Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: Free Speech At Work (not)

  1. #21
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    725
    Thanks
    179
    Thanked 757 Times in 348 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Reputation
    14714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jma View Post
    It disgusts me how much money people are giving this bloke.
    He's a multi-millionaire & they're throwing millions more at him?
    If he wants to sue someone he should do what the rest of us do, pay for it himself.
    It disgusts me ( and I'm sure many others) at how some think people shouldn't have the free right to make their own choices with things such as how they spend their money. I think this has now gone well beyond a legal fund and has evolved in a show of support and a big Fluck you to RA, the whining LGBTQXFWABCLT123's, leftists and PC brigade that their mindset is NOT acceptable to the majority of average people despite the Leftie PC claims of the opposite.
    I reckon Folou will have a BIG surplus and will no doubt give that to the church, a related charity or may even set up some sort of charitable foundation himself.

    I could lever the same "pay for it yourself" argument about homeless people. If they want a roof over their head or a feed, they should get a job and pay for it themselves. Why should the rest of us have to pay to put a roof over their head in winter?
    Same could apply to just about any charitable cause. Not saying Falou's cause is charitable, just the " Pay for it yourself " mentality applies to many things.
    If the starving in 3rd world shitholes need more food, they should learn how to farm and grow food themselves right?

    While so much is bandied about in this case about inclusion and other catch words, Comments like yours amaze me in their inference and complaint that is effectively saying people should not be free to do what they want with their own money. He hasn't got a gun to anyone's head, he's not conning anyone about what the money is going to be or what it will be used for, he's not promising what he can't deliver or doing anything deceiving in any way. People are giving him their money because they want to support him in his cause. WTF is wrong with that? Is it because it does not agree with some leftist PC agenda that started this whole shitfight in the first place?

    I spent $1300 this last week on my purely indulgent hobby. Is this wrong because I should have been giving it to some charity or leftie cause instead and therefore should not be allowed to spend my money how I want?
    I won't be donating to the fund but like his freedom of speech and religion, I will support his cause in spirit and his right to fundraise moreso because of attitudes like this.

    If you don't want to give him money, then don't. I don't see the issue other than those opposing the things Folou is fighting for don't want to give him any chance to win and denounce their oppressive position. You would be even more upset if someone came along and said you had to donate so how is it any different in you saying people shouldn't and complaining about what is their right and choice to do so?

    This whole thing just brings out one incredible hypocrisy after another.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to george65 For This Useful Post:

    lsemmens (28-06-19)



  • #22
    Premium Member
    alpha0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mandurah WA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,128
    Thanks
    2,467
    Thanked 2,316 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    1092
    Reputation
    46037

    Default

    He will need @ least 3 mil if the fight goes to the high court

    I really hope our favorite airline exec gets some of the flac this leftist farce generates

  • The Following User Says Thank You to alpha0ne For This Useful Post:

    lsemmens (28-06-19)

  • #23
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    725
    Thanks
    179
    Thanked 757 Times in 348 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Reputation
    14714

    Default

    I very much doubt it will get that far.
    I would be thinking RA would want to nip it in the bud before then just to avoid the bad PR which is from what I can see growing against them.
    If it does get that far, RA will also need $3m or more and that will be coming out of company coffers not donations.

    Perhaps quantarse will be feeling the negative implications as well and I'd be thinking if they do the head gay boy might have to change his directives whether he wants to or the board tell him to call off the hounds.

