Aussie Rugby player to be fired for hateful Biblical quoting (Islam, Muslims)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Israel Folau, high profile Australian rugby player.
This in particular on social media:
RA’s integrity unit was investigating Folau after he took to Instagram to proclaim hell awaits “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters”.
This is directly quoting the Biblical stance on these matters, but is too offensive for a secular society.
Very strange world we live in, where freedom of religion is supposedly allowed, but anything quoted in a biblical sense could be seen as not PC friendly.
Quoting the Bible vilifies people apparently.
Israel Folau is a devout Mormon Christian, and does not even drink alcohol due to his beliefs. (that's one thing I would never have in common with him). This is Secularism gone mad.
No.
It's a business protecting itself by requiring a minimum level of personal conduct that this hateful idiot violated.
Personal conduct clauses (also known as morals clauses) are ubiquitous in team sports and for celebrities in general. For example, consider the NFL:
Quote:
National Football League SPC
Par. 2: EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES. Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player
accepts such employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct
himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional
football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.
Par. 11: SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. …If at any time, in the sole judgment of Club,…if
Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on
Club, then Club may terminate this contract.
Par. 15: INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional
football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the…integrity and good
character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he…is guilty of
any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental
to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after
giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his
choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or
indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.
Ask Tiger Woods about the tens of millions he lost when Gatorade and various other sponsors terminated their contracts with him in 2009 after he did nothing unlawful but completely obliterated his personal brand. Ask Mel Gibson about the miniseries contract that he had with ABC, which ABC cancelled after Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic tirade. Ask Gilbert Gottfried about the issue - Gottfried's contract with AFLAC (he used to voice the duck) was cancelled by the insurance company after he made several jokes about the 2011 tsunami that devastated Japan (where AFLAC does most of its business).
Personal conduct clauses are common even in the non-celebrity world. When I worked in IT at a large well-known company, I had to abide by one. It wasn't tailored to me (sports contracts are often unique to the player) but it was part of my work agreement. My wife, a public school teacher, has a laundry list of perfectly legal behaviors (including all manner of commentary) to avoid lest her employment be jeopardized. Fortunately, most people are decent and avoid such things because they're decent and not because of some contractual obligation.
What you are doing is trying to spin this specific case as 'secularism' when it obviously is just another example of an employer enforcing a morals clause. Just another example of theists who think that their theism deserves special rules.
And let's be honest - if this was some Muslim athlete quoting a part of the Quran about putting the sword to infidels (or some similar hateful nonsense, which that book has just as does the Bible) then you'd have never started this thread.
Do they have the right to "freedom of religion" in Australia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, it is based on the US First Amendment.
While I am not familiar with the particulars of Australia's laws on religious freedom, I will note that the First Amendment restricts only actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended such restrictions to lower levels of government. But this case is about a private company's actions, not government action. Various civils rights laws, not the Constitution, govern what an employer can and cannot mandate.
If my job is a weatherman on the nightly news, and instead of talking about the weather I start proselytyzing, my employer can fire me. If I work writing technical documentation for a computer company, and instead I produce Biblical pamphlets, my employer can fire me. Beyond that, if I sign a contract wherein I specifically agree to certain terms and I then violate those terms, I can be fired. No one put a gun to this rugby player's head and forced him to sign a contract wherein his employment was conditional upon not damaging his employer's brand. He did that of his own volition.
No one is preventing this man from being a Christian. No one is preventing him from opining out loud that certain people are hellbound.
He is free to practice his religion and to loudly quote whatever he wants from whatever ancient book he so desires. However, he is not free from the personal or social consequences that might ensue from that, and only a fool would think that he should be able to sign a contract in which he agrees to abide by certain terms, and then violate those terms without consequence.
Note:
I'm not directing this commentary at you two, but instead am just clarifying what the Free Exercise Clause entails.
but at least they are sorta earning it by their talents, rather than just swindling and scamming.
I'd rather see those people go to jail than even this twit and his whackdoodle opinions be thrown off the game.
Like the "bookmakers" and other folks involved in illegal sports betting and other various unsavory profit avenues (steroids/performance enhancing drugs/having games "thrown"/etc.) that revolve around major sports?
Like the "bookmakers" and other folks involved in illegal sports betting and other various unsavory profit avenues (steroids/performance enhancing drugs/having games "thrown"/etc.) that revolve around major sports?
There are indeed cheaters and scammers around all manner of activities. We have Rules and to break them incurs penalties, even if you or I may not see them as particularly disgraceful. This is human morality. Rules are put in place and people should know what they are and know what will happen if they get caught breaking them.
But (for me, at least) that this fellow was a sportsman isn't really the issue. It is the extent to which telling people they are going to hell becomes 'hate -speech'. I don't doubt that this would never have been noticed if he wasn't a high -profile sportsman, but he is (or was ) and thus an Example being made is quite handy for us goddless bastards; a Precedent. This can be done and has been done.
That it will cause Australia to lose the Rugby world cup is no excuse, no more than 'You can't jail our candidate for fraud, corruption and slander! We need him to win the election!' Banks are too big to be allowed to fail but individuals are not. Nor Rugby teams.
I think the bigger picture is being overlooked/ignored here, focusing on sub-issues.
I mean, we have a bunch of grown men here getting paid millions of dollars to throw, catch, chase around and tackle one another over an object that resembles and has the consistency of a large oblong shaped stale fruitcake...
