• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Izzy Folau

Bean said:
Are you guys prepared to admit your wrong now?? Israel finally gets an apology from Aussie Rugby.
Click to expand...

Link? Only headline I've seen is he has missed the timeframe to appeal
 
Bean said:
Are you guys prepared to admit your wrong now?? Israel finally gets an apology from Aussie Rugby.
Click to expand...
I've yet to see an even remotely compelling argument that Izzy's right to free speech has been impinged.

a) he has no right to free speech on a constitutional or legislative level. We have no bill of rights like the US.
b) even if we did, his post is still up and hes not in prison, so he has be allowed free speech.
c) there is no religious discrimination act and it's extraordinarily hard to establish unfair dismissal based on religious discrimination
d) he willingly entered into the contract knowing that it would prohibit him from making public communications denigrating homosexuals (and others)
e) willingly and consciously broke his contract, admitted to breaking his contract and refused to take it down in order to resolve the dispute

A bunch of Christians are basically up in arms because they all believe homosexuality is a sin and they want to be able to discriminate by proxy, by posting modern interpretations of the bible that claim homosexuals are going to hell.

Regular, grown up adults, recognize that you can think all sorts of horrible things, even say those horrible things to other people in private, but when you say that **** in a public forum there might be consequences.

In summary, Israel wants freedom from consequence not freedom of speech.
 
Guys,

I'd just like to clear up that even in the United States Izzy would be found in violation of his contract. Even though we give extreme levels of rights to religious folks it still can't be used as a defense in breach of contract or criminal charges. If you sign a contract saying you'll work on Sunday, you can't use religion as an excuse not to work on Sunday. We have freedom to believe, no freedom to act.

Source: something we just covered in my con law class. Pretty sure I didn't fail.
 
Derpus said:
I've yet to see an even remotely compelling argument that Izzy's right to free speech has been impinged.

a) he has no right to free speech on a constitutional or legislative level. We have no bill of rights like the US.
b) even if we did, his post is still up and hes not in prison, so he has be allowed free speech.
c) there is no religious discrimination act and it's extraordinarily hard to establish unfair dismissal based on religious discrimination
d) he willingly entered into the contract knowing that it would prohibit him from making public communications denigrating homosexuals (and others)
e) willingly and consciously broke his contract, admitted to breaking his contract and refused to take it down in order to resolve the dispute

A bunch of Christians are basically up in arms because they all believe homosexuality is a sin and they want to be able to discriminate by proxy, by posting modern interpretations of the bible that claim homosexuals are going to hell.

Regular, grown up adults, recognize that you can think all sorts of horrible things, even say those horrible things to other people in private, but when you say that **** in a public forum there might be consequences.

In summary, Israel wants freedom from consequence not freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

And I'd like to add

f) Clearly stated that he would not guarantee he would not make a similar post in the future.
 
Bit of an aside, but have I got this right?

He's said he accepts it's god's will for him not to continue playing and doing so would be Satan's work luring him away from God...
But he's appealed once and is now "exploring all avenues" for challenging this...
Do those two things really cohere??
 
Mrs. Peter Quinn said:
Bit of an aside, but have I got this right?

He's said he accepts it's god's will for him not to continue playing and doing so would be Satan's work luring him away from God...
But he's appealed once and is now "exploring all avenues" for challenging this...
Do those two things really cohere??
Click to expand...
yeah izzy chooses which parts of the bible he heeds. eg he plays on Sundays and has tattoos.
a bigot and a hypocrite
 
Mrs. Peter Quinn said:
Bit of an aside, but have I got this right?

He's said he accepts it's god's will for him not to continue playing and doing so would be Satan's work luring him away from God...
But he's appealed once and is now "exploring all avenues" for challenging this...
Do those two things really cohere??
Click to expand...
Yes, hes a complete hypocrite. As i said, he's all 'i will do what i must for my faith, even if that means leaving the game' till he realises he actually does have to leave the game and lose 4 million dollars.

Then it's all law suits and religious persecution.
 
Mrs. Peter Quinn said:
Bit of an aside, but have I got this right?

He's said he accepts it's god's will for him not to continue playing and doing so would be Satan's work luring him away from God...
But he's appealed once and is now "exploring all avenues" for challenging this...
Do those two things really cohere??
Click to expand...

Welcome to the mind of a religious fundamentalist, where being logical, consistent and coherent is to be avoided. Although, playing devils advocate (ironic) it could be he wants to just get an apology out of them and can think he had earned brownie points with the great bearded one upstairs by making all of Australian rugby see the error of its ways.
 
Mrs. Peter Quinn said:
Bit of an aside, but have I got this right?

He's said he accepts it's god's will for him not to continue playing and doing so would be Satan's work luring him away from God...
But he's appealed once and is now "exploring all avenues" for challenging this...
Do those two things really cohere??
Click to expand...

Yeah its like saying thou shalt not kill then singing onward Christian soldiers.

Because Religious belief has not fact or logic supporting it then often Religious opinions tend to be the same.
 
Even if there are clauses protecting religious beliefs in employment contracts, I can still ascertain whether or not I have fundamentalist theist as an applicant by asking the right questions and completely avoiding any mention of any religion of any kind. If the applicant will not sign the contract if it contains a clause in which they agree not to make adverse, vilifying or abusive statements about, towards or directed at the designated demographic groups listed, they are simply not going to be hired. I am the employer, and I get to choose who I employ. End...of...story!
 
