Jump to content
Peter

Israel Folau

Recommended Posts

Seen it a bit lately. 

9733495D-DD9F-437D-8075-B3FB9E2D8BB6.jpeg

Edited by Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Peter said:

9733495D-DD9F-437D-8075-B3FB9E2D8BB6.jpeg

I've never gotten the 72 virgins in heaven thing (who does that appeal to?)  but 72 porn-stars in hell... bring it on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

I've never gotten the 72 virgins in heaven thing (who does that appeal to?)  but 72 porn-stars in hell... bring it on!

Imagine being on the receiving end of 72 awkward experiences ....

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

I've never gotten the 72 virgins in heaven thing (who does that appeal to?)  but 72 porn-stars in hell... bring it on!

You probably should specify your preference otherwise you could get 72 Ron Jeremy’s waiting for you. 

Or maybe that’s the “hell” part :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, roxii said:

You probably should specify your preference otherwise you could get 72 Ron Jeremy’s waiting for you. 

True... but unfortunately the Pope reckons that, so long as you're a normal decent person, even us atheists end up in heaven... so it looks like I'll have to get up to some shit if I want to hang out with the fornicators.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is lost on me......though I did see the inst post by Folau.

He should And will be sacked...... And Qantas should get rid of the Wallabies too. The Wallabies had the opportunity to sack him 12 months ago but gave him a warning and the re-signed him for 4 years.

Being sacked will not even make him think he did something wrong!

 

Edited by IronmanFoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

And Qantas should get rid of the Wallabies too. The Wallabies had the opportunity to sack him 12 months ago but gave him a warning and the re-signed him for 4 years.

I hadn't thought of this angle... I can't see Joyce being particular keen on being the main sponsor of a team where one of the stars makes public comments like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an interesting comment re this whole situation and how it's easy for people to be outraged so long as it doesn't affect their wallet

Seems Qantas CEO Alan Joyce who is openly homosexual is happy to work with Emirates Airlines, a national carrier for a country that imprisons people for being gay, yet threatens  a footy team because some dumbarse player posts some dumbarse offensive comment.

"We’re really supportive and a really big fan of the partnership we have with Emirates"

Got to love the power of money...?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, more said:

I read an interesting comment re this whole situation and how it's easy for people to be outraged so long as it doesn't affect their wallet

Seems Qantas CEO Alan Joyce who is openly homosexual is happy to work with Emirates Airlines, a national carrier for a country that imprisons people for being gay, yet threatens  a footy team because some dumbarse player posts some dumbarse offensive comment.

"We’re really supportive and a really big fan of the partnership we have with Emirates"

Got to love the power of money...?

 

One has to balance things obviously. You don't get to be the CEO of Qantas by being stupid so he knows what he's doing. Yeah he has to be friends with people who he doesn't like, having met him I am pretty certain his skin crawls when he has to shake hands with people who thing he is "subhuman" but that's business. However he will now have the opportunity to make a clear point in a deal which won't really cost them a lot of money. Change what you can, that's how good humans behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, re-read and I was wrong in my reading of what you posted. Anybody using the term "openly homosexual" which is a really weird thing to say needs to go have a word.

Edited by monkie
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, monkie said:

Sorry, re-read and I was wrong in my reading of what you posted. Anybody using the term "openly homosexual" which is a really weird thing to say needs to go have a word.

It's not a weird thing in this context and I'm not sure what you are getting at. Joyce has a husband and has been very vocal and open on being homosexual, there are plenty that aren't and keep it hidden.The point I was making he is open about it and an open advocate.

The point is as you said business is business and people quickly forget their outrage when they money is at stake. He could refuse to deal with Emirates or walk away to another airline that has no affiliation with them. He could even comment on their treatment of homosexuals.

But at its essence it all comes down to money. Or should we only choose when to get offended, only choose to severe ties in situations where there is no risk of financial harm?

Edited by more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are both knobs.

To me, the worse thing about todays times is social media. People being able to put this shit out there is too easily and the instant uptake of it. Do you think these comments would have made it into The Daily Telegraph or SMH 20 years ago?

