Israel Folau back

Nano

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
17,938
Reaction score
2,968
How the Fuck that it was "acceptable" 10, 20 Or however long you want to put it, make it acceptable in any age, given what we understand about bigotry and its implications today.

You want to talk about "snowflakes" let's talk about snowflakes.

Banners in the city of a SECULAR country say "happy holidays" instead of "merry xmas" - snowflakes triggered

ONE cake in woolies that says "happy parents day" amongst 50 other cakes that say "happy fathers day" - snowflakes triggered

ONE type of Cadbury chocolate that says "chocolate eggs" amongst many other varieties of Cadbury chocolate that say "Easter eggs/chocolates" - snowflakes triggered

Big W buy cheap made fake trees from a Chinese manufacture (who ships those trees to many different countries ) which doesn't say "Christmas tree" on the packaging - snowflakes triggered

Ssm proponents arguing that the government should do ITS ELECTED JOB and have a vote in parliament to pass SSM without a plebiscite but snowflakes want their public say to make up all kinds of lying bullshit about lgbt community. And then certain government snowflakes who pushed for the plebiscite then refuse to vote because their electorate didn't vote the way they wanted (in fact this fuckwits electorate voted 73% in favour of ssm and this fuckwit like the piece of shit he is ran from parliament without voting)

When a radio shock jock makes misogynist comments and then receives a consumer backlash, snowflakes are triggered because of the backlash

But yeh sure snowflakes.

And yeh sure, we should go back 60 years in this country where indigenous people weren't even considered human, because it was "acceptable" back then
Hmmm you could say you seem alitte triggered there lmao 8-)8-)
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,735
Loss of rights? If I go to work and quote something homophobic on my Facebook profile and get fired, so you honestly think I would lose an unfair dismissal case in court? Of course not. Israel Folau shouldn’t either.
If you had your place of employment listed there, then yes quite possible.

And no it's not your loss of rights, you just admitted it was homophobic and you're trying to protect your "right" to abuse people. Your previous post made it quite clear that this isn't about equal rights to you, this is about having the "right " to denigrate others
 

Nano

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
17,938
Reaction score
2,968
Ok fine I'm triggered


Arrrrhrbeudn d3u hdh deiensheiehxndu2uj$^÷7÷&$€×£#;2€×&#&fucking fucking fuck Sam burgess the dumb ****
Knew it ya dog, it’s okay man release the trigger
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Hmmm you could say you seem alitte triggered there lmao 8-)8-)
He’s just being honest. It’s absurd how conservatives whinge about every little change in society they don’t like while going around calling anyone who leans even slightly to the left on any given issue snowflakes.
 
Last edited:

The 2nd Spitter

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
556
2. It doesn’t matter if he posted in his capacity as an ARU employee. He’s a public figure and willingly signed a social media policy as part of his central contract.
Irrelevant. He can write whatever he likes in his capacity as a member of his church.

3. His religious freedom has never been denied and that’s the central point we clearly can’t agree on. Folau was not punished because of his religion, he was punished because he is a bonehead who shared an incendiary post on social media.
You are writing nonsense. Furthermore, it it clear that you do not have a legal education, so why are you even purporting that you have a better insight into than people who do?

The Bible does NOT encourage followers to go around telling people that hell awaits them.
The following verses say you're wrong.
Mark 16:15-16
Matthew 28:19
2 Timothy 4:2
Jeremiah 1:5
2 Corinthians 2:14

No reasonable Christian would think staying true to their faith required them to share incendiary posts on social media ..... firstly, the Bible explicitly states people should not judge others for their sins lest they be judged themselves..
Guess what? You are wrong again.
Matthew 7:3-5 provides a parable where Jesus says that you should not judge hypocritically (i.e. committing the same sin you are judging others for.) It does not tell Christians not to judge at all.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 provides a parable that allows us to judge and discourage sin.
The post he shared did not contain a direct Bible verse - but rather, a very poor attempt at paraphrasing one.
It was close enough. Furthermore, it did not distinguish between liars, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc. So why is only offensive to homosexuals?
The original passage which inspired the post does not even mention Hell. It talks about the grace of God, but doesn’t make the slightest mention of Hell. Nowhere in the Bible does it say salvation is dependant on a person going around telling others they are Hellbound in an antagonistic manner....
This is called shifting the goalposts.
It may encourage Christians to talk about sin and the prospect of salvation to try to save souls, but it certainly doesn’t encourage people to tell others they are Hellbound in a way that is shallow and perfunctory and serves no constructive purpose.
More shifting of the goalposts.
 
Last edited:

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,261
Irrelevant. He can write whatever he likes in his capacity as a member of his church.


