News Folau case may send Rugby Australia broke.

[086]

It's like a good movie...a bit of everything.

Well, almost...
I came after someone else's tenure here had expired!

 

[The DoggFather]

You do have a right to disagree with her opinion, but she when she speaks facts and opinion, they are clearly distinguished. Her opinion in the below article is when she says that someone should have sacked that wasn't Folau - but she stats facts.

Now I know why Folau is so committed. He is a self hating homosexual. His "wife" is clearly a man.

 

[The DoggFather]

Key word being "opinion". Opinion isn't telling it like it is. It's telling your spin on it.

Goes back to one of my favourite sayings...

"Opinions are like clits, every **** has one" lol

 

[Wahesh]

It starts today.

#IStandWithIzzy

 

[FaceBreaker]

Hope he wins and Raelene is a broken woman who never recovers.

 

[Papa Emeritus]

Hope he loses. We will get some good entertainment out of that.

 

[Wahesh]

Hope he loses. We will get some good entertainment out of that.

How so? RA losing will be even funnier.

 

[Papa Emeritus]

How so? RA losing will be even funnier.

That would also be funny but for different reasons.

It is just of my opinion that Folau is acting like a dickhead and I think it would be funny if all of these people who donated to him lose their money with nothing to gain by supporting this dickhead.

Every workplace has social media policies, I wasn't even allowed to mention my last employer at all when I worked there. If I did I risked formal warnings and/or being sacked. So I abided by it and never talked about where I worked on Twitter etc, mentioned their products or anything like that. I could also be sacked or reprimanded for other certain things on there because people knew where I worked even without me saying it so then that could look like my workplace supported those views. So I did what any good employee does and followed the social media guidelines outlined by my employer and guess what? I never got sacked.

Folau had been warned, and chose to ignore it. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to me.

I am also of the opinion that if he felt so strongly about his beliefs, that he would fund his case with his own cash. A multi millionaire going out there and asking common folk for money just so he can sue for more money for himself without risking his own money, says a lot about his character.

Him losing would be a great laugh.

 

[Wahesh]

That would also be funny but for different reasons.

It is just of my opinion that Folau is acting like a dickhead and I think it would be funny if all of these people who donated to him lose their money with nothing to gain by supporting this dickhead.

Every workplace has social media policies, I wasn't even allowed to mention my last employer at all when I worked there. If I did I risked formal warnings and/or being sacked. So I abided by it and never talked about where I worked on Twitter etc, mentioned their products or anything like that. I could also be sacked or reprimanded for other certain things on there because people knew where I worked even without me saying it so then that could look like my workplace supported those views. So I did what any good employee does and followed the social media guidelines outlined by my employer and guess what? I never got sacked.

Folau had been warned, and chose to ignore it. Seems like a pretty open and shut case to me.

I am also of the opinion that if he felt so strongly about his beliefs, that he would fund his case with his own cash. A multi millionaire going out there and asking common folk for money just so he can sue for more money for himself without risking his own money, says a lot about his character.

Him losing would be a great laugh.

Quoting the bible isn't a crime, nor was it a breach of contract. If that isn't specifically outlined in his contract (and it wasn't) then no breach has been made.

Now I'm split regarding him asking the public for donations. The thing is that he was doing this for himself (yes), BUT... he was also doing it as a landmark case so it can set the path for any similar cases that may arise in the future.

I'm sure a lot of rich, powerful people would've donated the majority of the funds here too... it only took him what... 2 days to reach the total?

 

[Papa Emeritus]

Quoting the bible isn't a crime, nor was it a breach of contract. If that isn't specifically outlined in his contract (and it wasn't) then no breach has been made.

Now I'm split regarding him asking the public for donations. The thing is that he was doing this for himself (yes), BUT... he was also doing it as a landmark case so it can set the path for any similar cases that may arise in the future.

I'm sure a lot of rich, powerful people would've donated the majority of the funds here too... it only took him what... 2 days to reach the total?

Pretty sure his meme was not a direct quote from the bible, so I don't think that defence will hold up.

Yep took him something like 2 day to reach the total - twice over. The second time might have even been faster. I am sure plenty of rich people donated, but I guess religious people are all used to donating big sums to their religions so I am not surprised he got it so fast. I think it would be much more noble to just fund it yourself, or even if people donated without him asking...

 

[086]

Was not his meme.

 

[Papa Emeritus]

Was not his meme.

What does that change? Is he absolved because he didn't actually photoshop up the meme?

 

[086]

The information you had shared was incorrect.
I supplied the correct information.
Don't you value factual accuracy?

Also, there's a difference between sharing and creating something.
One would hope someone in your position would appreciate the difference!

 

[Rodzilla]

Quoting the bible isn't a crime, nor was it a breach of contract. If that isn't specifically outlined in his contract (and it wasn't) then no breach has been made

it has to be specifically outlined in his contract?

so if he ran over 3 cats and then cooked them live on facebook that is ok? rugby cant do anything because they didn't put it in his contract?

 

[Papa Emeritus]

The information you had shared was incorrect.
I supplied the correct information.
Don't you value factual accuracy?

Also, there's a difference between sharing and creating something.
One would hope someone in your position would appreciate the difference!

lol you are insufferable. Yes creating and sharing the meme is the same thing in this context. He tweeted X thing, it doesn't matter if he saved it from somewhere else vs creating it. He tweeted it from his own account.

 

[Flanagun]

Quoting the bible isn't a crime, nor was it a breach of contract. If that isn't specifically outlined in his contract (and it wasn't) then no breach has been made.

Now I'm split regarding him asking the public for donations. The thing is that he was doing this for himself (yes), BUT... he was also doing it as a landmark case so it can set the path for any similar cases that may arise in the future.

I'm sure a lot of rich, powerful people would've donated the majority of the funds here too... it only took him what... 2 days to reach the total?

He should try quoting one of the passages that references the meek.... but judging by the way he has acted he doesn’t place the same importance on those parts.

 

[Flanagun]

it has to be specifically outlined in his contract?

so if he ran over 3 cats and then cooked them live on facebook that is ok? rugby cant do anything because they didn't put it in his contract?

I think Rugby Australia would be ok with him running over cats as long as they were homophobic unfairly persecuted Christian cats..

 

[086]

lol you are insufferable. Yes creating and sharing the meme is the same thing in this context. He tweeted X thing, it doesn't matter if he saved it from somewhere else vs creating it. He tweeted it from his own account.

I'm pondering how to reply to a post that either is a deliberate troll, or a joke, as you seriously can't be that deluded in your belief, can you?

 

[Papa Emeritus]

I'm pondering how to reply to a post that either is a deliberate troll, or a joke, as you seriously can't be that deluded in your belief, can you?

How am I trolling? Explain to me what difference it makes if he created it vs just posting it? I can't wait for your explanation.

 

[Wahesh]

How am I trolling? Explain to me what difference it makes if he created it vs just posting it? I can't wait for your explanation.

There is quite a difference. It's like you're saying that sharing something or re-tweeting something is the same as the original post. That's not the case at all.

Regarding the context, perhaps it's different to what is actually quoted in the bible, however, the script is translated to what it would mean today.

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus form part of the Holiness code and list prohibited forms of intercourse, including the following verses:

• "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
• "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13