Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic social media posts

[EADC]

How so?

.

 

[Cray]

Pretty simple. Some people eat meat, others don't. Some wants milkshake with their fries, other don't. Because he decides to follow a religious practice in his way and according to scripture he is now wrong because others don't? Fark me, you sound a like Vegan attacking Meat eaters

All of the other christian rugby players read their contracts and decided not to make statements that where against the ARU's policy, why should he be exempt? No one is saying he can't proselytize on the street or in church, but he violated the rules of social media in his contract, something he supposedly read, signed and agreed to. His religion wasn't so important to him then when he was being offered a boatload of money.... Plenty of people refuse employment if the terms of said employment violate their religious tenants, why should he be the only employee in the world allowed to dictate the terms of his own employment to the person paying his salary?

Yes, like wearing their clothing for endorsements, attending functions and the likes. Which he does. If the sponsors don't want him to do these things they can remove his endorsement deals. Got fark all to do with the Rugby Union he's playing for.

He plays for the Australian National Rugby Union team, Qantas sponsor the Wallabies and have naming rights to the team, hence them being officially called the Qantas Wallabies, it's right there on their jersies....

Perfect example.

Amla playing for the Proteas but not endorsing their sponsors. Yet, no problem, I mean it's his religious right to not wear branding endorsing Alcohol. So now if the Sponsor in this example was to go: O hell no! would the Proteas/CSA drop him because of it?

Hypothetically it's possible, if Amla had acted in such a way as to denigrate the team sponsor. Do you think that CSA can survive without sponsors?

 

[Lucas Buck]

Come to think of it, Folau was at least being honest by expressing the written word that he believes ?

If he'd said that all gays, drunks fornicators etc. should go to hell as opposed to are going to hell then I would be more in agreement with the outcry. 'Should' expresses his personal feelings and bias on the matter whereas 'are' expresses the bibles opinion on the matter.

If he'd said something along the lines that gays should be killed or ostracized, then I would consider it hate speech. This bible quote though is not strong enough for me to be considered hate speech or even be to bothered about by any of the groups mentioned.
He is not invading the space of those that he's saying are going to hell, people have the choice whether to follow his social media posts or not. Others can express their freedom of speech by engaging him on his social media platform or by jeering him the next time that he plays.

 

[Speedster]

. View attachment 644980

Seems he got them stamps before converting to Christianity

Interestingly, though, Folau revealed he wished he had never got any tattoos in the first place because they go against Biblical teachings.
“To be honest, if I have my time again, I probably wouldn’t have got any tattoos and that comes back to, again, my faith,” Folau said.
“That’s something I came across afterwards.
“But, like I said, I can’t change the past.”

Source: https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...s/news-story/a2545b858ecd17e176de390f1d590a4c

 

[EADC]

Seems he got them stamps before converting to Christianity



Source: https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...s/news-story/a2545b858ecd17e176de390f1d590a4c

He should afford others the same dignity of finding their own path and should be mindful that.

 

[Speedster]

He should afford others the same dignity of finding their own path and should be mindful that.

Are you willing to retract your "hypocrite" label?

 

[EADC]

Are you willing to retract your "hypocrite" label?

Nope still think he is. If he changes his condemnation of people maybe I will.

 

[Ninja'd]

Does he say no homo during every ruck and maul?

 

[Speedster]

Nope still think he is. If he changes his condemnation of people maybe I will.

So he's a hypocrite because you disagree with his religious beliefs not because he doesn't keep them himself?

 

[Ninja'd]

Even with him they will cry. 1 man doesn't make a team

Just like the Lakers learned when they thought they could rely on Lebron.

 

[EADC]

So he's a hypocrite because you disagree with his religious beliefs not because he doesn't keep them himself?

Would be nice if he did. There are plenty of religious sports people that practice there religion in a respectful way.

Like the example of Hashim Amla I have zero problem with the way he goes about how he practices his religion.