You are writing nonsense. Furthermore, it it clear that you do not have a legal education, so why are you even purporting that you have a better insight into than people who do?


The following verses say you're wrong.
Mark 16:15-16
Matthew 28:19
2 Timothy 4:2
Jeremiah 1:5
2 Corinthians 2:14


Guess what? You are wrong again.
Matthew 7:3-5 provides a parable where Jesus says that if you should not judge hypocritically (i.e. committing the same sin you are judging others for.) It does not tell Christians not to judge at all.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 provides a parable that allows us to judge and discourage sin.

It was close enough. Furthermore, it did not distinguish between liars, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc. So why is only offensive to homosexuals?

This is called shifting the goalposts.

More shifting of the goalposts.
Nicely put. It’s amazing how the left always wanna say oh a real Christian would accept anything and never judge. What a load of absolute garbage. Also Folau never attacked anyone, simply stating what’s his belief is not an attack merely a belief. If people are offended by something like heaven and hell which they don’t even believe in, you gotta ask the question wtf they’re triggered over.
Anyways Christ never accepted sin but accepted the sinner who turned away from sin example a homo turning away from getting poo on his pee pee
It’s qlwo amazing that the left seem to think it is ok to demonise anyone that doesn’t think what they think is normal as evil Nazis or along those lines. Preach tolerance yet practise intolerance is what they do. Knowingly and unknowingly.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Irrelevant. He can write whatever he likes in his capacity as a member of his church.


You are writing nonsense. Furthermore, it it clear that you do not have a legal education, so why are you even purporting that you have a better insight into than people who do?


The following verses say you're wrong.
Mark 16:15-16
Matthew 28:19
2 Timothy 4:2
Jeremiah 1:5
2 Corinthians 2:14


Guess what? You are wrong again.
Matthew 7:3-5 provides a parable where Jesus says that if you should not judge hypocritically (i.e. committing the same sin you are judging others for.) It does not tell Christians not to judge at all.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 provides a parable that allows us to judge and discourage sin.

It was close enough. Furthermore, it did not distinguish between liars, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc. So why is only offensive to homosexuals?

This is called shifting the goalposts.

More shifting of the goalposts.
He is certainly entitled to post what he likes on docile media as a member of his church, but that does NOT guarantee him immunity from being held to account by another employer. Especially considering he willingly signed a contract agreeing to conform with his employers social media policy.

Should not judge hypocritically? How’s this for hypocritical judgment - Folau’s post also condemned liars, as you mentioned .... he gave his word to rugby Australia after his first post that should he post something controversial and put RA in a difficult relationship with sponsors in the future, he would walk away.... yet here he is. I’d say that makes him a liar.

Show me a Biblical quote in which Jesus says anyone should go around threatening others with Hellfire in a perfunctory manner.... or any manner. What is the point of judging sin if not to attempt to turn people away from sin? Are you honestly trying to argue that Folau’s post was a constructive and meaningful attempt to turn people away from what he sees as a sinful lifestyle? Finger pointing memes or shared social media posts seldom change minds.

I’m shifting goalposts? That’s pretty rich coming from someone who is trying to point score with vague allusions to some sort of formal education on the subject and launching an ad hominem attack about your debating opponent’s lack of knowledge rather than demonstrating it through solid argument.

I never claimed to have any legal expertise, but I do have enough common sense to understand that RA acted on the advice of legitimate legal experts who were confident in their recommendation of the course of action which was taken by RA .... I also have enough common sense to see that there was no constructive reason for Folau to share that post, nor was doing so in any way vital to him maintaining his religious integrity. He wasn’t punished for being Christian, he was punished for sharing an unnecessarily divisive social media post for a second time after agreeing not to do so prior to extending his contract. His actions have not exactly been consistent with those of a man of his word.

Let’s see what the court decides, shall we? If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t be putting any money on Folau.
 
Last edited:

