contract, took the money. To me what he has said is so offensive
and it reminds of a scripture that says " Judge not lest you be judged yourself and be found wanting."
So shut it Izzy.

Why aren't all the piss heads outraged?

who cares what he said about gay people, he claims alchos are going straight to hell.

Isn't that 100% of the rugby fan base?

How dare he insult my religion !!

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

DARTH said..

cammd said..

Paddles B'mere said..
cammd, he still has a right to his beliefs and "free speech" to some degree, but he's obviously breached his contract pure and simple. My argument is that if he didn't wish to accept RA's terms then he shouldn't have accepted their contract.

Let me throw a "free speech" hypothetical your way that you might find easier to understand; The Wallabies have a naming rights sponsor that is an airline. If a contracted player went into the public domain and said that they thought the service on the sponsor's airline was krap so they preferred to use a competitor's airline, would you find it acceptable for that player to be stood down because they have breached the conduct requirements of their contract? It's a commercial contract cammd, if you sign up then you have acknowledged and accepted the terms. This notion of "free speech" is an emotional myth

Your argument doesn't recognise that the law says, specifically the fair work act says, you cannot discriminate based on religion. Izzy was sacked for being a Christian, he was sacked because he followed his faith that requires him to preach his beliefs. Even if his contract said he must keep his beliefs private and cannot acknowledge them in public, which I very much doubt he would have signed such a thing, it would still be unenforcable. A contract that discriminates against a particular religion in such a way would be illegal.

I think if you want people to not be able to practice their religion you need to get the fair work act changed and possibly the constitution.

As to suggesting Izzy should not have signed the contract if he didn't accept the terms , what terms do you refer to, no posting hate speech on social media I guess. Is asking sinners to repent to avoid hell hate speech, Izzy wouldn't see it that way, every preacher in every pulpit on every Sunday that tells their congregation to repent of their sins to avoid hell would not see it that way either. To prove that is hate speech you need to prove all Christian churches hate their congregations and seek to vilify them and exclude them, a ridiculous notion, one RA will struggle to argue in court. He was sacked because PC social warrior types don't like that Christians regard homosexuality as a sin.

Do you?

No, do you want to see Christians discriminated against due to their beliefs?

No, also I dont want to hear any religious mumbo jumbo either. I dont care what you believe in. Just dont knock on my door.

cammd, he wasn't discriminated against because of his religion. RA obviously believe that he breached his contract by making comments that aren't aligned with the beliefs of his employer or the sponsors (or maybe the majority of the Australian population) and so they had to terminate the contract based on this.

I'd find it very hard to believe that RA, having employed many high profile athletes; and having many high profile sponsors; wouldn't have an absolutely watertight clause in the contracts for players and staff to not bring the game or sponsors into disrepute.

Select to expand quote

DunkO said..
Why aren't all the piss heads outraged?

who cares what he said about gay people, he claims alchos are going straight to hell.

Isn't that 100% of the rugby fan base?

How dare he insult my religion !!

+1, but I take refuge in the fact that Jesuses disciples were massive pis sheads - Imagine if a bloke in your group could make wine out of water, provide you with continuous bread sticks, then cure your hangover (think how great he was with the lepers, a hangover is easy!).

So surely the bar has to be pretty low in that regard

What i don't understand is people (mostly white christians) are screaming saying he should be allowed freedom of religion. If that's the case, then the same issue must be applied to the islamic community!

I've also always wondered how private religious schools are allowed to discriminate against people of non religion or islamic faith. My son attends a Baptist school and to get a teaching gig, you must be christian and be attending church regularly.

Oh the irony of it all

Select to expand quote

jbshack said..
What i don't understand is people (mostly white christians) are screaming saying he should be allowed freedom of religion. If that's the case, then the same issue must be applied to the islamic community!

I've also always wondered how private religious schools are allowed to discriminate against people of non religion or islamic faith. My son attends a Baptist school and to get a teaching gig, you must be christian and be attending church regularly.

I think the reason people are backing his "religious rights" is because we can highlight how phuked religious is with being called an Islamophobic/xenophobic etc.
As an atheist this is how see it it, I'm like he Cristian making similar statements, lets see a fair example because I know if he was from another faith it wouldn't be questioned.
It kind of backdooring the hippocrocy but still not giving them an angle at you.

So Christians feel they are being discriminated against,
Yet they're happy to denigrate and cause hurt to other minorities?
Amazing how their belief in a bible gives them extra rights over others.

Bigots will go to Hell.

Repent now.

Select to expand quote

sgo said..
So Christians feel they are being discriminated against,
Yet they're happy to denigrate and cause hurt to other minorities?
Amazing how their belief in a bible gives them extra rights over others.

"cause hurt"
Imaginary punishment in an imaginary place because of Iron Age rules. Who could be hurt by that?

No worse than saying Christians are hateful bigots. What, you mean all of them?