 

[Speedster]

Would be nice if he did. There are plenty of religious sports people that practice there religion in a respectful way.

Like the example of Hashim Amla I have zero problem with the way he goes about how he practices his religion.

I'm just trying to figure out why you think he is a hypocrite

 

[Pitbull]

All of the other christian rugby players read their contracts and decided not to make statements that where against the ARU's policy, why should he be exempt? No one is saying he can't proselytize on the street or in church, but he violated the rules of social media in his contract, something he supposedly read, signed and agreed to. His religion wasn't so important to him then when he was being offered a boatload of money.... Plenty of people refuse employment if the terms of said employment violate their religious tenants, why should he be the only employee in the world allowed to dictate the terms of his own employment to the person paying his salary?



He plays for the Australian National Rugby Union team, Qantas sponsor the Wallabies and have naming rights to the team, hence them being officially called the Qantas Wallabies, it's right there on their jersies....

Hypothetically it's possible, if Amla had acted in such a way as to denigrate the team sponsor. Do you think that CSA can survive without sponsors?

Using your EXACT same example as above. What makes this any different to the Amla example you supplied?

 

[Cray]

Using your EXACT same example as above. What makes this any different to the Amla example you supplied?

Amla negotiated with CSA and had the terms of his playing changed to something all parties where happy with, he didn't sign a contract and then violate it down the road...

If Folau , before signing with the ARU, had told them about his religious convictions and that the tenants of his faith compel him to post religious memes on twitter they could have discussed various options or an out clause. However all parties would have had to agree with it, it might have resulted in him not getting a contract, it might have resulted in a different contract that allowed him some leeway but he choose to sign the contract with the social media clause in place, he accepted that fact and took their money. He then violated that contract, not once but twice, so why is it not within the rights of the ARU to take him to task for it?

 

[Pitbull]

Amla negotiated with CSA and had the terms of his playing changed to something all parties where happy with, he didn't sign a contract and then violate it down the road...

If Folau , before signing with the ARU, had told them about his religious convictions and that the tenants of his faith compel him to post religious memes on twitter they could have discussed various options or an out clause. However all parties would have had to agree with it, it might have resulted in him not getting a contract, it might have resulted in a different contract that allowed him some leeway but he choose to sign the contract with the social media clause in place, he accepted that fact and took their money. He then violated that contract, not once but twice, so why is it not within the rights of the ARU to take him to task for it?

So what if he converted to Christianity after? He now can't play Rugby then because of his religious beliefs? You do know what that means right. Even if they didn't want to give him a contract because of his religious beliefs.

Very sketchy road to be walking down now tbh.

Edit: He violated it once, they amended his contract after the incident last year.

 

[pinball wizard]

Says the guy who plays waterpolo, on his PC.

I think you directed that at the wrong person. I was actually a professional athlete in real life.

 

[smkungfu]

I think you directed that at the wrong person. I was actually a professional athlete in real life.

What sport?

 

[Cray]

So what if he converted to Christianity after? He now can't play Rugby then because of his religious beliefs? You do know what that means right. Even if they didn't want to give him a contract because of his religious beliefs.

No one has a right to be employed, if his Christianity is not at odds with fulfilling the obligations of job then there is no valid reason to not give him a contract or let him play rugby(like all the other Christians who play rugby). Like it or not, professional rugby union teams rely on sponsorship, it's not just about playing rugby. Qantas don't simply throw money at the Wallabies for the fun of it, they sponsor them in the expectation that Aussie rugby players will represent and enhance their brand. If Folau causes damage to the brand that Qantas represents they will put pressure on the ARU to have him change is behavior or risk their sponsorship.

 

[BBSA]

Maybe Virgin Air will sponsor them, they can call it the Virgin Wallabies

 

[smkungfu]

will put pressure on the ARU to have him change is behavior or risk their sponsorship.

So he should change his religion then?