The 2nd Spitter

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
556
He is certainly entitled to post what he likes on docile media as a member of his church, but that does NOT guarantee him immunity from being held to account by another employer. Especially considering he willingly signed a contract agreeing to conform with his employers social media policy.
People sign contractrual terms which are void and illegal every day. The Word of God is greater than any man-made law.
Should not judge hypocritically? How’s this for hypocritical judgment - Folau’s post also condemned liars, as you mentioned .... he gave his word to rugby Australia after his first post that should he post something controversial and put RA in a difficult relationship with sponsors in the future, he would walk away.... yet here he is. I’d say that makes him a liar.
You are being incredibly disingenuous if you believe that Folau lied. He believes he is God's servant, exercising His will.
Show me a Biblical quote in which Jesus says anyone should go around threatening others with Hellfire in a perfunctory manner.... or any manner. What is the point of judging sin if not to attempt to turn people away from sin? Are you honestly trying to argue that Folau’s post was a constructive and meaningful attempt to turn people away from what he sees as a sinful lifestyle? Finger pointing memes or shared social media posts seldom change minds.
Rather than rebutting my authorities. you go back to your tried and trusted defense of shifting the goalposts.
I’m shifting goalposts? That’s pretty rich coming from someone who is trying to point score with vague allusions to some sort of formal education on the subject and launching an ad hominem attack about your debating opponent’s lack of knowledge rather than demonstrating it through solid argument.
How is it that you expect me to engage in civil debate with you, when your arguments don't flow in a logical sequence or rebuttal? Also, learn what "shifting the goalposts" means.
I never claimed to have any legal expertise,
Yet you are prepared to make sweeping and absurd legal generalisations like laws don't apply in the workplace.
but I do have enough common sense to understand that RA acted on the advice of legitimate legal experts who were confident in their recommendation of the course of action, which was taken by RA .
Lawyers are not infallible and often give incorrect advice. Especially when Castle was hellbent on making an example of Fo;au.
... I also have enough common sense to see that there was no constructive reason for Folau to share that post, nor was doing so in any way vital to him maintaining his religious integrity.
Yes, there was he wanted to stop gay people from going to hell by repenting, which as a Christian he is obligated to do.
He wasn’t punished for being Christian, he was punished for sharing an unnecessarily divisive social media post for a second time after agreeing not to do so prior to extending his contract. His actions have not exactly been consistent with those of a man of his word.
Yes, he was. He was fulfilling his duties as a Christian, to try and prevent people from going to hell by repenting, spreading the word of God.
Let’s see what the court decides, shall we? If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t be putting any money on Folau.
Whatever the court decides will be politically motivated, like the initial decision to punish Folau.
 

Howard Moon

Kennel Addict
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
3,445
Irrelevant. He can write whatever he likes in his capacity as a member of his church.


You are writing nonsense. Furthermore, it it clear that you do not have a legal education, so why are you even purporting that you have a better insight into than people who do?


The following verses say you're wrong.
Mark 16:15-16
Matthew 28:19
2 Timothy 4:2
Jeremiah 1:5
2 Corinthians 2:14


Guess what? You are wrong again.
Matthew 7:3-5 provides a parable where Jesus says that you should not judge hypocritically (i.e. committing the same sin you are judging others for.) It does not tell Christians not to judge at all.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 provides a parable that allows us to judge and discourage sin.

It was close enough. Furthermore, it did not distinguish between liars, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc. So why is only offensive to homosexuals?

This is called shifting the goalposts.

More shifting of the goalposts.

I think the difference is that the concept of hell or hades or whatever is much different to how it would have been viewed in Jesus' day... when we speak of 'Hell' now, people instantly think of a physical place... a fiery pit, or whatever, in the future... where as the ancients were more pointing towards the cause and effect of our actions, and how they affect us mentally and spiritually... so they wouldn't have been walking around threatening people with hell, the way that we see people do today, but more trying to save people from themselves
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
People sign contractrual terms which are void and illegal every day. The Word of God is greater than any man-made law.

You are being incredibly disingenuous if you believe that Folau lied. He believes he is God's servant, exercising His will.

Rather than rebutting my authorities. you go back to your tried and trusted defense of shifting the goalposts.

How is it that you expect me to engage in civil debate with you, when your arguments don't flow in a logical sequence or rebuttal? Also, learn what "shifting the goalposts" means.

Yet you are prepared to make sweeping and absurd legal generalisations like laws don't apply in the workplace.

Lawyers are not infallible and often give incorrect advice. Especially when Castle was hellbent on making an example of Fo;au.

Yes, there was he wanted to stop gay people from going to hell by repenting, which as a Christian he is obligated to do.

Yes, he was. He was fulfilling his duties as a Christian, to try and prevent people from going to hell by repenting, spreading the word of God.

Whatever the court decides will be politically motivated, like the initial decision to punish Folau.
You criticise me for lacking legal expertise and then have the audacity to say whatever decision is handed down by the actual experts will be politically motivated. Now THAT is a genuine example of shifting the goalposts. Using someone’s apparent lack of expertise against them as evidence they don’t know what they are talking about and then dismissing the opinions of actual legal experts who know more about the law than you do by claiming they are politically motivated. Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the meaning of the term before you start throwing it around. It’s not actually what I am doing at all. I have simply pointed out there was no constructive purpose to sharing the post Folau shared and I have been consistent in making that point throughout the course of my argument.... you say it is Folau’s Christian duty to try and save souls, I’m simply asking how you think any reasonable person could expect to save souls by sharing a post on social media? It’s a perfectly valid question and you are evading it because you can’t provide a convincing answer to it.

