Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Welcome to every day of my life man.why are you bringing me back to first year law. This isn't fun
Welcome to every day of my life man.why are you bringing me back to first year law. This isn't fun
Point remains.
A confidentiality agreement would be the kind of thing your talking about?Correcto. I am curious. Here you can usually contract out of a legislative right. I wonder if you can contract out of a constitutional right in the US? i guess probably not.
You are definitely missing the point.Not many follow that belief actually.
Hey true. Guess you can eh.A confidentiality agreement would be the kind of thing your talking about?
When those personal views are made in a public setting...
And includes discriminatory comments...
And those comments are in contrast to the policies set out by his employer.....
And violate the terms of his contract......
And he's received prior warning....
Then no, he does not have the right.... or rather, he does but has to face the consequences of his actions.
Look, it does happen. Christians in Australia lost their jobs because they tweeted that they were going to vote no in the gay marriage referendum. A Christian wedding photographer in Perth told gay customers that he was a no voter so that they had the option of hiring someone else they might be more comfortable with. He's been hauled before the state anti-discrimination commission and is having to go through an expensive and time-consuming legal process.
The Home Office in Britain refused asylum to an Iranian Christian refugee and quoted the Book of Revelations as evidence that he belonged to a "violent" religion and wouldn't fit in with British society. A popular takeaway chicken restaurant in America has been denied licenses to operate in two major airports because they were founded by Christians who donate to such radical, extremist Christian organisations like - erm, the Salvation Army. And so on.
So it's not something you can shrug off so easily. Anti-Christian bigotry is extremely fashionable among some quarters, and while it might be a stretch to call it persecution (at this stage, that is) that doesn't make it any less real or any less risible.
Bigotry in all its forms should be condemned, but as someone posted well up-thread, we've lost our tolerance for intolerance. I'd go further than that. We've become in some cases much more intolerant in the name of tolerance. That's just flat out perverse and wrong.
I think you'll find a lot of religious people will dispute that homosexuality is not a choice.Sorry mate, but being judged on your beliefs (including which religion you feel a part of) is not the same as being judged on your sexuality. At least in Australia, you are free to choose your religion and free to choose what you believe. So if you wind up believing stuff that other people consider daft, then there might be consequences of that, like being called daft. But you are always free to either hide your dumb views, or change them.
Homosexuals don't have that luxury. You don't choose to be gay, like you don't choose where you were born, and you don't choose your race.
If anything, "religion" is all too frequently used as a cover for people saying stupid shit wanting to avoid the consequences of doing so.
I think you'll find a lot of religious people will dispute that homosexuality is not a choice.
Not disagreeing but you can see where the issue lies.Yeah and they're wrong about that too. They believe all sorts of wild shit - that doesn't lend legitimacy to any of it.
You are definitely missing the point.
The point is that FP can say that he thinks religious beliefs are dumb because he's not contractually obliged not to. I mean, he could do so anyway, he would just be fired if he was contractually obliged not to.Inferring that Izzy or any Christian believes in the new earth theory just because some do is disparaging.
Someone could easily become offended because it seems like a stupid theory and infers all Christians are stupid.
Or someone could shrug it off as an ignorant comment.
A transgender woman in the States kicked up a big stink because an employee of a business called him Sir and not Mam. The employee must have thought he was a bloke in a dress even though he identified as a woman.
I'm not sure if that case made the courts but it was news worthy.
See ball-tampering saga.
Everyone's forgotten about that now though, I expect the same to occur with this scenario.
Here we go. Is that ridicule or intolerance?
We dare not be intolerant of the gay community, inclusivity is the catch cry, but Christianity is fair game.
...
- he cops a big fine, like 50k or so
- he has to have complete separation of his sporting career and his religious beliefs on social media while he is under contract.
....
The point is that FP can say that he thinks religious beliefs are dumb because he's not contractually obliged not to. I mean, he could do so anyway, he would just be fired if he was contractually obliged not to.
Clearly ridicule, I will tolerate anyone's rights to their opinion (and defend their right to have such opinion), but in no way should that tolerance infer I respect their ideas or beliefs
Some shit is just stupid
Folau is a member of a looney christian sect, I will defend his right to spout his crap, but i in no way respect his ideas.
Now if the gay community starts spouting looney crap, I get to call that out as well if i choose
Yeah but .
It's not a looneytune idea. He's quoting the Bible.
It's a normal Christian message to the world, that is, repent of one's sins, be forgiven and saved. Not all Christians are fervent evangelists but he obviously is.
In my opinion the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras has become completely stupid and over the top because it's become a family thing. Entertainment.
However, parents have the right to expose their kids to near naked people gyrating in public.
It's become socially acceptable.
From a legal point of view Im not sure if this is an open and shut case of breach of contract but then again I'm not a legal expert.
It does however open up a huge can of worms.