  • #24
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 778 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    437
    Reputation
    13956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Folou quoted a passage from the Bible Direct. There was no personal comment in what he said.
    It was not a direct quote. It was entirely his personal commentary on certain verses of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    This is a Christian Country. It should be and is acceptable to normal people for others to quote Bible passages on their social Media. Only the PC lefties whingers looking for something else to have a sook about would take issue with it.
    What BS. You can't claim one topic is 'free speech' and another is not - either you agree that people can say whatever they want, wherever they want, without consequence - which is not how our society operates, or you agree that people are restricted from certain comments at certain times, such as in their employment - in which case you would agree with the action taken against Folau by his employer was just.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Folau did say what he did as an individual. He posted on HIS account, Not RA's so by your definition, he did nothing wrong so WTF is the problem?
    He posted on his public social media account. An account that is intrinsically linked to his role as an employee - an account that he promotes his employment activities on, that contains pictures of him undertaking his employment, on which he has 'friended' his work, his colleagues and his sponsors. It is not a personal account that he uses to talk between friends and family, it is an account that entirely reflects his public persona - his persona an en employee - and that is why RA has the right to restrict what he posts on that account.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Then if RA are not saying he can't say what he likes in his private life, WTF is this all about then and why was he sacked??
    RA have no issue with him promoting his views in his church or his private life - they couldn't, and have never, given a rats. RA only took notice when Folau started using his public social media persona - linked directly to his employment - at which time he warned, warned again, then sacked. That is why this is not an issue of free speech, but one of the rights of an employer to take action against rogue employees.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Again, he Didn't post on RA's site, he wasn't wearing the uniform at the time, at a game or " On the job" in any way.
    He posted on his public social media account, an account directly linked to his employment duties, containing pictures of him undertaking his employment and is used by him to promote his employee and sponsors.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Hang on, You just said "Folau can say whatever he likes in his private life, as an individual". That's what he did. On HIS SM account, away from the game and made NO association to RA with it NOR did he associate it to himself through any comment or opinion.
    Which way you want this? You are contradicting yourself .
    No contradiction. It is a misunderstanding on your behalf thinking that Folau's public social media account is 'private'. It is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    So what is your position exactly? He can say what he likes in his private life as long as it is consistent with the Views of his Employer but is taboo if it is not?
    He can say whatever he wants in private - with family, with friends, with his church. Now that he is not employed by RA, he can also say whatever he wants in public too. Taboo or not, makes no difference. But when he is a public figure of an employer, who promotes himself as an employee on his public social media account, he had a duty to abide by the rules of that employer, should he wish to remain employed. He made his choice, and now has to live with the consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Exactly by your definition when is he on his " Private" time and when is he on the time of his Employee?
    Being a high profile public figure, any posts on his public social media account, an account used to promote his activities as an employee - would be taken to reflect his employer, and as such, any post should be made with that consideration in mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    Going back to your previously questionable scenario, My employees clock on at 9 and clock off at 6. Anything between those hours is THEIR Time not mine and to propose that as an employee they have to toe the company line in their legal thoughts and actions is ridiculous.
    Your employees are likely not public figures, paid large some of money to promote your business, both on the footy field and off - that is a distinct difference, and if you can't see that then you won't understand a different view.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to peteramjet For This Useful Post:

    william10 (27-06-19)

  • #25
    Do big things!
    Jma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Somewhere in the darkness...
    Posts
    260
    Thanks
    217
    Thanked 262 Times in 119 Posts
    Rep Power
    192
    Reputation
    5160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    It disgusts me......
    WTF are you on about George?

    Here's what I said:
    It disgusts me how much money people are giving this bloke.
    He's a multi-millionaire & they're throwing millions more at him?
    If he wants to sue someone he should do what the rest of us do, pay for it himself.
    And that's it, I was effectively saying exactly what I said and it's exactly what I meant, no inferences, no complaints...

  • #26
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    725
    Thanks
    179
    Thanked 757 Times in 348 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Reputation
    14714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    He can say whatever he wants in private - with family, with friends, with his church.
    So his social media account is Public but saying something at his Church , presumably to the congregation as he is a preacher, in your Book is private?
    Pretty much sums up the whole fallacy of your argument.

    In todays Developments.......

    His Fundraiser has been Paused at over $2m. They say they have enough money for now.

    The head Franinstein of RA, Frankensteins Bride, Made a press release saying RA was professional, did nothing wrong and had a sook because all the attention was taking away from the game. You bet it is! You can see It's hurting your business and clearly they are getting a load of flack and can see they have pissed a lot of people off.


