• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Jabby said:
The last video presents an argument a lot better than anything you've said, I assume this is what you've been trying to say?...but I'd still rather people didn't do things that could cause harm than look for a silver lining to people saying hurtful things
Click to expand...
Can you paraphrase? I try very hard to not feed the algorithm with clicks on stuff I know I'm going to disagree with.
 
Jabby said:
The last video presents an argument a lot better than anything you've said, I assume this is what you've been trying to say?...
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty much.

The first video hits home for christians like myself who have nothing at all against gays. To me, I see gays as people who were never allowed on the bus and I would look out the window and feel sorry for them. Now, they're allowed on the bus and I get up and offer my seat. Long analogy but you see my acceptance of gays. For crying out loud - I am not not not not not against gays.

My concern has always been the damage this could have on free speech. Because it messes with it.
 
ncurd said:
Can you paraphrase? I try very hard to not feed the algorithm with clicks on stuff I know I'm going to disagree with.
Click to expand...

Essentially she is saying it's actually better if he expresses his views so that people know his stance, can criticize freely and can withdraw sponsorship/employment. "People have the right to express their opinion. They do not have the right to express it with immunity to criticism."
 
Xsypher said:
Essentially she is saying it's actually better if he expresses his views so that people know his stance, can criticize freely and can withdraw sponsorship/employment. "People have the right to express their opinion. They do not have the right to express it with immunity to criticism."
Click to expand...
That's literally what we've been saying all along...
 
ncurd said:
I thought because you guys were reading this and active in the discussion, therefore wasn't bothering as your the moderators and would of thought you'd have stepped in and/or issued warnings.

Because there are some posts that outright homophobic that I do take exception to....
Click to expand...

Please report then, so that we can discuss it.

But double or triple posting is something I can attend to...
 
Izzy officially sacked by the three man panel.

Expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Given the panel consisted of a QC, senior counsel and an experienced sports administrator youd have to say his chances are slim.

Kate Eastman:

"2018 Doyles Guide ranking as Preeminent Senior Counsel in Employment and Industrial Law"

and

"1995 to 1998. Senior Legal Officer, Australia Human Rights Commission."

You'd expect her to be fairly confident in the legality of their unanimous decision.

Word is, Izzy is certain it's religious discrimination. I almost hope he takes it to the Supreme Court for the smack down he gets when he cottons on to the fact that there is no religious discrimination act.
 
Last edited:
"Mr. Folou you are aware this an Australian court and not an American one?"
 
I keep seeing people falling over themselves to blame RA for this. None of this is their fault.

The blame for what has happened to Folau lies fairly and squarely on Folau himself and no one else.

1. He posted bigoted comments directed at homosexuals (and I don't care if it is some twisted interpretation of his bible - bigotry is bigotry whatever the source.)

2. He was warned not to do it again.

3. He agreed that he would not do it again.

3. He did it again.

4. He refused to take his post down.

5. He would not guarantee not to do it again.

This was only ever going to end one way and that is with his sacking. If he appeals, he will not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Let me ask some of you Christian Folau supporters this. What do you think would happen to an atheist professional rugby player if he made public-facing bigoted remarks about homosexuals?
 
smartcooky said:
I keep seeing people falling over themselves to blame RA for this. None of this is their fault.

The blame for what has happened to Folau lies fairly and squarely on Folau himself and no one else.

1. He posted bigoted comments directed at homosexuals (and I don't care if it is some twisted interpretation of his bible - bigotry is bigotry whatever the source.)

2. He was warned not to do it again.

3. He agreed that he would not do it again.

3. He did it again.

4. He refused to take his post down.

5. He would not guarantee not to do it again.

This was only ever going to end one way and that is with his sacking. If he appeals, he will not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Let me ask some of you Christian Folau supporters this. What do you think would happen to an atheist professional rugby player if he made public-facing bigoted remarks about homosexuals?
Click to expand...

Or a Muslim one...
 
Yeah, I assume they've spent every minute of the last six weeks making sure their case is iron clad

Wrost thing I've read is the idea of a go fund me to pay for him to take it as far as he can, would be just like tamaki to do something like that, he's happy to ***he all his less the well off flock so he can live like a millionaire so why not that
 
I can tell you as an employer, that if the law were such so that a person's right to quote biblical attacks vilifying minorities overrode the protection of those minorities from vilification, then I would be questioning any prospective new employees about their theism. If they tell the they are a theist, they won't get hired. If they refuse to tell me one way or the other, they won't get hired.
 
Here is a more balanced article

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opini...-raelene-castle-wins-battle-with-israel-folau


In particular, it makes some interesting points which indicate that if Folau and his backers think they are going to go to court to claim that RA suppresses religious freedom in its contracts, they will have a very, very high bar to get over.


First, that Folau knew of the consequences of his actions, despite the odd claim by Nick Farr-Jones that he was never given clear boundaries as to what he could and couldn't post. The tribunal clearly found in favour of Rugby Australia here, particularly Castle's submission that she had "multiple" conversations with Folau or his manager and that he had acknowledged the hurt caused by last year's post.

Second, that Rugby Australia wasn't denying Folau freedom of religion.

The killer line from Castle on Friday was: "We have many players that quote the Bible on their social media platforms, as Mr Folau did for the first nine months of his new contract."

While it has been widely reported that Folau will take further legal action, it is hard to see where he might go given the above two points.

Those backing Folau's right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion also fail to comprehend the "megaphone" nature of social media.

If Folau had made his comments about homosexuals, fornicators, etc inside his church, and a recording was taken by another party and was made public, RA would have been on incredibly thin ice pursuing his dismissal.

While they may have objected to his comments, trying to sack him would have crossed a line because it would have effectively meant they were going inside the walls of his place of worship and penalising him for something he said in that environment.

However, with Instagram and those public platforms, Folau has made the decision to step outside his church and transmit his views to the world. There is a difference here.​
 
TRF_Olyy said:
Blocked her ages ago: was it Binny?

Edit: it is
Click to expand...
Oh FFS.....someone take his damn phone from him....

Seriously though does he not realise Hopkins is not an ally if she had it her way she'd make him illeglible to playn for England.
 
gotta say that im impressed with how rCastle handled this. she constantly extended the olive branch to folau who constantly denied it, thinking he was right, and gonna win BUT then BAM, your are the weakest link mrFolau. dont let the door hit you on the way outta here. so long sucker.
u shouldve accepted one of those settlement offers.
rCastle by all accounts has been honest and comported herself with honour.
where as folaus been fulla **** and a complete nut case .

YAY! so long folau, couldnt of happened quick enough
 

Latest posts

Top