Speaking of papers, I look at The Telegraph a few times a week and without fail, there are always 2 or 3 headlines about MAF. If this is the state of our nation these days, where headlines are about alleged 'reality shows'? It should be in TV Week or Womans Day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the world is weird. I often ponder things and the 'moral' stands people make-take Virgin Australia for example. They were happy to deal with Brunei Airlines while gay people were locked up and getting whipped, but drew the line at them being stoned to death and have as a result canceled their affiliation.

So locking up gay people is ok, but killing them is a bridge to far? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Izzy has done this to get out of his contract. 

Tipping he will be playing somewhere else soon for massive money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, softy said:

To me, the worse thing about todays times is social media. People being able to put this shit out there is too easily and the instant uptake of it. Do you think these comments would have made it into The Daily Telegraph or SMH 20 years ago?

 

... and their popularity in such mediums sees to be inversely proportionate to the actual good they provide to society. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, softy said:

To me, the worse thing about todays times is social media. People being able to put this shit out there is too easily and the instant uptake of it. Do you think these comments would have made it into The Daily Telegraph or SMH 20 years ago?

Speaking of papers, I look at The Telegraph a few times a week and without fail, there are always 2 or 3 headlines about MAF. If this is the state of our nation these days, where headlines are about alleged 'reality shows'? It should be in TV Week or Womans Day.

Ignoring the obvious that internet forums are a form of social media... (LOL)

I agree that facebook and twitter in particular has given a voice to morons that you would not have heard from before. However, it's a double-edged sword - now they get to publish and promote stupidity, bigotry, etc, that is offensive to most, but at the same time, now we have a better idea of how many of them are out there and what they are thinking. There are also pockets of positive from both FB and T, as well as their ability to act as an informal check on press propaganda - i.e. Murdoch - but all of them need to up their game in how they manage the obvious and blatant misuse of the technology.

Daily press has always appealed to the sensationalist and populist rather than any notional concept of reporting and investigation. However, Murdoch has much to answer for with his blatant use of the press to manipulate opinion and politics for his own commercial gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peter said:

Izzy has done this to get out of his contract. 

Tipping he will be playing somewhere else soon for massive money. 

Do they play football in Brunei?  There'd be a certain synergy to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qantas are waiting to see the outcome of Rugby Australia's review before making any decision. Obviously pushing for a very harsh stance by the ARU.

I wonder whether any action will be taken against his team-mates that "liked" the post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, more said:

It's not a weird thing in this context and I'm not sure what you are getting at. Joyce has a husband and has been very vocal and open on being homosexual, there are plenty that aren't and keep it hidden.The point I was making he is open about it and an open advocate.

The point is as you said business is business and people quickly forget their outrage when they money is at stake. He could refuse to deal with Emirates or walk away to another airline that has no affiliation with them. He could even comment on their treatment of homosexuals.

But at its essence it all comes down to money. Or should we only choose when to get offended, only choose to severe ties in situations where there is no risk of financial harm?

The term "open homosexual" is often used in a context that makes it a strange thing to say. I have heard it used in terms of "how dare they be *open* about it". Maybe you didn't mean it here, I would have used the term "advocate for gay rights".

And I don't really get your point... of course it comes down to money. Joyce is a CEO of an airline and has a responsibility to shareholders which he has to balance with his moral view point. The world isn't black and white. Believing it is is naive. People have to compromise the whole time, when the Queen met leaders of Sinn Fein for example, it's how the world works.

I don't like Brexit, that doesn't mean I don't work with people who do, I disagree with a whole load of tings that people do, I still have to work with them. I disagree with Qatar's stance on a whole host of things and Pakistan's too but I'm here in Islamabad having flown in on QR. Morals work like that, you make change where you realistically can and make a stand when it's practical to do so. 

In this instance Qantas probably wouldn't lose much by dropping the wallabies, it's a completely different business choice to major international airline alliances. And it's nothing to do with being "offended" it's about when you choose to do something about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Prince said:

It’s not the wallabies fault though.  

No but if one of their players brings them into disrepute then they will face consequences. If they get rid of him and make a clear statement about how they believe what he said was unacceptable then they would have an argument for continuing the relationship. If they fudge it up then I hope Qantas demonstrate that actions have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, monkie said:

The term "open homosexual" is often used in a context that makes it a strange thing to say. I have heard it used in terms of "how dare they be *open* about it". Maybe you didn't mean it here, I would have used the term "advocate for gay rights".