Haha- im only guessing but I think old mate means hurt as in: not that long ago if the church didnt like what you said on anything you would get fired or at least severely burned. ( haha as in they would drag you outside beat the hell out of you and light you on fire, chortle chortle). I'm more pissed at the dishonesty- last time they said if gays get married I would be able to marry my dog. Wtf does anyone want a cheap beagle wedding veil? (That was also a religious freedom thing remember)

Select to expand quote

awkward customer said..
Haha- im only guessing but I think old mate means hurt as in: not that long ago if the church didnt like what you said on anything you would get fired or at least severely burned. ( haha as in they would drag you outside beat the hell out of you and light you on fire, chortle chortle). I'm more pissed at the dishonesty- last time they said if gays get married I would be able to marry my dog. Wtf does anyone want a cheap beagle wedding veil? (That was also a religious freedom thing remember)

So on a scale of slightly miffed to burned at the stake, where do you think the jibber-jabber of this guy who professionally cuddles hordes of sweaty men ranks?

This bloke didnt get to speak freely at his work place.



I know this looks photo shopped but the hair is real..

Thought for a moment his hand was on something else.

Religion and hypocrisy are very good bedfellows. ^

I find the hypocrisy of the whole thing quite amazing. Rugby likes to refers to itself as "The game they play in Heaven", yet get all knicker twisted when a quote from the bible, the book that gives us the concept of heaven, is deemed too outrageous and offensive.
Also it wasn't that long ago, that the gay community was asking society to show tolerence, and vote for them to be allowed to marry, nice of them to show how tolerent they can be in return... Through their complaints, a man has lost his high paying job, for quoting from the bible, a book he quotes from in his job as a preacher in his community..
Hey Rugby Aus, how about you drop all reference to heaven, instead you could refer to Sodom & Gomorrah, oh. hang on, thats also biblical, and god smited that place, appears we have a paradox, wrapped in a juxaposition, tied up with an enigma...
Rugby / heaven= good : God / bible= bad...... D'oh.
Anyhow, whoever is really calling the shots at R.A. here is another biblical quote, "the love of money is the root of all evil"
Just remember that the game itself should be bigger than the sponsors, and that if nothing was ever said about the original post by Folau, then this would all be last months fish wrappings, and forgotten totally.
Nice work R.A. This has blown up bigger than a baghdad bus full of bombers...

At Kamikuza: almost certainly definatelly slightly miffed. But thats not what we are talking about, we're emphasizing the deplorable human rights history of the church. On the other hand you do bring up a interesting question: what do the gays/drunks/adulterers think about his silly yibber yabber? As a drunk I volunteer that I dont give a fig what a tv clown/entertainer has to say about my supposed after life- if heaven is chockers full of christians and no alcohol I hope he is right and I go elsewhere. Anyway thats it for the drunks maybe we can have a rep for the gays and adulterers?

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
Still don't get it cammd.

It's a simple contractual matter.

Izzy signed.

I get it, I just don't agree with you. I think Izzy will win based on the Fair work legislation. We could put a wager on it, carton of beer, that is if your not scared of gambling or getting drunk and going you know where.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
Religion and hypocrisy are very good bedfellows. ^

How is that hypocrisy? This is all just a big messenger shoot. What's wrong with the tweet? He's never said he disliked gays. Or atheists or drunkards. He's probably got a lot of mates in the footy world who fall into one of those categories. (Maybe even an idolater? ) He's just messaging the warning from a book he's read that gets the full OK from the Australian censors. His heart's in the right place. If he read Gray's anatomy and warned you to stop smoking he'd be considered to be doing you a favour.

Select to expand quote

Adriano said..
Religion and hypocrisy are very good bedfellows. ^

yeah same goes for the "progressive" left.

apparently the online mob needs his mrs sacked from her netball gigs as well now.

Wife guilty of husbands deeds - you would have to go back a few centuries or move to the middle east to find that kind of law in existence. In one fell swoop these "progressives" have wiped out more than a century of womens rights progress.

Select to expand quote

Bara said..

Adriano said..
Religion and hypocrisy are very good bedfellows. ^

yeah same goes for the "progressive" left.

apparently the online mob needs his mrs sacked from her netball gigs as well now.

Wife guilty of husbands deeds - you would have to go back a few centuries or move to the middle east to find that kind of law in existence. In one fell swoop these "progressives" have wiped out more than a century of womens rights progress.

Why are conservatives so dishonest. Like you have a real and deep interest in Womens rights......Yeah my arse.

Select to expand quote

Bara said..

Adriano said..
Religion and hypocrisy are very good bedfellows. ^

yeah same goes for the "progressive" left.

apparently the online mob needs his mrs sacked from her netball gigs as well now.

Wife guilty of husbands deeds - you would have to go back a few centuries or move to the middle east to find that kind of law in existence. In one fell swoop these "progressives" have wiped out more than a century of womens rights progress.

i agree - very regresssive...2000 years-ish even?

it's almost like ascribing to the writings of a Galatian...

Everyone at the extreme margins are as bad as each other

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...