Starker on 28/6/2019 at 12:01
And if your contract requires you to adhere to a certain code of conduct and you breach your contract, the employer has every right to terminate your contract.
Also, calling people evil and telling them that they'll burn in hell because of how they were born isn't a threat to anyone? How about the people who are being discriminated against, subjected to conversion therapy, etc? That's like saying antisemitism or racism isn't a threat to anyone.
Also also, neither Gofundme nor Rugby Australia did what they did because the guy is a christian. They did it because his behaviour went against their rules. You can bet they would have done exactly the same if he was a hindu or an atheist.
Nameless Voice on 28/6/2019 at 12:34
Honestly? Freedom of religion should only apply to the things you believe personally.
Once you start trying to push those beliefs onto other people, I don't think you should have that freedom any more.
Believing in God? Fine. Believing that God wants you to act in a certain way? Fine. Believing that it is your right and duty to force other people (most certainly including your own children) to act in that way? No. Morally questionable at best, abuse at worst.
Religion should not, cannot be allowed to be an excuse to excuse a behaviour that would otherwise be inexcusable.
Sulphur on 28/6/2019 at 14:56
And therein lies the rub. It's not 'just his views', it's a declaration. If a celebrity or public figure declares that a large proportion of people are going to hell on a social platform, they know full well they have an audience of millions or more. Not expecting a backlash is naive at best; it's the exact reason why this sort of thing is written into contracts as a deal breaker to begin with.
SubJeff on 28/6/2019 at 14:57
Quote Posted by icemann
just for posting his views on a religious topic.
This is like "just for pressing a button" that activated a killer robot.
"He just pressed a button!"
No, actions have consequences. I may not think the consequences are proportionate, but I hate this line of "I just put on a jacket" (an SS jacket btw!) type short-sightedness.
Quote:
So the money he has now, has to last him and his family a lifetime, or be on government benefits forever after.
He's banned from ALL OTHER EMPLOYMENT now?
Sulphur on 28/6/2019 at 15:12
Er, yes, because he's a bigot. Actions, consequences? Literally what everyone has been saying over and over for pages.
Nameless Voice on 28/6/2019 at 15:20
He wasn't "posting his views on a religious topic "
He was being a bigot.
Whether his views were inspired by a religion is irrelevant to the discussion.
heywood on 28/6/2019 at 16:28
Quote Posted by Starker
And if your contract requires you to adhere to a certain code of conduct and you breach your contract, the employer has every right to terminate your contract.
I didn't see anything in the news that spelled out what specific code of conduct rule (if any) that he violated. If there was something in his contract that could be reasonably interpreted as preventing him from publicly airing his religious views, then fine. It wouldn't surprise me, because for some strange reason I've never understood, society wants to hold up athletes as role models more than any other profession.
The one that concerns me more is the GoFundMe takedown. That to me is blatant discrimination against someone because of their religious views.
Quote:
Also, calling people evil and telling them that they'll burn in hell because of how they were born isn't a threat to anyone?
Of course not. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that sinners will go to hell. Everybody knows that and nobody feels threatened by that except the believers, who are afraid of God's judgment, not some rugby player. If he actually threatened to
do something in the name of his religion, that would be a threat.
Quote:
How about the people who are being discriminated against, subjected to conversion therapy, etc? That's like saying antisemitism or racism isn't a threat to anyone.
Whataboutism
As far as I can tell, he didn't discriminate against anybody or subject anybody to conversion therapy.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Honestly? Freedom of religion should only apply to the things you believe personally.
Once you start trying to push those beliefs onto other people, I don't think you should have that freedom any more.
Quote Posted by Sulphur
And therein lies the rub. It's not 'just his views', it's a declaration. If a celebrity or public figure declares that a large proportion of people are going to hell on a social platform, they know full well they have an audience of millions or more. Not expecting a backlash is naive at best; it's the exact reason why this sort of thing is written into contracts as a deal breaker to begin with.
Essentially, you guys are asking Christians to stay in the closet. They can have their religious views, but only express them in private. If they air them publicly, then it's fair game to ostracize them, attempt to censor them, and discriminate against them, including denying them employment opportunities and access to services that are available to everyone else. It's ironic that ~40 years ago, society did the same thing to gay people. Now it's flipped around. It wasn't right then and it isn't now.
Sulphur on 28/6/2019 at 16:41
Quote Posted by icemann
Well as he was quoting the bible, that was him posting his religious views. We may view those posted as bigotry, but in all technicality it's religious speech.
All right, I guess that means I can start a religion where its holy text declares that all left handed people should be turkey basted and roasted for consumption if they don't change their ways, and not expect any blowback because it's religious speech, durrr.
Quote:
And he has every right to say them, under free speech, As soon as we say "you can't say that, because it's bigotry" and therefore silence a person, then that is not free speech. That's censorship.
No one's taken his tongue away or thrown him in a locked cell, so I don't know what you're on about. He's very free to say what he wants on platforms that agree with him.
Sulphur on 28/6/2019 at 17:15
1) He signed a contract that stipulated terms on his social media presence. If he didn't agree with them, he could have chosen not to sign.
2) His GoFundMe was not only drawing bad publicity, it was against the terms of service that were linked a page ago. Don't make us rehash the entire last page about what free speech actually is.