And I don't really get your point... of course it comes down to money. Joyce is a CEO of an airline and has a responsibility to shareholders which he has to balance with his moral view point. The world isn't black and white. Believing it is is naive. People have to compromise the whole time, when the Queen met leaders of Sinn Fein for example, it's how the world works.

I don't like Brexit, that doesn't mean I don't work with people who do, I disagree with a whole load of tings that people do, I still have to work with them. I disagree with Qatar's stance on a whole host of things and Pakistan's too but I'm here in Islamabad having flown in on QR. Morals work like that, you make change where you realistically can and make a stand when it's practical to do so. 

In this instance Qantas probably wouldn't lose much by dropping the wallabies, it's a completely different business choice to major international airline alliances. And it's nothing to do with being "offended" it's about when you choose to do something about it. 

I can't say I agree at all. People picking when to do the morally right thing and excusing it other times doesn't sit with me well at all, they are just cowards, picking 'fights' with the smaller guy they know they can beat. If something isn't right it isn't right, you don't choose when to turn a blind eye. 

Buts I see we agree, it all comes down to money...people sell their souls for it.

History is full of self righteous cowards, look at how many were happy to turn a blind eye to the Nazis initially as it was all to hard...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, more said:

I can't say I agree at all. People picking when to do the morally right thing and excusing it other times doesn't sit with me well at all, they are just cowards, picking 'fights' with the smaller guy they know they can beat. If something isn't right it isn't right, you don't choose when to turn a blind eye. 

Ah if it were so simple. So the Queen agreeing to meet Sinn Fein was because she was a coward?? The logic doesn't hold up. I wish it were that simple but you can't change everything all at once, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change some things. Control the controllables. Make change where you can. Wield the influence and power you have for good but be realistic about what you can achieve. It's how grown ups have to get things done and it goes for everything from business to international diplomacy.

China, many places in the Middle East, the Phillipines, Singapore.... all those countries have dubious human rights records (and current practices) should Australia boycott them? Thereby damaging the living standards of millions of people? No. They do business with them and wield what influence they can to improve them.

In your world we should divide everybody into "good" by whatever moral judgement we choose to use and "bad" and we should spurn the latter and only work with the former. That sounds bonkers.

And please don't start comparing the CEO of Qantas to Nazi sympathisers, that's a bit lame.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, more said:

I read an interesting comment re this whole situation and how it's easy for people to be outraged so long as it doesn't affect their wallet

Seems Qantas CEO Alan Joyce who is openly homosexual is happy to work with Emirates Airlines, a national carrier for a country that imprisons people for being gay, yet threatens  a footy team because some dumbarse player posts some dumbarse offensive comment.

"We’re really supportive and a really big fan of the partnership we have with Emirates"

Got to love the power of money...?

 

Two different things...... one is a business arrangement. The other is a sponsor attangement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Qantas are waiting to see the outcome of Rugby Australia's review before making any decision. Obviously pushing for a very harsh stance by the ARU.

I wonder whether any action will be taken against his team-mates that "liked" the post?

They are idiots too. I get copied on many posts (Facebook/Instagram) where people have political statements. I don’t hit like for no reason. In fact in a less controlled public forum like Facebook I rarely hit like....... the reason being and I say this to my daughter all the time....... it is a footprint (your history) which employers and uni’s etc check to gauge prospective employees and students.

Do these rugby players most understand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, monkie said:

Ah if it were so simple. So the Queen agreeing to meet Sinn Fein was because she was a coward?? The logic doesn't hold up. I wish it were that simple but you can't change everything all at once, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change some things. Control the controllables. Make change where you can. Wield the influence and power you have for good but be realistic about what you can achieve. It's how grown ups have to get things done and it goes for everything from business to international diplomacy.

China, many places in the Middle East, the Phillipines, Singapore.... all those countries have dubious human rights records (and current practices) should Australia boycott them? Thereby damaging the living standards of millions of people? No. They do business with them and wield what influence they can to improve them.

In your world we should divide everybody into "good" by whatever moral judgement we choose to use and "bad" and we should spurn the latter and only work with the former. That sounds bonkers.

And please don't start comparing the CEO of Qantas to Nazi sympathisers, that's a bit lame.