    The chairman of RA, clearly with more brains than the head scarecrow has asked for the case to be settled out of court saying it " Will be too costly for RA to be proven Correct".
    Translation: If we go to court we are going to have our arses handed to us big time and Folau has the money and support to Fk us up in ways we could not survive.

    I expect this will be pretty much over by the end of next week. RA or at least some of their management realise they are in a no win situation and the longer it goes, the worse their position and the stronger their opponents. Folau wants $10M in damages and his contract re instated. Seeing what settlement they come to even as far as with things like RA saying they were right will be interesting. I think both sides will want admission their position was correct and the other was wrong and that will mean more to both parties than any monetary payouts.

    I have tipped this one pretty well spot on so far but I'm just waiting for the surprises out of left field.

    All these Right these minority groups have/ want/ whine about is going to make things like this come up more and more.
    Who is going to get their rights when push comes to shove? The gays getting their rights to be gays or the faithful getting their rights to practice and preach their religion?

    With everyone having " Rights" these days, it's just going to turn into a shit fight of everyone being right but being wrong by someone else's standards and within their rights at the same time.

  • #27
    Senior Member
    Reschs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Outside a few schooners
    Posts
    2,586
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 1,517 Times in 766 Posts
    Rep Power
    610
    Reputation
    20638

    Default



    Good insight from this author.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Reschs For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (28-06-19),george65 (28-06-19)

  • #28
    Premium Member
    hinekadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,083
    Thanks
    2,602
    Thanked 1,192 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    493
    Reputation
    21217

    Default

    Get off the grass RA employed folau to play rugby because he is good at it -------- any thing else is crap !! so he dont like poo pushers so what ??? muslums openly dont like christians ?some people dont like peanuts . We need more "offensive speech" not less of it as it makes people think and theres nothing wrong with expressing your views its called conversation
    . Please treat people as you would like to be treated yourself.

  • The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to hinekadon For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (28-06-19),george65 (28-06-19),lsemmens (28-06-19),VroomVroom (28-06-19)

  • #29
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 778 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    437
    Reputation
    13956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    So his social media account is Public but saying something at his Church , presumably to the congregation as he is a preacher, in your Book is private?
    Pretty much sums up the whole fallacy of your argument.
    No fallacy, once again it’s your misunderstanding.

    Folau can say whatever he wants at his church. His church is not endorsed by RA, not sponsored by RA, he is not attending as an employee of RA or as a person under contract to a sponsor. There is no provision in his contract in which he agreed to censors his comments at church. He is attending as Folau - the individual, and can say whatever he wants.

    His public social media account is endorsed by RA, endorsed by his paid sponsors, it is used by Folau to promote himself as both an employee of RA and as a paid sponsor, it includes photos of him undertaking his employment, discussing his employment, and had gained popularity because of his employment. He is contracted to to ensure his public social media profiles do not harm his employer. He is posting on his public social media accounts as Folau - the paid footballer, and he is therefore bound by his employer.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to peteramjet For This Useful Post:

    william10 (28-06-19)

  • #30
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    725
    Thanks
    179
    Thanked 757 Times in 348 Posts
    Rep Power
    335
    Reputation
    14714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peteramjet View Post
    No fallacy, once again it’s your misunderstanding.

    Folau can say whatever he wants at his church. His church is not endorsed by RA, not sponsored by RA, he is not attending as an employee of RA or as a person under contract to a sponsor. There is no provision in his contract in which he agreed to censors his comments at church. He is attending as Folau - the individual, and can say whatever he wants.
    I don't think you understand the definitions of private and Public. The fact you think his employers should be able to control his personal thoughts and opinions ( personal because they are his thoughts not theirs... which is the problem apparently) is exactly the sort of PC Bullshit that people are backing him against and are sick to death of.

    A person can walk round Butt Naked in their home which is private. You think his church is Private as well but I think we all know the consequences if he walked into his Church you deem as "private" in his Birthday suit. Why you think his church is private when it is a public meeting place is beyond me. If his SM account is public then his church sure as hell is so you don't get to twist it both ways to suit your argument. Commercial interests DO NOT change the definition of public and private even if it is inconvenient to the never happy leftie mentality.

