Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News



  • I heard the words religious martyr used today …are you kidding me …seriously

    Wonder whether Izzy will take up the fight for all people being persecuted for their religious beliefs worldwide

    Some have far bigger concerns than their rugby contracts Izzy



  • @pawsandclaws1 said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @avocadoontoast

    The renewed support for Folàu’s comes as Gillian Triggs the former Australian Human Rights Commissioner president, said she believed it was important to protect the rugby union star’s right to freedom of speech.

    For an overlay, it sure is creating a sufficient comment in the sMH

    I have absolutely no interest in dick measuring on a football found

    Look, you went hard at me because you thought you had a quote backing up what you were saying and you got a little excited. Sadly, not only did it not back up what you were saying, but in a cruel twist of fate it actually refuted it (there is an actual Triggs quote in my second post).

    So please, don’t get mad at me because you didn’t bother to take 2 minutes to research what she actually said.



  • @gallagher said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @Mccarry

    " this is what religious people do, they spread the word of God, however filthy and unsound it may appear."

    Agree on this part.

    I’m at offended by how you characterise my belief. I am adult enough to still endorse your right to express it publicly.

    Wait one sec…

    Oh, thanks. I just needed a second to get over the offence you caused. Turns out I didn’t need to organise a witch hunt of you. Nor did I need to drag your wife into it for supporting it.



  • @avocadoontoast My position on this issuei was posted a few pages back. The SMH reference was provided out of interest as it included an interview with an eminent Australian. I am not mad at you as you are a username on this forum. I understand this issue is emotive issue and one-upmanship is part of the game. I don’t play it



  • @avocadoontoast said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @pawsandclaws1 there is no right to freedom of speech in this country. We have no bill of rights and there is no protection to freedom of speech in the constitution.

    That is true, but we are a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 19 of which states:

    1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
    2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
    3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
    ( a ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    ( b ) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.



  • @Nelson they are optional protocols and non enforceable.



  • An interesting point was made to me today: many religious schools, and definitely Catholic ones, discriminate against employees on the basis of religious following. I.e. if you aren’t a demonstrably practising Catholic they won’t hire you.

    In 2018, a Baptist school in Perth fired a teacher after he came out.

    So why is it that Christian schools are permitted to fire or refuse to hire employees who don’t subscribe to their values system, but RA are not allowed to fire a Christian for not subscribing to their value system?

    So if Folau was to win his case against RA, then surely gay and non-practising teachers or students can say and post whatever they please, and the Catholic Church cannot touch them?



  • @avocadoontoast said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @Nelson they are optional protocols and non enforceable.

    They are not directly enforceable to the extent they have not been domestically implemented (and do not apply to the extent they directly conflict with domestic law), however they can and have been used to develop the common law (they were so used in Mabo) and can be used to assist in the resolution of ambiguities in domestic legislation. Ambiguities arise (or are claimed to arise) all the time…They are an important guide to the interpretation of rights in Australia.



  • @Mccarry said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @gallagher said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @Mccarry

    " this is what religious people do, they spread the word of God, however filthy and unsound it may appear."

    Agree on this part.

    I’m at offended by how you characterise my belief. I am adult enough to still endorse your right to express it publicly.

    Wait one sec…

    Oh, thanks. I just needed a second to get over the offence you caused. Turns out I didn’t need to organise a witch hunt of you. Nor did I need to drag your wife into it for supporting it.

    I was just agreeing with the article. The one you labelled quality journalism.



  • alt text



  • Whats this Folau story people are talking about?



  • @Tigerlily said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    alt text

    Oops you are going to hell, technically that picture is blasphemous.



  • @jirskyr said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @Tigerlily said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    alt text

    Oops you are going to hell, technically that picture is blasphemous.

    I think I’m safe, the guys from Monty Python are still with us…😅😅😁😁



  • @gallagher said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @Mccarry said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @gallagher said in Folau could be welcomed back - Sky News:

    @Mccarry

    " this is what religious people do, they spread the word of God, however filthy and unsound it may appear."

    Agree on this part.

    I’m at offended by how you characterise my belief. I am adult enough to still endorse your right to express it publicly.

    Wait one sec…

    Oh, thanks. I just needed a second to get over the offence you caused. Turns out I didn’t need to organise a witch hunt of you. Nor did I need to drag your wife into it for supporting it.

    I was just agreeing with the article. The one you labelled quality journalism.

    Exactly. You quoted an external source that you believe in that caused me offence 😉


Log in to reply
 

Recent Topics