Tallshort said:
Yeah its like saying thou shalt not kill then singing onward Christian soldiers.

Because Religious belief has not fact or logic supporting it then often Religious opinions tend to be the same.
Click to expand...
Or "go crusaders go"
 
smartcooky said:
Even if there are clauses protecting religious beliefs in employment contracts, I can still ascertain whether or not I have fundamentalist theist as an applicant by asking the right questions and completely avoiding any mention of any religion of any kind. If the applicant will not sign the contract if it contains a clause in which they agree not to make adverse, vilifying or abusive statements about, towards or directed at the designated demographic groups listed, they are simply not going to be hired. I am the employer, and I get to choose who I employ. End...of...story!
Click to expand...
In the article it was saying they wanted it to be illegal to have clauses that went against religious beliefs. So they wouldn't have to sign a contract that went against their beliefs.

Whether what they are saying could ever pass or not is a different story.

I guess it means you wouldn't be able to have clauses that said you must do tasks as instructed by your manager, because if your manager was female then clearly that's against some people's religious beliefs that a woman can tell a man what to do. So they'd have to say 'you must do tasks as instructed by your manager, unless your manager is female'. Or they could just not hire females as managers, which I'm sure would break other laws.

It's a contradiction. Either the discriminated has rights not to be discriminated against or the discriminator has rights to discriminate. You have to choose who has the rights if both are going to live in the same society.
 
Last edited:
Umaga's Witness said:
In the article it was saying they wanted it to be illegal to have clauses that went against religious beliefs. So they wouldn't have to sign a contract that went against their beliefs.

Whether what they are saying could ever pass or not is a different story.

I guess it means you wouldn't be able to have clauses that said you must do tasks as instructed by your manager, because if your manager was female then clearly that's against some people's religious beliefs that a woman can tell a man what to do. So they'd have to say 'you must do tasks as instructed by your manager, unless your manager is female'. Or they could just not hire females as managers, which I'm sure would break other laws.

It's a contradiction. Either the discriminated has rights not to be discriminated against or the discriminator has rights to discriminate. You have to choose who has the rights if both are going to live in the same society.
Click to expand...

I guess they are going to approach this in same way BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) is being done. And they are going to rationalise between discrimination and differentiation, based on law and socio-economic policies.

In some areas of work there are valid reasons for only employing females as an example, as opposed to men, whereas other areas the same could be said about religion or other forms of belief/status.

I think the issue would be more so about the more they try to broaden the area where it would be applicable, the harder it will become to sustain.
 
Something the religious rights lot consistently fail to justify is why religious beliefs should get a different treatment to any other belief. There is no justification, they should be treated the same way with no special exceptions made. You can guarantee that those who support "religious rights" would be some of the first to oppose those rights if exercised in the same way by one of those filthy heathen religions like Islam for example.
 
Umaga's Witness said:
In the article it was saying they wanted it to be illegal to have clauses that went against religious beliefs. So they wouldn't have to sign a contract that went against their beliefs.

Whether what they are saying could ever pass or not is a different story.

I guess it means you wouldn't be able to have clauses that said you must do tasks as instructed by your manager, because if your manager was female then clearly that's against some people's religious beliefs that a woman can tell a man what to do. So they'd have to say 'you must do tasks as instructed by your manager, unless your manager is female'. Or they could just not hire females as managers, which I'm sure would break other laws.

It's a contradiction. Either the discriminated has rights not to be discriminated against or the discriminator has rights to discriminate. You have to choose who has the rights if both are going to live in the same society.
Click to expand...
I guess that's why there is no religious discrimination act in the same way there is sex, race etc.

If you have a certain belief it should be up to you to do determine whether you are willing to take certain actions, including entering into a contract. It would be nigh on impossible to cater for the thousands of religious faiths, and millions of religious beliefs that exist.

We aren't a religious state. We specifically have rules regarding the separation of state and religion.

Izzy is just wrong. Sadly it may take a Supreme Court ruling to prove him so.
 
ragerancher said:
Something the religious rights lot consistently fail to justify is why religious beliefs should get a different treatment to any other belief. There is no justification, they should be treated the same way with no special exceptions made. You can guarantee that those who support "religious rights" would be some of the first to oppose those rights if exercised in the same way by one of those filthy heathen religions like Islam for example.
Click to expand...

I think this is more so in more conservative countries who only practice certain religions. I think in this case, South Africa has been more progressive than other countries as we see religion in the same category as other rights, and has also combined them together in our Bill of Rights. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and any other major religion is free to be practiced in SA. Yes we do have Mosque attacks and Church shootings, but it's a lot less than in other countries which I also think is why there are less religious extremists in our Country. Not only that, but because Crime in General is so high here, religious connections to crimes happens just way less. That, and the superstitions of the majority of the Black community in SA which mostly prevents these things from happening.

But before I digress too far in what I wanted to say. Conservatism towards religion and opposing other rights such as homosexuality, will moslty be found where less of the major religions are being practiced.

Same can be said in the Middle East where the rights of women are not equal to men.
 
Reports appeal to be filed over the next day or two.

Also reports he was looking to the NRL for a new contract. NRL exec's stance remains unchanged.
 

Latest posts

Top