With all due respect, you have not responded coherently to any of the points I have made and debating you is clearly a complete waste of my time.

And lol at the suggestion I’m being disingenuous. He said he would do one thing and did another on several occasions. There’s no other word for someone who gives their word on something and doesn’t live up to it...He’s a LIAR.
 
Last edited:

Straight18

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
2,042
Reaction score
1,152
You're the fucken idiot mate. He has done nothing wrong other than trigger socialist snowflakes like yourself.

There is no need to nail him to the cross, it's just his opinion with which you can agree, disagree or dismiss. I'm sure you have plenty of your own fucked up opinions many disagree with.

You must be one of the alphabet people eventhough your name suggests you are straight. Don't get your lady knickers in a knot buddy.
Socialist snow flake.lol. im keen for a few schooiez in my home town and pub bud, social snowflake. Just dont put up with yuppie pricks that only care for themselves.....snowflake lol. If only u new me and grew up doing what i had too to survive princess. No mummies and cops to save ya.
Not sure what country u sailed in from. But us aussies, dont put up with shit like mr think of myself folau pulls.
He wants to play by his rules and his beliefs and make everything about him.
Hes best off back in tonga learning his heritage and climbing trees for fucking coconuts the baboom because no **** has obviosly told him why god truly put him on this planet. disrespectful overpaid shit starting ****.
Fucking told ya tonga would not have him
 

086

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
332
At the end fo the day, a company can not force you to or hold you to rights you've signed away.
Any contract drawn up doing so, is null and void.

If anyone thinks this is bullshit, ask yourself why every company doesn't contractually enforce you to exclusively use their goods/services when applicable...
Ask why they do not force you to become a devote follower of their religious beliefs, their sporting team/s of choice...

There simply are things that can not be signed away, otherwise shit like slavery would still be active, irrelevant if it is illegal, as the person agreed to the contract, wavering their legal protection from enslavement!
 

Dingo

Go the dogs
Gilded
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
5,324
Reaction score
4,976
Socialist snow flake.lol. im keen for a few schooiez in my home town and pub bud, social snowflake. Just dont put up with yuppie pricks that only care for themselves.....snowflake lol. If only u new me and grew up doing what i had too to survive princess. No mummies and cops to save ya.
Not sure what country u sailed in from. But us aussies, dont put up with shit like mr think of myself folau pulls.
He wants to play by his rules and his beliefs and make everything about him.
Hes best off back in tonga learning his heritage and climbing trees for fucking coconuts the baboom because no **** has obviosly told him why god truly put him on this planet. disrespectful overpaid shit starting ****.
Fucking told ya tonga would not have him
Wow, you don't only sound intolerant but a little bit racist too.
 

Dingo

Go the dogs
Gilded
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
5,324
Reaction score
4,976
At the end fo the day, a company can not force you to or hold you to rights you've signed away.
Any contract drawn up doing so, is null and void.

If anyone thinks this is bullshit, ask yourself why every company doesn't contractually enforce you to exclusively use their goods/services when applicable...
Ask why they do not force you to become a devote follower of their religious beliefs, their sporting team/s of choice...

There simply are things that can not be signed away, otherwise shit like slavery would still be active, irrelevant if it is illegal, as the person agreed to the contract, wavering their legal protection from enslavement!
Inalienable rights.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
At the end fo the day, a company can not force you to or hold you to rights you've signed away.
Any contract drawn up doing so, is null and void.

If anyone thinks this is bullshit, ask yourself why every company doesn't contractually enforce you to exclusively use their goods/services when applicable...
Ask why they do not force you to become a devote follower of their religious beliefs, their sporting team/s of choice...

There simply are things that can not be signed away, otherwise shit like slavery would still be active, irrelevant if it is illegal, as the person agreed to the contract, wavering their legal protection from enslavement!
Almost all workplaces require employees to show a certain level of diplomacy and respect for co-workers, or customers in customer service related fields. Employees are banned from wearing certain types of clothing, they are prohibited from saying certain things which may damage the company’s brand, they are in many cases, prohibited from using language in the workplace which may cause offence and they are bound to meet certain behavioural expectations which are laid out in the contracts they sign.

Employers can’t tell employees what to think or believe, but they can absolutely lay out certain behavioural expectations and social media policies are part of the fabric of modern working life. Perfectly legal, whether you like it, or not.
 
Top