[Golden Oldies] Nigel Owens on inclusive rugby.

[crossref]

but they're normally based on a perceived benefit to society, rather than "my invisible mate in the sky told me to".

As an atheist , I think those are much the same thing... Everyones invisible friend can be counted on to share their values

 

[dave_clark]

whereas i don't have any invisible friends (and choose not to comment on whether or not i have any visible ones!)

i forgot the point i was trying to make with my previous post.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But that is the problem. Many religions encourage/require their adherents to proselytise.

Not a problem at all. There is no "Right to Proselytise" in Law

And speaking of proselytising, many years ago one of my flatmates put a notice on our front door.

ALL DOOR-TO-DOOR SELLERS WILL BE SHOT
(Including Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses
and Seventh Day Adventists)
​

Needless to say, none of them ever knocked

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Not a problem at all. There is no "Right to Proselytise" in Law

And speaking of proselytising, many years ago one of my flatmates put a notice on our front door.

ALL DOOR-TO-DOOR SELLERS WILL BE SHOT
(Including Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses
and Seventh Day Adventists)
​

Needless to say, none of them ever knocked

What type of weapon did your flatmate own?

 

[Ian_Cook]

What type of weapon did your flatmate own?

None, but the religious salesmen didn't know that, did they?

 

[OB..]

There is no "Right to Proselytise" in Law

Precisely. Hence the conflict with the law.

 

[L'irlandais]

whereas i don't have any invisible friends (and choose not to comment on whether or not i have any visible ones!)

i forgot the point i was trying to make with my previous post.

I think you were making a valid point. Clearly IF has an imaginary friend, who obliges him to say hateful things. The good news is that’s quite normal, bad news is he should have grown out of it long along. Parenting today.

Even more abundantly clear is despite being married, he still obeys his parents. That too is something he needs to grow out of. All in all, IF is a pretty sad bloke, who desperately needs to grow up.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Not a problem at all. There is no "Right to Proselytise" in Law

And speaking of proselytising, many years ago one of my flatmates put a notice on our front door.

ALL DOOR-TO-DOOR SELLERS WILL BE SHOT
(Including Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses
and Seventh Day Adventists)
​

So your roommate and you, by your inaction and finding creativity in this notice, found it necessary to find a group with who you did not agree. You identify them and threaten them with bodily harm.

Not much different than IF.

He found a group, homosexuals, with who he thinks are sinning. And he warned them with eternal damnation.

Well, maybe a threat is worse than a warning.

I know, I know, you were young, it wasn't your sign, the evangels are a pain, but nonetheless you posted it without any remorse and perhaps for a quick stab at humor at the expense of a group who had different ideas than you.

TSK, TSK

- - - Updated - - -

None, but the religious salesmen didn't know that, did they?

Thank you, you just explained an unintended consequence of our constitution's 2nd amendment and one of the protections the NRA supports.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Ian_Cook]

Now Folau is trying to drag the sponsors into his pathetic personal crusade...

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...h/news-story/8ec8c13cc746b20679705a75065c7b6a

Worst case medium to long term scenario; sponsors in Australia will simply decide that Rugby Union is not worth the trouble, and indeed, if Folau is able to somehow win any part of his case, the implications for Australian sport in general could be dire. They too could find themselves with a dire shortage of sponsorship....

 

[SimonSmith]

So, Qantas aren't to be allowed to express their views? Yes, Folau is really standing up for free speech.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's also becoming clear that he is being used by the Christian lobby


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...u/news-story/172f14d411f1fd870716cf03d71aa0e1

 

[Dickie E]

Now Folau is trying to drag the sponsors into his pathetic personal crusade...

well, if you conspire to break the law then you've got to be prepared to take your medicine.

Worst case medium to long term scenario; sponsors in Australia will simply decide that Rugby Union is not worth the trouble, and indeed, if Folau is able to somehow win any part of his case, the implications for Australian sport in general could be dire. They too could find themselves with a dire shortage of sponsorship....

Indeed. In the red corner: conservatives, Pacific Islanders & Christian lobby. In the blue corner: LGBTIs & leftists. Who'd want to go anywhere near that?

 

[Dickie E]

https://www.eternitynews.com.au/world/englands-version-of-israel-folau-wins-his-case/

 

[Ian_Cook]

https://www.eternitynews.com.au/world/englands-version-of-israel-folau-wins-his-case/

A terrible decision, one that has the potential to turn the clock back 400 years. Expect some religious persecution of gays to follow. I've lived and worked in a country where religion has a free hand.. it was, unpleasant to say the least.