    In any case, the Lawyers are going to decide this as it's Unlikely to go to court and RA are rolling over on their backs and pissing themselves in deserved fear.
    They will maintain they were right but the minute they pay him a cent, which would not surprise me is paid under a gag order, they are admitting guilt.

    So far the guy has over $2m worth of peoples backing him that RA were out of line and a hell of a lot more public opinion supporting him as well.
    The statements from both sides will be the REALLY interesting part of this. Folau says he wants to be re-instated but I wonder about that. I think it would be almost impossible for RA to take him back and not look like complete and utter morons and I wonder if Folau really wants to work for and benefit such an organisation particularly so late in his career. Behind the scenes maybe RA will re instate him if he agrees to immediately retire.

    There is only going to be one Major looser in this ( Quantarse may not be winning too many hearts and minds either) and it's not going to be the one with $2+m in the warchest plus the backing of the Australian people if not the PC leftie media mouth pieces whom again have had their opinions slapped back in their faces with a shovel.

    The one thing this does show is how fed up people are with being told how they should think and what their opinion should be especially when it comes to these whining never satisfied minority groups.

  • #31
    Premium Member
    hinekadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,083
    Thanks
    2,602
    Thanked 1,192 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    493
    Reputation
    21217

    Thumbs down walos

    [QUOTE=peteramjet;804348]No fallacy, once again it’s your misunderstanding.

    Folau can say whatever he wants at his church. His church is not endorsed by RA, not sponsored by RA, he is not attending as an employee of RA or as a person under contract to a sponsor. There is no provision in his contract in which he agreed to censors his comments at church. He is attending as Folau - the individual, and can say whatever he wants.

    His public social media account is endorsed by RA, endorsed by his paid sponsors, it is used by Folau to promote himself as both an employee of RA and as a paid sponsor, it includes photos of him undertaking his employment, discussing his employment, and had gained popularity because of his employment. He is contracted to to ensure his public social media profiles do not harm his employer. He is posting on his public social media accounts as Folau - the paid footballer, and he is therefore bound by his employer.[/QUOTE
    This statement is just shit !!!!!!! you fail to get the point !!!!!!! HE WAS EMPLOYED TO PLAY RUGBY Nothing else he is popular because of that , and his ability to score tries get a lawn mower and cut the grass instead of smoking it . If he was employed as a moral umpire thats different but HE plays rugby for a team . He has not failed to produce his capabilitys on the field therefore he is not in breach of his fundermental employment contract . The church has nothing to do with his rugby game . dislike of poo pushers is not a reason to sack him as it has nothing to do with his EMPLOYMENT . many other people dont like poo pushers as well so are you going to demand they get dismissed as well . you are talking bullshit !!!!!! imho
    . Please treat people as you would like to be treated yourself.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hinekadon For This Useful Post:

    george65 (28-06-19),lsemmens (28-06-19)

  • #32
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 778 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    437
    Reputation
    13956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by george65 View Post
    I don't think you understand the definitions of private and Public. The fact you think his employers should be able to control his personal thoughts and opinions ( personal because they are his thoughts not theirs... which is the problem apparently) is exactly the sort of PC Bullshit that people are backing him against and are sick to death of.
    The definition of 'private' in this instance is "not related to one's official position".

    Clearly, a public social media account, used to promote activities of an employee in their employ, used to promote sponsors of an employee and employer, used to post pictures of an employee undertaking their employment, liked, friended and endorsed by an employer is clearly linked to a individuals official position as an employee and is not 'private'.

    Folau's public social media account that caused this controversy is the public person of 'Folau - paid football player', not 'Folau - individual'. His employer was not controlling the opinion of 'Folau - individual' - he has been preaching the same for years in church, and there has been no issue. They are restricting the opinions of 'Folau - paid football player'.