Gee talk about putting words in my mouth. Anyway you have repeatedly confirmed my musings that people's morals have a price. I have no opinion on if this is right or wrong, just an interesting observation.

As for the Nazis comment-i never used to to compare Joyce to a Nazi sympathiser, i used it as an example of people looking the other way. 

It's funny, people never really change from when they are kids. I can remember in highschool year 12, this big bully who had it in for this other kid who was about 40kg sopping wet. Everyone turned a blind eye, instead choosing the 'fights they could win', where they could make a difference I guess.

I couldn't stand it and warned this piece of shit if be didn't back off I'd hit him. He laughed and the next day he spat at this little kids face (this was one of the nicer things this guy had done...) in front of me. I went up and broke his nose.

I got suspended and the other guy expelled after getting his older brother to chase me home waving a baseball bat.

The principle 'off the record' thanked me and apologized for having to suspend me.

The victim of the bully was in tears thanking me, and still to this day contacts me occasionally. I know I made a difference in his life.

I wonder if the victims arround the world would share your view that we should only make changes where you can, where it's easy...like grown ups?

Edited by more
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

Two different things...... one is a business arrangement. The other is a sponsor attangement. 

Yeah but if I was a supplier to Qantas and had a business arrangement for example and posted something similar online you can bet the agreement would also be terminated. So really no difference. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be sacked.

Edited by more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/04/2019 at 5:14 PM, Peter said:

Seen it a bit lately. 

9733495D-DD9F-437D-8075-B3FB9E2D8BB6.jpeg

Maybe I'm getting a little slow in my old age but if this was what Izzy posted then I don't see anything especially homophobic in this.  I don't see hate in there at all. Its pretty much standard Judaeo-Christian teaching and has been for a long, long time.   

If you truly believe in the Christian faith  then you'll probably agree with what he posted.  If you don't then you probably won't.

Realistically, whats going on here is no better than the Salem Witch trials back in ye olde times

AJ

Edited by -- AJ --
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

Maybe I'm getting a little slow in my old age but if this was what Izzy posted then I don't see anything especially homophobic in this.  I don't see hate in there at all. Its pretty much standard Judaeo-Christian teaching and has been for a long, long time.   

If you truly believe in the Christian faith  then you'll probably agree with what he posted.  If you don't then you probably won't.

AJ

Mehhhhh it's easier to be outraged at some stupid rugby player than a whole region that actually imprisons, canes and even has the death penalty for gays ;)

"Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights are heavily suppressed in the emirates of Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Ras al-Khaimah, Umm Al Quwain, Ajman, Fujairah and Sharjah, which together form the United Arab Emirates. All sexual relations outside a heterosexual marriage is a crime. Punishments range from jail time, floggings, beatings, torture, death"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, softy said:

 

To me, the worse thing about todays times is social media. People being able to put this shit out there is too easily and the instant uptake of it. 

Are you talking about Corky being back on Instagram?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, softy said:

To me, the worse thing about todays times is social media. People being able to put this shit out there is too easily and the instant uptake of it. 

What’s worse is that people who have a profile, like sportspeople now have a platform via (Twitter, Facebook etc etc) to push there obscured views and thoughts and think they can push there views. They have no authority, there is no controls of what they say and what’s even worse is people actually believe and follow these idiots.

I wonder what would happen should a follower take advice which leads to a negative impact. Ie: a loss of life or even pushing an investment that goes pear shaped is fraudulent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, more said:

It's funny, people never really change from when they are kids. I can remember in highschool year 12, this big bully who had it in for this other kid who was about 40kg sopping wet. Everyone turned a blind eye, instead choosing the 'fights they could win', where they could make a difference I guess.

I couldn't stand it and warned this piece of shit if be didn't back off I'd hit him. He laughed and the next day he spat at this little kids face (this was one of the nicer things this guy had done...) in front of me. I went up and broke his nose.

I got suspended and the other guy expelled after getting his older brother to chase me home waving a baseball bat.

So what did you do about every single other bully in the world? By your own logic you should have taken them on too or not taken on a single one... This completely proves my point. You took action where you could make a difference. Well done. That's what I am saying we should all do. Take action where you can.