If you are hoping and wishing for this to be the outcome in Folau's case, all I can say is be very careful what you wish for. Getting what you want might not turn out to be what you expected, and you might not like the society you end up living in.


On the other side of the ledger

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/...rses-dismissal-upheld-by-the-court-of-appeal/


ETA: Oh, and something else worth mentioning

I've just read the full judgement in the case you posted. Its not as clear cut as you think, and only superficially similar to the Folau case.

He has won on the basis that he was dismissed summarily and without a fair hearing. Folau had warnings over a period of 12 months, and had negotiations and hearings - this appellant had none of that.

From the judgement....

Conclusion
145. For all the reasons given above, we would allow the appeal on the first ground. The judge’s judgment was premised on an incorrect finding that the University was not suggesting a blanket ban of the sort now in question. The disciplinary proceedings were flawed and unfair to the Appellant. The fundamental fault for the unfortunate course which the disciplinary proceedings took lay with the University.

146. This Court cannot finally determine whether the Appellant would have resisted the possibility of tempering the expression of his views or would have refused to accept guidance which would resolve the problem. This requires new findings of fact. This case should, therefore, be remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted FTP Committee.

All he has really won the right to is another Fitness to Practice hearing.

Here's the full judgement.
View attachment ngole-v-sheffield-university-judgment.pdf

 

[Dickie E]

If you are hoping and wishing

I neither hope nor wish ... I just observe, learn & try to understand.

 

[crossref]

Those two cases are interesting but are different from IF

One key difference is that the nurse was proselyting in the workplace , in the course of her job , to unwilling victims

IF was proselyting on his private Instagram feed to an audience who had subscribed. I think that's quite significant

 

[The Fat]

It is obvious that the article reporting on the Sheffield University case does not give an unbiased account of the whole judgement.

In relation to the Folau case, consider the following.

Player A comes from a semi religious family i.e. they are not practicing Christians and they don’t attend church but they do believe there must be some sort of god and a nice place to go and meet up with all of their dead rellos when they die. Player A’s mum is not accepting of homosexuals and, in fear of any of her kids turning out to be gay, has always told her kids that homos are going to hell.
Player A gets to be pretty good, plays for his country, is good looking, keeps his nose clean and is a sponsor’s dream ambassador. Player A is adored by young players and has more twitter followers than The Donald. Player A gets caught up in an online debate and posts that all gays are going to Hell. Such public statements violate the Code of Conduct he plays/works under and after refusing requests by his employer to remove the offending posts, is shown the door and is dumped by his sponsors. Player A takes his former boss, (let’s call her Raelene), to court argues that he has the right of free speech but is told by the judge that his right to free speech does not give him the right to vilify on the basis of sexuality.

Play B, (let’s call him Izzy), does exactly the same as Player A and is also sacked. Izzy finds that every Christian man and his dog wants to back him in his court case but convince him that he needs to argue that his freedom of religion is the issue and he needs to make that the basis of his legal argument. Coincidentally, Izzy gets the same judge that Player A got and he finds that Izzy’s freedom to practice his religion has been denied and he shouldn’t be sacked for quoting something from the bible.
Two players in an identical situation but one claims that because he’s a religious man and he is simply quoting something from the bible he should be treated differently to Player A who is not very religious and doesn’t own a bible.

Surely we can all see the problem with this scenario? Why should one be allowed to use religious freedom as an argument to justify vilifying some young person who didn’t ask to be gay and has no say in who or what “god” made him?

 

[crossref]

Yes, this is at the heart of the issue.

Liberal society protects freedom of religion and that causes all sorts of problems when religious values clash with secular values.

Should religious people be allowed to kill animals in cruel ways?
Should they be allowed to mutilate their children's genital
Should they be allowed to express homophobic view (in private? In public?
Should they be allowed to bring up their children in the same faith ?

In China they are rounding up millions of Muslims and separating them from their children , so that the children won't grow up muslim

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Liberal society protects freedom of religion and that causes all sorts of problems when religious values clash with secular values.


In China they are rounding up millions of Muslims and separating them from their children , so that the children won't grow up muslim

In China, that is a secular value.

 

[Ian_Cook]

My replies in red

Should religious people be allowed to kill animals in cruel ways?

No-one should be allowed to do that.

Should they be allowed to mutilate their children's genital

No-one should be allowed to do that.

Should they be allowed to express homophobic view (in private? In public?

In private, yes, in public, no

Should they be allowed to bring up their children in the same faith ?

Yes

In China they are rounding up millions of Muslims and separating them from their children , so that the children won't grow up muslim

Call the Chinese embassy and complain about it