    Quote Originally Posted by hinekadon View Post
    This statement is just shit !!!!!!! you fail to get the point !!!!!!! HE WAS EMPLOYED TO PLAY RUGBY Nothing else
    He was employed to do far more than 'play rugby' - that is the point. His agreement to be employed required him to be an ambassador of the game, an ambassador of the sponsors, a role model to aspiring players, fans and crowds. These are things Folau agreed to by signing his employment contract, and by using his public persona to post messages that draw his employer into disrepute (which cannot be denied, given the media coverage) he has breached the code of conduct he agreed to, breached his contract, and his employer should therefore be permitted to release him.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to peteramjet For This Useful Post:

    william10 (28-06-19)

  • #33
    Premium Member
    hinekadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,083
    Thanks
    2,602
    Thanked 1,192 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    493
    Reputation
    21217

    Default

    Horse shit !!!!!! are you trying to say that his ability on the field of play was minor , and the rest is what he was employed to do . crap I say ? as far as bringing his employer into disrepute thats crap as well RA bought it all on themselves by taking notice of a posting on a social media site that has nothing to do with his employment . are you going to tell us you have seen his private contract and you are quoting directly from it " Dont think so" all you are saying is "media crap" that has no facts and second hand BS . if you like poo pushers go live with them cos what you are trying to convince us is the sieve the poo comes from is more important than the game HAHAHA
    . Please treat people as you would like to be treated yourself.

  • #34
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    8,201
    Thanks
    7,502
    Thanked 4,792 Times in 2,362 Posts
    Rep Power
    2110
    Reputation
    87100

    Default

    We are exercising free speech right here. If any of our employers took exception to what is said here. Would you still be promoting your "brand ambassador" line peter? Problem is, none of us know another here from a bar of soap, however, if you employer thought so.......
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #35
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    65
    Posts
    13,784
    Thanks
    12,094
    Thanked 20,017 Times in 6,037 Posts
    Rep Power
    7512
    Reputation
    345549

    Default

    Article from the paper this morning.....





    (not the full article, but I can post it if anyone wants)

    To reiterate: Folau is pursuing RA in the Fair Work Commission for $10m in lost earnings plus damages and civil penalties. If realised, this would cripple the organisation financially, to say nothing about what would be left of its credibility. As part of his legal claim, he alleges RA terminated his contract on the grounds of religion.

    Now look at it from this perspective. Rightly or wrongly, Folau is no longer contracted to RA. Yet Castle gratuitously and publicly postulates as to the appropriateness of how he funds his legal case. Presumably it has not occurred to the CEO what inferences can be drawn from her remarks when the crux of this legal claim is whether RA exceeded its authority as employer.

    Irrespective of how legal proceedings pan out — and it is clear Folau intends going all the way to the High Court if necessary — RA has been found wanting in the court of public opinion. Even Gillian Triggs, the former president of the Australian Human Rights Commission has spoken in support of Folau, stating he was entitled to the view that “we are all going to hell”.

    “It’s foolish and disproportionate to prevent him from preaching something that he believes,” she told ABC presenter Patricia Karvelas. On a side note, did anyone else upon learning Triggs’s stance immediately think of the original Ghostbusters film and that line “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria”?

    These once great institutions that administered football’s sporting codes have an inflated sense of their raison d’être. “If you go to a football club, in most towns (it) is a core community institution,” said AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan last week. “And so people look to the AFL, as their governing body, broadly for their position on social issues.” Much like spectators look to AFL behavioural awareness officers for guidance on crowd etiquette, you might say.

    Or perhaps like the entire community looks to a sports show host for bigotry-awareness training. “Let’s not shy away from it,” wrote Ellis in her defensive apologia this week. “This whole thing is about homophobia.” Actually, let’s not shy away from the fact that those in the school of social justice jurisprudence frequently resort to aggression, bullying, and ostracising to further their cause.

    And what of Ellis’s claim this is all about homophobia? Put simply, she suffers from elitist myopia. What we are witnessing is the mass disquiet that follows a confluence of incursions against free speech. Look at the students vilified and hounded for questioning why a university provides a racially segregated computer laboratory. Look at the taxpayer-subsidised academic activists and their hysterical denunciations of a philanthropic body that merely seeks to fund a degree in Western Civilisation.