The definition of "can" is a moveable feast and certainly open for debate. But the idea that you shouldn't change one thing if you can't change everything (which you've also said before in other discussions) is not sensible as far as I can see.

 

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, -- AJ -- said:

Maybe I'm getting a little slow in my old age but if this was what Izzy posted then I don't see anything especially homophobic in this.  I don't see hate in there at all. Its pretty much standard Judaeo-Christian teaching and has been for a long, long time.   

That's largely beside the point, and the real issue in this case needs to be more in focus.

This is not actually a so-called "freedom of speech" issue, but an employment contract issue.

He is getting paid a shit-load of money by the ARU and part of his contract stipulates that he won't post such things on social media - i.e. he signed an agreement that he wouldn't do it, in order to be part of the team and get paid a lot of money by his employer.

If the ARU don't act and revoke his contract, they are essentially indicating that discipline conditions in their contracts are worthless and setting a precedent that will be used against them in the future.

He is free to keep posting this shit if he wants to, but there is a cost associated with it that he must choose to accept.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was in the nrl he’d be okay.  

You can piss in your own mouth, text sex videos or have sex with dogs and they are fine with that. 

 

Edited by Peter
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, -- AJ -- said:

Maybe I'm getting a little slow in my old age but if this was what Izzy posted then I don't see anything especially homophobic in this.  I don't see hate in there at all. Its pretty much standard Judaeo-Christian teaching and has been for a long, long time.   

If you truly believe in the Christian faith  then you'll probably agree with what he posted.  If you don't then you probably won't.

^ This. Seriously, I fall into a few of these categories but it doesn't bother me in the least what he said. It's just a bunch of words by an idiot footballer. Australia have many friends who offer far worse punishments but we seem comfortable to snuggle up with them. Qantas and Emirates is an interesting arrangement and Alan Joyce doesn't seem bothered by that.

 

2 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

This is not actually a so-called "freedom of speech" issue, but an employment contract issue.

He is getting paid a shit-load of money by the ARU and part of his contract stipulates that he won't post such things on social media - i.e. he signed an agreement that he wouldn't do it, in order to be part of the team and get paid a lot of money by his employer.

If the ARU don't act and revoke his contract, they are essentially indicating that discipline conditions in their contracts are worthless and setting a precedent that will be used against them in the future.

He is free to keep posting this shit if he wants to, but there is a cost associated with it that he must choose to accept.

That's an interesting take on it and I think you're right. The problem is this is projected as 'hate speech' vs 'freedom of speech' and the contractual argument is simply ignored. The simplest thing for the ARU to say is he's breached our rules and his contract has been terminated - they don't even have to publicly state why.

On a general point, I don't see it as hate speech. he's just stating what his sky fairy teaches him. If the world had more atheists this wouldn't be an issue because we know it's all bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

This is not actually a so-called "freedom of speech" issue, but an employment contract issue.

He is getting paid a shit-load of money by the ARU and part of his contract stipulates that he won't post such things on social media - i.e. he signed an agreement that he wouldn't do it, in order to be part of the team and get paid a lot of money by his employer..

Unless he had a special clause stating he couldn't post his religious beliefs, I'd be suspecting that his contract probably stipulates that he won't bring the game into disrepute.  Hard to see how repeating mainline religious theology could possibly do that.

But then "Bringing the game into Disrepute" is a huge grey area with shifting boundaries defined by whatever the "powers that be" decide is against their interests in the game.

Maybe the ARU is worried that if Izzy is correct then the game played in heaven won't be watched by its major sponsor.

AJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, monkie said:

So what did you do about every single other bully in the world? By your own logic you should have taken them on too or not taken on a single one... This completely proves my point. You took action where you could make a difference. Well done. That's what I am saying we should all do. Take action where you can.

The definition of "can" is a moveable feast and certainly open for debate. But the idea that you shouldn't change one thing if you can't change everything (which you've also said before in other discussions) is not sensible as far as I can see.

 

lol it doesn't prove you point at all. If ever I came across bullies I have always stood up to them whilst other cowards hide away.  Alan Joyce is a coward-he has the opportunity to do some something about one of the biggest bullies in the world who actually harm gays, yet he would prefer to protect his hip pocket and pick on guys of no consequence like this rugby player..