Ever attended a professional sporting event?
Or bought an album? ('a bunch of guys yelling and banging on instruments', to channel your spin)
Or watched a movie or TV show? ('a bunch of people standing around in front of cameras playing pretend')
Then you've contributed your share of dollars to the massive mounds of cash on which these people sit.
It's a business protecting itself by requiring a minimum level of personal conduct that this hateful idiot violated.
Personal conduct clauses (also known as morals clauses) are ubiquitous in team sports and for celebrities in general. For example, consider the NFL:
Ask Tiger Woods about the tens of millions he lost when Gatorade and various other sponsors terminated their contracts with him in 2009 after he did nothing unlawful but completely obliterated his personal brand. Ask Mel Gibson about the miniseries contract that he had with ABC, which ABC cancelled after Gibson's drunken anti-Semitic tirade. Ask Gilbert Gottfried about the issue - Gottfried's contract with AFLAC (he used to voice the duck) was cancelled by the insurance company after he made several jokes about the 2011 tsunami that devastated Japan (where AFLAC does most of its business).
Personal conduct clauses are common even in the non-celebrity world. When I worked in IT at a large well-known company, I had to abide by one. It wasn't tailored to me (sports contracts are often unique to the player) but it was part of my work agreement. My wife, a public school teacher, has a laundry list of perfectly legal behaviors (including all manner of commentary) to avoid lest her employment be jeopardized. Fortunately, most people are decent and avoid such things because they're decent and not because of some contractual obligation.
What you are doing is trying to spin this specific case as 'secularism' when it obviously is just another example of an employer enforcing a morals clause. Just another example of theists who think that their theism deserves special rules.
And let's be honest - if this was some Muslim athlete quoting a part of the Quran about putting the sword to infidels (or some similar hateful nonsense, which that book has just as does the Bible) then you'd have never started this thread.
I have no problem with behaviour or moral clauses, esp in the cases of drunken disorderly or offensive conduct in public or the like, which is something Rugby players are more likely to be associated with.
Even domestic violence and any other criminal activity is unacceptable for a sports star, and will result in them having their contracts terminated.
But expressing ones religious views is pretty low on the range of things to be fired for.
Yes he was dumb for doing so, but this should not be a hanging offence.
I have no problem with behaviour or moral clauses, esp in the cases of drunken disorderly or offensive conduct in public or the like, which is something Rugby players are more likely to be associated with.
Even domestic violence and any other criminal activity is unacceptable for a sports star, and will result in them having their contracts terminated.
But expressing ones religious views is pretty low on the range of things to be fired for.
Yes he was dumb for doing so, but this should not be a hanging offence.
What about expressing one's racist views? Is one better than the other? Is being anti atheists acceptable and anti semetic not? The Dixie Chick's were all but banned from radio because one of them said she was embraced an out George Bush coming from Texas.
This rugby player was not hanged nor was he jailed. If I lived in Australia and was a rugby fan I would not go to any games he played in due to his statement. If enough fans felt this the team would lose revenues. Is it fair for the owner of the team to lose revenues so that player can rant against anyone he wishes to? He didn't state just any religious views but those he feels deserve to go to hell. He can still go on ranting against anyone he pleases to. He just won't have a large salary and the spotlight on him playing the sport.
While I am not familiar with the particulars of Australia's laws on religious freedom, I will note that the First Amendment restricts only actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended such restrictions to lower levels of government. But this case is about a private company's actions, not government action. Various civils rights laws, not the Constitution, govern what an employer can and cannot mandate.
If my job is a weatherman on the nightly news, and instead of talking about the weather I start proselytyzing, my employer can fire me. If I work writing technical documentation for a computer company, and instead I produce Biblical pamphlets, my employer can fire me. Beyond that, if I sign a contract wherein I specifically agree to certain terms and I then violate those terms, I can be fired. No one put a gun to this rugby player's head and forced him to sign a contract wherein his employment was conditional upon not damaging his employer's brand. He did that of his own volition.
No one is preventing this man from being a Christian. No one is preventing him from opining out loud that certain people are hellbound.
He is free to practice his religion and to loudly quote whatever he wants from whatever ancient book he so desires. However, he is not free from the personal or social consequences that might ensue from that, and only a fool would think that he should be able to sign a contract in which he agrees to abide by certain terms, and then violate those terms without consequence.
Note:
I'm not directing this commentary at you two, but instead am just clarifying what the Free Exercise Clause entails.
Thank you for clarifying, I only knew the basics and that it was somehow more complicated there.
I have no problem with behaviour or moral clauses, esp in the cases of drunken disorderly or offensive conduct in public or the like, which is something Rugby players are more likely to be associated with.
Even domestic violence and any other criminal activity is unacceptable for a sports star, and will result in them having their contracts terminated.
But expressing ones religious views is pretty low on the range of things to be fired for.
Yes he was dumb for doing so, but this should not be a hanging offence.
So him saying that he thinks all of those people should burn in hell is okay? What about if he said it about black people? Asians? Women? Those okay in your book too?
Like I said, stupid people win stupid prizes. This guy is obviously a few fries short of a happy meal, or he wouldn't have said that, much less actually believe it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and thus an Example being made is quite handy for us goddless bastards; a Precedent. This can be done and has been done.
