TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 485

Thread: The Decline of the Debate and the Rise of the Far Left and Right

  1. #226
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It all comes down to which you think is more important: the right to speak without being censored by anyone or anything, be they public or private, or the rights of a property owner to control his assets as he pleases. To maintain one, you have to sacrifice the other. Unmitigated freedom of speech, or enforcable freedom of association?

    Which would you all choose?

  2. #227
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The way this controversy is framed is highly deceptive: is bigotry a religious freedom now that supersedes all other freedoms? If someone's religion requires them to threaten people with hell, should that then override any and all rules and terms of contract, never mind the standards of basic decency? What if someone's religion requires them to cut off the head of a goat every week, take pictures, and show them to coworkers?
    Last edited by Starker; 27th Jun 2019 at 19:16.

  3. #228
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    What if someone's religion requires them to cut off the head of a goat every week, take pictures, and show them to coworkers?
    Hey, guys! I'm gonna start this club, right? Well, it's not so much a club as it is a cult, but...

  4. #229
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    No one wants to join my cult?

  5. #230
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Damn. I thought you said clit for a second there.

  6. #231
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Clits will be involved, but you have to join before you can get the details.

  7. #232
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Are you going to take pictures and show them to coworkers?

  8. #233
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    No, that's what the goats are for.

  9. #234
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Wouldn't that be a bit difficult, what with the hooves and all? They can't even hold the camera.

  10. #235
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    They're pretty versatile animals, Starker. Quit being so damn judgmental.

  11. #236
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    That's not being judgemental, it's just expressing strongly held beliefs.

  12. #237

  13. #238
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It all comes down to which you think is more important: the right to speak without being censored by anyone or anything, be they public or private, or the rights of a property owner to control his assets as he pleases. To maintain one, you have to sacrifice the other. Unmitigated freedom of speech, or enforcable freedom of association?

    Which would you all choose?
    Freedom of speech for me.

  14. #239
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    OK, so I followed your link to find out what he said that was so awful he got fired for it:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-...-post/10990920

    That is proselytising. If a coworker was doing that in the workplace, it would be inappropriate, and continuing do it would be grounds for termination. However, outside of the workplace people are free to express their religious beliefs. Like it or not, most branches of monotheism teach that homosexuality is a sin, punishable by God. This isn't an extremist belief, and stating it doesn't constitute a threat to anyone. He also called out drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters. It looks to me like this guy got fired for daring to be a Christian in public, and now he is being discriminated against for his Christian views.

    And Renzatic, we prevent businesses from discriminating against customers, employees, job applicants, etc. based on religion. If you're a business owner who is providing a service or product to the public, you can't pick and choose customers based on your religious beliefs. If your business is making wedding cakes, you can't refuse to make wedding cakes for gay and lesbian couples because your religion considers homosexuality a sin (and yes I know we are fighting that battle through the courts yet again). Likewise, if your business is providing a crowd funding service, you can't refuse to provide your service to somebody because they are religious. Both are discriminatory and wrong.

  15. #240
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    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.
    Last edited by Starker; 28th Jun 2019 at 10:10.

  16. #241
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    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.

  17. #242
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    It's not like he didn't know what he was doing either. He had done this kind of thing before and had been warned to tone it down: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...tralia/9636768

    One thing I find funny in this situation is that we are not talking about someone in need. Apparently, he's a multi-millionaire and he was asking for way, way more money he realistically needs for the legal battle: https://7news.com.au/sport/israel-fo...folio-c-177453

  18. #243
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Though at the same time, his entire career has been ruined in that sport, and he'll never have a career in it ever again, just for posting his views on a religious topic. And likely he'll have a hard time getting a career in anything again (besides something church related).

    So the money he has now, has to last him and his family a lifetime, or be on government benefits forever after. To me, the punishment does not fit the "crime".

  19. #244
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    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.

  20. #245
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    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.

    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?

  21. #246
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Well think it through. He's going to get hounded by left-aligned people from here on, wherever he goes. "We don't want bigots working at -insert name here-" they will cry.

  22. #247
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Er, yes, because he's a bigot. Actions, consequences? Literally what everyone has been saying over and over for pages.

  23. #248
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Ireland
    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.

  24. #249
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    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.

    And he has every right to say them, under free speech, whether we agree with those views or not. Even if they are offensive. That is 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.
    Last edited by icemann; 28th Jun 2019 at 13:23.

  25. #250
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    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.

    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.

    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 Originally Posted by Nameless Voice View Post
    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 Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    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.

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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