@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Folau was the one **who brought it up himself**, he's brought the politics into the sporting sphere himself and is a DH for doing so. He's entitled to his views, but as has been said on here before, he doesn't work for himself alone, he has an employer who has a public image linked to financial outcomes, and he is damaging that brand.
So Izzy is a DH because he puts himself first, cannot help but make public statements condemning certain lifestyles and generally hasn't learned to pull his stupid head in.
Plenty of Christians in our team as you note, who don't force their views or opinions into the public sphere. Also plenty of Christians who don't privately condemn homosexuals - it isn't all or nothing.
He was asked a question and gave **his honest opinion**.
I can't see how that is forcing his opinion on the public …. unlike the sponsors of his code.
It's funny how people spout inclusiveness yet are happy to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their views.
He was asked his opinion on instagram and he doesn't have to respond.
Smart folks say "no comment" or just don't engage with every troll who throws up a topical question.
What he in fact said is that homosexuals are going to hell. Not just "my religion teaches that homosexuality is immoral" or some such, they are going to hell.
Now imagine if Izzy had said "All Jews are going to hell, also black people. All babies born out of wedlock are going to hell and all adulterers and divorcees also." That may still in fact be his opinion.
What happens if Paul Gallen comes out tomorrow and says "I've always hated Polynesians, they smell like coconuts and I can't stand being anywhere near them".
All opinions, nothing expressly illegal. But not smart public commentary.
Sponsors are allowed to force opinions. They pay money for that right, they purchase the air time and the jersey space.
You miss the point totally, the rugby administration is not condemning him for his views, they are concerned about the damage he is doing to their brand, as an employee. And Folau doesn't seem to care, they've tried to be quiet about it and have some meetings to discuss how he might make his controversial opinions less public, and he won't do it. You don't want that crap in a football side, it's Jarryd Hayne all over again, player not just bigger than the team, but bigger than the code.
BTW he didn't just say homosexuals were going to hell, he ended up in an interview quoting the whole verse:
the sexually immoral
idolaters
adulterers
thieves
the greedy
drunkards
revilers
swindlers
all going to hell in a handbasket.
I’m trying to figure out if your trolling or not.
The bible has been around for approx 2000 years. It’s the number 1 best selling book of all time.
So your angry at him for quoting a verse from it? What do you think the verse was a secret before Folou quoted it.
Your calling him a DH is such a hypocritical comment. Surely you can see that.
He shares his beliefs. Your belief is he can’t share his and hence your belief is right so he is a DH.
You talk about sponsors pushing their views. I suggest you do a little work on the corporations act.
Directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders. I find it hard to believe that the best interests of share holders are met by a CEO promoting his personal beliefs by giving or withdrawing sponsorship based on another quoting the worlds number 1 selling book.
You advocate (perhaps accidentally) for a vastly different Australia to what we all enjoy today.
1\. corporates overriding personal beliefs
2\. Individuals can’t talk about what is important to them unless it’s vanilla or homogenised
Not trolling, not my style. If I was trolling, I'd be asking you where exactly the God-shaped hole is in my life, and what sort of shape that is? Rhombus? Frustum?
So just to be clear, I support freedom of speech. There's actually no Australian law to guarantee freedom of speech, not like in the American Constitution, so it's largely based on implied freedoms. But freedom to speak does not mean freedom of consequences - all public opinions and comments can be made subject to scrutiny, and if that happens to be uncomfortable, it's not persecution and legally employers do have the rights to saction or sack people.
Have a read of a few of these:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/right-to-freedom-of-speech-cannot-breach-employment-contract-20150430-1mwn9f.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/tweeting-public-servant-loses-last-bid-to-save-job-20130927-2uija.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/wilson-freedom-of-speech-isnt-freedom-from-consequences/6427158
So good luck to Izzy for speaking his mind, but he also needs to understand that the current social climate is not particularly supportive of his anti-homosexual stance, particularly evident with the gay marriage law change last year. I personally think Izzy is being a DH because he knows his public statements cause his employers grief, but he doesn't care. Understand: whether or not I agree with his comments is irrelevant, the point is he knows he is causing trouble and he does it anyway. This isn't even the first time Izzy's public opinions have caused him or the ARU trouble, and not even the first Australian sporting personality by a long shot.
You said it yourself, "Directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders." Too right. How many thousands of shareholders does the ARU have, and how many of those shareholders are named Israel Folau?
So to bring it back to the question of whether or not Izzy would be good for the Tigers? Hell no. We want stability at this club, we want players who bleed black/white/gold and do what is best for the club. We don't want players with personalities and agendas bigger than the club, who draw negative media and social attention to the club. Doesn't matter why he says what he says. Don't care how good a footballer he is, I believe Folau has a negative side to his public image which can damage the Tigers brand.