    Look at the pompous and overpaid human rights commissioners who foster identity politics and grossly exaggerate the extent of discrimination in Australia to safeguard their sinecures. Look at the corporate CEOs who see themselves as moral luminaries responsible for effecting social change. Look at the increasing number of workers who now pause before hitting a ‘like’ icon on social media, worried that doing so may cost them their livelihood. Remember not so long ago when we used to laugh at television footage of Japanese workers singing the company song?

    Small wonder that Folau’s appeal has the money pouring in. The reason the donors are giving is simple and it has everything to do with control freaks dictating what they should say, believe and think.

    They’re over it.
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (28-06-19)

  • #36
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 778 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    437
    Reputation
    13956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hinekadon View Post
    Horse shit !!!!!! are you trying to say that his ability on the field of play was minor , and the rest is what he was employed to do . crap I say ?
    Never said anything of the sought. Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars to work for his employer. Playing footy was only part of what he was required to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by hinekadon View Post
    are you going to tell us you have seen his private contract and you are quoting directly from it " Dont think so" all you are saying is "media crap" that has no facts and second hand BS .
    The player code of conduct and social media policy, which formed the part of Folau's contract that he is said to have breached, are in the public domain and have been quoted and published by most media outlets.

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    We are exercising free speech right here. If any of our employers took exception to what is said here. Would you still be promoting your "brand ambassador" line peter? Problem is, none of us know another here from a bar of soap, however, if you employer thought so.......
    If my employer knew some of things I was posted in public I would likely no longer be employed by them - that is the exact reason why I, and almost everybody else on this forum, remains anonymous. I would be willing to suggest most people who are employed here (or are employers themselves) would be in the same boat.

    No different to Folau in that respect

  • #37
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    8,201
    Thanks
    7,502
    Thanked 4,792 Times in 2,362 Posts
    Rep Power
    2110
    Reputation
    87100

    Default

    Galatians 5:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

    19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
    20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
    21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    This is the scripture quoted by Folau. Why is it the Adulterers, Idol worshippers, murderers, alcoholics, and so forth, not also up in arms about this?
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #38
    Premium Member
    hinekadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,083
    Thanks
    2,602
    Thanked 1,192 Times in 432 Posts
    Rep Power
    493
    Reputation
    21217

    Default

    peter get you head outta the fairy land and into the real world folau was not employed to be an ambassator hes not quallified for that" hes a rugby player " nothing more nothing less , do you think he was employed to do anything but win rugby games for aussie your inference of other things is WRONG !!!! If he wasnt a rugby player he wouldnt be employed as one and nothing else hes not a jockey or a fireman hes a RUGBY PLAYER regardless of what you say , contract phooey ! means shit as far as representing the game is concerned hes done pretty well for aussie so far . Some like him as a player , some dont but RA dont have the right to make him sub-human by reducing the rights he has as a citizen of oz . I would like to remind you that social media has no authority in any shape or form so cannot be part of a contract as it is only an opinion not a LAW therefore including it into a contract is invalid and to represent as fact is also wrong as it has no value in dollar terms to any party and as this is a employment contract money talks
    . Please treat people as you would like to be treated yourself.

  • #39
    Premium Member
    alpha0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mandurah WA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    1,128
    Thanks
    2,467
    Thanked 2,316 Times in 602 Posts
    Rep Power
    1092
    Reputation
    46037

    Default

    Old but well ......................unless your alan joyce

  • The Following User Says Thank You to alpha0ne For This Useful Post:

    hinekadon (28-06-19)

  • #40
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,387
    Thanks
    158
    Thanked 778 Times in 422 Posts
    Rep Power
    437
    Reputation
    13956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    Galatians 5:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

    19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
    20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
    21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    This is the scripture quoted by Folau. Why is it the Adulterers, Idol worshippers, murderers, alcoholics, and so forth, not also up in arms about this?
    On the flip side, can you point out where 'homosexuals' are specifically mentioned in that scripture? They are not. Yet Folau's 'interpretation' makes specific reference to them.

    If that is that case, his defence of 'religious belief' is simply void.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to peteramjet For This Useful Post:

    william10 (29-06-19)

  • Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •