clutchcargo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:23 pm

timmydownawell wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:48 pm Bahahaha, new Gofundme page:

Issy’s in a tissy over contract law. Let’s help him get a better understanding in reading, comprehension and Contract Law that he so desperately needs. Courses online are inexpensive- I’ll choose the cheapest one available.

If he chooses not to accept the tuition, or if there are surplus donations over the course fees, all remaining funds will be donated to Minus 18- a youth charity helping young LGBTIQ.

https://www.gofundme.com/help-israel-fo ... ntract-law

WTF? Anyway, nice pic to get everyone inspired..

Leviticus 19:28: ”You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.”
Glad to see he is following all of the teachings of the bible

AB101 wrote:I am not a great fan of rugby and I have never seen or met this guy but to me it seems the same old story. You can say and think what you like as long as it is in line with the "Liberal" way of thinking.

He has just voiced and stated opinions. He is entitled to those opinions. Holding those opinions means that he cannot play rugby only proves that this sport in new Zealand has been taken over by the "Liberal" thinking classes.

His approach should be..."Screw you, I have my beliefs and if that means I cannot play for a narrow minded team in a narrow minded sport, then so be it".

Sad the way the world is still dominated by these "open minded Liberal thinkers", and sad that he wants to take it to the courts instead of walking away.

Folau's Australian. He can hold any opinion he wants, as can anyone.

Voicing, not holding those opinions was a breach of the terms of the players code of conduct. I don't know the details of the code, but he certainly did. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

epidemiks wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:01 pm

AB101 wrote:I am not a great fan of rugby and I have never seen or met this guy but to me it seems the same old story. You can say and think what you like as long as it is in line with the "Liberal" way of thinking.

He has just voiced and stated opinions. He is entitled to those opinions. Holding those opinions means that he cannot play rugby only proves that this sport in new Zealand has been taken over by the "Liberal" thinking classes.

His approach should be..."Screw you, I have my beliefs and if that means I cannot play for a narrow minded team in a narrow minded sport, then so be it".

Sad the way the world is still dominated by these "open minded Liberal thinkers", and sad that he wants to take it to the courts instead of walking away.

Folau's Australian. He can hold any opinion he wants, as can anyone.

Voicing, not holding those opinions was a breach of the terms of the players code of conduct. I don't know the details of the code, but he certainly did. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Agreed

AB101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:47 pm I am not a great fan of rugby and I have never seen or met this guy but to me it seems the same old story. You can say and think what you like as long as it is in line with the "Liberal" way of thinking.

He has just voiced and stated opinions. He is entitled to those opinions. Holding those opinions means that he cannot play rugby only proves that this sport in new Zealand has been taken over by the "Liberal" thinking classes.

His approach should be..."Screw you, I have my beliefs and if that means I cannot play for a narrow minded team in a narrow minded sport, then so be it".

Sad the way the world is still dominated by these "open minded Liberal thinkers", and sad that he wants to take it to the courts instead of walking away.

His opinions are ones of intolerance and exclusion, fundamentally against the ethos of rugby, so yeah he's free to open his mouth and identify himself as a bigot, and thus also free to not play rugby anymore. He was there to play rugby, not spout off about what other people do with their free time. Forbidding hate speech is not "Liberal".

He's a complete hypocrite. Here's a direct quote from him from April 2018:

"I told Raelene if she felt the situation had become untenable – that I was hurting Rugby Australia, its sponsors and the Australian rugby community to such a degree that things couldn’t be worked through – I would walk away from my contract, immediately,"

He's being used by his religious father - and now the Australian Christian Lobby - to further their agendas. They're fucked off that same sex marriage was legalised and this is a way to fight back.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:17 pm His opinions are ones of intolerance and exclusion, fundamentally against the ethos of rugby, so yeah he's free to open his mouth and identify himself as a bigot, and thus also free to not play rugby anymore. He was there to play rugby, not spout off about what other people do with their free time. Forbidding hate speech is not "Liberal".

His opinions are opposite to yours which in your eyes makes him guilty and a bigot. Some would see you as immoral, elitist and a bohemian. Hate speech could be construed as your view of him and people who hold those views.

I do not agree with his views but I would defend his right to those views and the right to speak and write his views. That is tolerance. Something Liberals do not have much of. It's called Free Speech, something people such as you would take away from others.

Who are you to decide what views are right and what are wrong? Who are you to decide what is hate speech?

AB101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:24 pmIt's called Free Speech, something people such as you would take away from others.

You have completely and utterly missed the point. He has his freedom of speech and has been using it. No one is trying to take that away from him. If you say things that people find repugnant, they don't have to stand there and keep listening to you say it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of being a dick.

AB101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:24 pm Who are you to decide what views are right and what are wrong? Who are you to decide what is hate speech?

Yes, totally missed the point. The man's contract has been terminated by his employers. Not by forum members on CEO.

Top sports men and women are paid vast sums of money, not just to play their sport, but to act as representatives of their team and their employer. There will be a clause about not bringing the sport or the association into disrepute, in a contract that he (and his lawyers) have read, agreed to, and signed. If he is esteemed to have breached the contract, then he can be disciplined, suspended or fired. That's pretty standard.

And btw AB101, in the Australian context, "Liberal" with a capital L refers to members or supporters of the Australian Liberal Party: https://www.liberal.org.au/ Not exactly a steaming hot-bed of loony-lefties.

AB101 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:24 pm

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:17 pm His opinions are ones of intolerance and exclusion, fundamentally against the ethos of rugby, so yeah he's free to open his mouth and identify himself as a bigot, and thus also free to not play rugby anymore. He was there to play rugby, not spout off about what other people do with their free time. Forbidding hate speech is not "Liberal".

His opinions are opposite to yours which in your eyes makes him guilty and a bigot. Some would see you as immoral, elitist and a bohemian. Hate speech could be construed as your view of him and people who hold those views.

I do not agree with his views but I would defend his right to those views and the right to speak and write his views. That is tolerance. Something Liberals do not have much of. It's called Free Speech, something people such as you would take away from others.

Who are you to decide what views are right and what are wrong? Who are you to decide what is hate speech?

His opinions discriminate against people for their life choices, perfectly legal activities and the fair enjoyment of their peaceful existence. Being a bigot means you hate people for no reason, and therefore want their lifestyle to be criminalised or not legitimised, for no reason other than the fact that you secretly dream of the loving arms of a big strong man, his warm caress and his throbbing member. Why deny yourself? Nobody would see me as immoral, and I'm not sure that Bohemian is the insult you mean. maybe you too dream of being sexually free. If you run around yelling "I hate [the banned word]", and I call you a cunt for doing so, why would that put me in the wrong? Surely you need to look inside yourself and ask yourself, why do you hate gays/[the banned word]/Liberals? Is it because you get a secret boner when you watch RuPaul's Drag Race? Does that make them wrong because you are so far in the closet you have a speaking lion for a best friend? If you can't see what is wrong that is not tolerance, that's you being an oaf.

Israel Folau has earned $12 million from Rugby.
He has a property portfolio worth $7 million.

Barristers say a full appeal to the high court with all the best hired guns should cost no more than $300,000
His original GodFundMe appeal had a specific disclaimer; that the money raised could be used for anything - entirely at Mr Folau's discretion.

A side note. This affair does remind me that Pacific islanders, by and large, are the most generous people on the planet - to all kinds of charities and hard-luck cases.
I doubt if that is entirely due to their fundamentalist style of christianity - but it is certainly a contributing factor.
Credit where credit is due.