Israel Folau

[Tommy Smith]

He'd be a real hit with our gay fans.

[mightyrooster]

Sure another back when we need forwards. Great idea!

[Louis N]

He'd be a real hit with our gay fans.

They're pretty sombre at the moment Tommy. Only gay when we win.

[bondi.boy]

IZZY?...yes please.

No front rowers to buy, we have to make our own.

The 'Yes' lot can heap hate on 'No' voters [whether or not they're Christians and quote from the Bible]...with immunity from any type of criticism from the ARU, NRL or anyone else it seems.
...yet if a "No" voter open his mouth all hell breaks loose, so to speak.
Where is Izzy's free speech?
Oh, I forgot, there is basically no such thing in Australia today.

I would advise Izzy to close his social media accounts, and not discuss "sex, religion, or politics" in public.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -1 Cor 6:9, NIV

xxxxx

There are many problems with translating the Greek word, arsenokoitai, as homosexual offenders.

Second, the concept of homosexuality and the word homosexual are modern constructs. The English word homosexual begins showing up in dictionaries around 1890. There was no Greek word in the first century AD which had the same semantic range as our modern word homosexual.

Because the concept of an exclusive gay or lesbian orientation was not common in the first century and because there was no Greek word with the same semantic range as our modern word homosexual, it is wrong to impose our modern concept on scripture. To read homosexuality into Bible verses which as originally given, did not describe homosexuality, is to add to scripture and to commit spiritual malpractice.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/how-d...to-heaven.html

[elo]

Sack him on what grounds? He would sue them into the ground for religious discrimination and win easily, Greg Martin is full of shit.

[crikey chris]

I highly doubt that it will happen, but the butt hurt from other supporters would be off the planet. Has izzy been spotted having a coffee with uncle nick yet lol

In all seriousness its props we need, and a hooker.

[Arties Pie]

On the Folau question what was he suppossed to say his belief's dictated the answer he was going to give and they knew it, the answer would be the same if they asked a Muslim the same question. A very loaded question indeed and a very big over reaction. I couldn't believe the reaction people had when Margret Court was punished for her stand on the same topic as she's a devout Christian, what answer were they expecting. I voted NO and I don't give a shit who knows.

[bondi paul]

On the Folau question what was he suppossed to say his belief's dictated the answer he was going to give and they knew it, the answer would be the same if they asked a Muslim the same question. A very loaded question indeed and a very big over reaction. I couldn't believe the reaction people had when Margret Court was punished for her stand on the same topic as she's a devout Christian, what answer were they expecting. I voted NO and I don't give a shit who knows.

Artie - speaking of Margaret Court, have you seen the interview by Tracey Holmes that included Rod Laver. It’s brilliant.

[Arties Pie]

Artie - speaking of Margaret Court, have you seen the interview by Tracey Holmes that included Rod Laver. It’s brilliant.

Yes I saw it, two champion players who were well ahead of their time.. I loved the comparison Rod made in regards to the size and composition of the racquet's used today as in how easy they are to wield in comparison to the old wooden racquet. I played as a junior with the old wooden racquets and remember how much easier it was to make shots with my first Prince graphite one... But back on Rod and Margaret they were certainly titans in their era who steered Australia through the golden times of Australian Tennis.

[ism22]

On the Folau question what was he suppossed to say his belief's dictated the answer he was going to give and they knew it, the answer would be the same if they asked a Muslim the same question. A very loaded question indeed and a very big over reaction. I couldn't believe the reaction people had when Margret Court was punished for her stand on the same topic as she's a devout Christian, what answer were they expecting. I voted NO and I don't give a shit who knows.

1. You say that as if anybody cares that you have outdated opinions? I dont. You lost... happy for you to humbug as much as you like.
2. IMO the Folau thing is purely PR. He hasnt been sacked or reprimanded. The public (who mostly voted yes) exercised their freedom of political communication and told him that his comments were of poor taste. Like it or not the guy is a public figure who represents his employer. His employers official position is that they embrace diversity. His personal opinions are contrary to their official opinion, so management have simply reminded him to be mindful of what he says on social media.
3. Margaret court took it a step further and again, people exercised their right to question whether a stadium that represents an inclusive sport should be named after somebody with non-inclusive opinions. In particular, people voiced the idea of naming it after Latrells aunty because she was more successful, is from an Indigenous background and doesnt hold non-inclusive opinions. While I doubt this will lead to anything, it is fair discussion in a world where gay marriage has been normalised and those who remain opposed to it are a therefore opposed to inclusive public policies.
4. Gay people are a minority group who have experienced significant discrimination in the past. Simply being gay used to be illegal and people are righfully entitled to feel this was an injustice. Gay marriage was intentionally a proactive, anti-discriminatory public policy. The general public have embraced it (including all major political parties and most large organisations). People are allowed to opposed it, but equally, organisations are allowed to embrace it as being their official public stance. In general, if individuals within an organisation hold views that are contrary to the beliefs of the organisation and voice them while identifying as a member of the organisation, then the organisation is allowed to retaliate. Despite what you have said, there have been no heavy fisted retaliations... all we have seen is small back office chats where people have been reminded of their social media obligations, pursuant to company policy.

[Tommy Smith]

1. You say that as if anybody cares that you have outdated opinions? I dont. You lost... happy for you to humbug as much as you like.
2. IMO the Folau thing is purely PR. He hasnt been sacked or reprimanded. The public (who mostly voted yes) exercised their freedom of political communication and told him that his comments were of poor taste. Like it or not the guy is a public figure who represents his employer. His employers official position is that they embrace diversity. His personal opinions are contrary to their official opinion, so management have simply reminded him to be mindful of what he says on social media.
3. Margaret court took it a step further and again, people exercised their right to question whether a stadium that represents an inclusive sport should be named after somebody with non-inclusive opinions. In particular, people voiced the idea of naming it after Latrells aunty because she was more successful, is from an Indigenous background and doesnt hold non-inclusive opinions. While I doubt this will lead to anything, it is fair discussion in a world where gay marriage has been normalised and those who remain opposed to it are a therefore opposed to inclusive public policies.
4. Gay people are a minority group who have experienced significant discrimination in the past. Simply being gay used to be illegal and people are righfully entitled to feel this was an injustice. Gay marriage was intentionally a proactive, anti-discriminatory public policy. The general public have embraced it (including all major political parties and most large organisations). People are allowed to opposed it, but equally, organisations are allowed to embrace it as being their official public stance. In general, if individuals within an organisation hold views that are contrary to the beliefs of the organisation and voice them while identifying as a member of the organisation, then the organisation is allowed to retaliate. Despite what you have said, there have been no heavy fisted retaliations... all we have seen is small back office chats where people have been reminded of their social media obligations, pursuant to company policy.

Top post.

I just wish marriage equality was around 4 or so years earlier so I could have proposed to SBW after 2013.

[crikey chris]

Yes I saw it, two champion players who were well ahead of their time.. I loved the comparison Rod made in regards to the size and composition of the racquet's used today as in how easy they are to wield in comparison to the old wooden racquet. I played as a junior with the old wooden racquets and remember how much easier it was to make shots with my first Prince graphite one... But back on Rod and Margaret they were certainly titans in their era who steered Australia through the golden times of Australian Tennis.

Haha the good old graphite Prince
Brought back plenty of memories when I used to play half decent, also starting with wooden racquets, and later playing with a Prince Thunderstruck. Got to grade 4 Saturday afternoon comp at age 16, then women and beer took over, and tennis took a back seat. Thunderstruck is still somewhere in the garage lol

[Bigchook]

1. You say that as if anybody cares that you have outdated opinions? I dont. You lost... happy for you to humbug as much as you like.
2. IMO the Folau thing is purely PR. He hasnt been sacked or reprimanded. The public (who mostly voted yes) exercised their freedom of political communication and told him that his comments were of poor taste. Like it or not the guy is a public figure who represents his employer. His employers official position is that they embrace diversity. His personal opinions are contrary to their official opinion, so management have simply reminded him to be mindful of what he says on social media.
3. Margaret court took it a step further and again, people exercised their right to question whether a stadium that represents an inclusive sport should be named after somebody with non-inclusive opinions. In particular, people voiced the idea of naming it after Latrells aunty because she was more successful, is from an Indigenous background and doesnt hold non-inclusive opinions. While I doubt this will lead to anything, it is fair discussion in a world where gay marriage has been normalised and those who remain opposed to it are a therefore opposed to inclusive public policies.
4. Gay people are a minority group who have experienced significant discrimination in the past. Simply being gay used to be illegal and people are righfully entitled to feel this was an injustice. Gay marriage was intentionally a proactive, anti-discriminatory public policy. The general public have embraced it (including all major political parties and most large organisations). People are allowed to opposed it, but equally, organisations are allowed to embrace it as being their official public stance. In general, if individuals within an organisation hold views that are contrary to the beliefs of the organisation and voice them while identifying as a member of the organisation, then the organisation is allowed to retaliate. Despite what you have said, there have been no heavy fisted retaliations... all we have seen is small back office chats where people have been reminded of their social media obligations, pursuant to company policy.

This is the first post you've written in normal English without the jismisms. I agree with everything that you wrote. In regards to maintaining the views of your employer, at what point in your social life are you allowed to voice opinions incongruent with your organisation? I guess there are a few professions where it is necessary to adopt the company stance 24/7, such as a police officer. Just seems like a bizarre world to me where this is where we're at with professional athletes. The pillars of morality..

[RoosterChick]

Maybe we should be looking at Rugby Union props. At least they know how to offload.

[stephenj]

hes a winger not a centre