QANTAS doesn't have to have an alliance with an airline that imprisons gays, and the airline doesn't have to fly through the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, -- AJ -- said:

Unless he had a special clause stating he couldn't post his religious beliefs, I'd be suspecting that his contract probably stipulates that he won't bring the game into disrepute.  Hard to see how repeating mainline religious theology could possibly do that.

He had a special condition written into his contract, when it was renewed after the last episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XCOM.! said:

He had a special condition written into his contract, when it was renewed after the last episode.

So the media says.  I wonder if it's actually true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

lol it doesn't prove you point at all. If ever I came across bullies I have always stood up to them whilst other cowards hide away.  Alan Joyce is a coward-he has the opportunity to do some something about one of the biggest bullies in the world who actually harm gays, yet he would prefer to protect his hip pocket and pick on guys of no consequence like this rugby player..

QANTAS doesn't have to have an alliance with an airline that imprisons gays, and the airline doesn't have to fly through the middle east.

Why not sell your house, quit your job and go deal with all the bullies though? Is it because you are a coward? Or protecting your hip pocket? No, it's because you live in the real world where things aren't always as you like them. This is the same, Joyce cannot act with impunity. He has shareholders and employees that he has a responsibility to in the same way you have a responsibility to yourself and your family 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me - he is saying that all those in his list are choices people make & by acting on those choices you'll be damned

Homosexuality is not a choice or a lifestyle.  It is how a person is. Thats it.

 I know homosexual, lesbians et al have a very difficult life. Nothing is ever easy -from applying to rent a house, a bank loan to  offering to be a blood donor.  Its hard. This is stuff that some people can access or do without being quizzed then judged on their sexual preferences compared to other people that are quizzed, judged then very often refused just because of their sexual preferences. 

This is why I dont like his post

Edited by Surfer
Sp
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Surfer said:

For me - he is saying that all those in his list are choices people make & by acting on those choices you'll be damned

Homosexuality is not a choice or a lifestyle.  It is how a person is. Thats it.

 I know homosexual, lesbians et al have a very difficult life. Nothing is ever easy -from applying to rent a house, a bank loan to  offering to be a blood donor.  Its hard. This is stuff that some people can access or do without being quizzed then judged on their sexual preferences compared to other people that are quizzed, judged then very often refused just because of their sexual preferences. 

This is why I dont like his post

Don't have to be gay to make that hard, just a Pom in the 80s :wink3:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatPom said:

Don't have to be gay to make that hard, just a Pom in the 80s :wink3:

I knew a mad cow, and by coincidence she was in England in the 80's.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FatPom said:

Don't have to be gay to make that hard, just a Pom in the 80s :wink3:

Agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peter said:

So the media says.  I wonder if it's actually true.

Interesting article in today’s paper suggest 2 of the 4 major sponsors will walk if Folau stays. And they are also suggesting that The Waallbies already make a loss and if those 2 sponsors go, then so will rugby!

I am guessing those 2 sponsors would be Qantas and Asics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FatPom said:

Don't have to be gay to make that hard, just a Pom in the 80s :wink3:

Or an Aussie on a working holiday in London. Moooooooooooooo. 🐮

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like Falou is challenging Rugby Aust for his sacking.    I have no doubt he has a pretty solid case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Prince said:

looks like Falou is challenging Rugby Aust for his sacking.    I have no doubt he has a pretty solid case.

Whilst it was a shit thing to post, he could claim he was sacked to to his religious beliefs and that can end well for rugby Australia.  

Imagine if the commonwealth bank sacked someone for their religious beliefs and comments. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a "freedom of speech" thing. He wasn't arrested and thrown in jail.

He signed a contract. He has allegedly breached that contract OR the Rugby Australia's Code of Conduct. He signed that contract and in acceptance of said contract took an amount of money reported to be $4 million.

He wasn't asked to not be religious. He wasn't sacked for his beliefs.

He also needs to do some homework on homosexuals and what is written in the bible. Find me a passage that says a woman can't have a relationship with another woman...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rugby Union Australia Code of Conduct

Quote

3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

https://www.rugbyau.com/-/media/rugbyau/documents/rugbyaucodeofconduct.pdf?la=en&hash=8EE8F8D77E02DE7F1ED033BDC50F2AD8

Good luck fighting that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...