Blogger, Arthur Chrenkoff says that he hasn't written anything about Israel Folau because he cannot add anything that hasn't already been said, and he only mentions him at this late juncture, 2nd July, to point out that he, Folau and his case, is not all that unusual, despite the furore that has been going on for weeks.

It appears that a similar thing happened in Poland (Arthur hailed from Poland originally) when IKEA sacked an employee because he refused to take part in a compulsory LGBT promotion at work.

The employer cited his religious faith and the appropriate Bible texts for his refusal to take part. The man's colleagues respected his decision, but not IKEA, who fired him for his faith and beliefs.

IKEA 'assured' everyone that the "that the foundations of our corporate culture are freedom of viewpoints, tolerance and respect for every person".

Except for Thomas's (the fired employee's name) " viewpoints - no tolerance or respect for him. He might affect the 'dignity' of other employees. It doesn't matter about him. A wonderful example of some people's rights overriding other people's rights. Or worse, the other person's religious beliefs being trampled on. Just like the Folau discrimination by an employer.

As Chenkoff observes, even in ultra-Catholic Poland "quoting  the wrong Bible verses can lose you your job". In bordering-on-atheist Australia, Israel Folau never stood a chance. Had both these men, and many others with the same beliefs, been Muslims, would they have been sacked in Australia or Poland? Somehow, I don't think they would. There faith and beliefs would be 'respected'.

And, it's not even government persecuting Christians, it is big business that has taken on the job, as they become "colonised by the products of our increasingly woke education systems, media and culture."

Rugby Australia maintains that Israel Folau was dismissed not
because of his religious beliefs, but because he breached the
player code of conduct.

Raelene Castle, The Chair of Rugby Australia explained
numerous times in TV interviews and in the media -
Rugby's code is typical of that of many businesses.
It requires players to treat everyone equally and
with dignity, regardless of the their sexual orientation:
not to use social media to breach expected standards of behaviour:
and not to make public comments or otherwise clearly act
contrary to the best interests of the game.

Clearly Folau's actions breached the player code of conduct.

Folau had several warnings, including a written letter
about his behaviour. Yet he still ignored them all.

Case Law tells us that Section 351 of the Fair Works Act
requires the employee to prove an employer was motivated
to discriminate against him because of religion.

If an employer can p[oint to an employee's breach of their
employment obligations as the reason for the dismissal
instead of a discriminatory motive then the employee's
claim fails.

A Tribunal found that Israel Folau had breached his employment
code of conduct. We shall have to wait and see if the
Courts will agree with the Tribunal's decision.

The Folau case is not about freedom of speech, or freedom of
religion. It's about contractual obligations and the law.
If we don't like the law as it currently stands regarding
employment obligations perhaps we need to look at a review
and having the law changed?

Israel Folau was dismissed not
because of his religious beliefs, but because he breached the
player code of conduct.
Yes, when RA is allowed to write a code of conduct that leaves no room for the players beliefs then of course he is in breach. RA too are in breach of code of conduct for morals by such inflexibility !
I think the best way would be for Gays to just quietly go about their business instead of throwing it into our faces at every turn. Normal people would then not comment about them !

Hey ttbn,

"And, it's not even government persecuting Christians, it is big business that has taken on the job, as they become 'colonised by the products of our increasingly woke education systems, media and culture'."

Alright, Occums Razor.
What are your thoughts on the most likely answer here?

Is 'Big Business' doing this by accident?
Or are they following a plan?

Or are they following a plan?
Armchair Critic,
I imagine that there is a plan to exploit full stop ! Be it greed, superstition or whatever other stupidity ! The recent/present western stupidity is dumbing-down education.

AC,

Has to be a plan, I think. It's now so widespread that it can't be coincidence, and as Arthur said, the products of Leftist education and brainwashing are now infiltrating business. A bit reminiscent of Cambridge and and Philby? Maybe?

If tolerance is an obligation instead of a voluntary action then it's not tolerance. If it's a rule instead of a voluntary action, then that removes any chance of kindness being part of it. (Because the written or unwritten rule was broken and now the person breaking it faces consquences).

I remember when tolerance was an act of kindness, instead of a rule enforced by an angry mob. Those who gave tolerance to someone or something that isn't always accepted was thanked and appriaciated. Those who didn't show tolerance weren't punished because that was their choice. They lost or gained respect based on what they would or wouldn't tolerate, but they were't sued or fired for not being tolerant above what is expected in the laws and the rules of where they are.

What happened to lose the essence of tolerance? Why has it lost it's mark of kindness, mercy, even innocence and Naivety? It's because the world has tried to make kindness an obligation and tolerance an unwritten but punishable rule. These things should be the choice of an individual that goes above and beyond the rules and expectations. They shouldn't be the the rules themselves.

Foxy,

As mentioned in another thread:

You keep quoting Raelene Castle as an unbiased expert. She's clearly not. To admit even once that religion had anything to do with IF's dismissal would be to hand Folau an instant victory, at which point she might as well resign.

Labour law is biased towards an employee, and to fire someone requires the employer not only to have a strong case for dismissal, but to have followed the correct procedures. Many employee has been reappointed for the smallest slip up.

That there is a clear and unambiguous tie to Folau's religion in the quote that he posted on Instagram being a quote from the new testament rather than any direct statement of his opinion changes the onus of proof onto RA. Given that the purely contractual basis for the dismissal is also on shaky ground given they are relying on the code of conduct rather than the contract. Add to this a senior member of RA admitting that the support of sponsors was based on the outcome and you have the perfect storm for RA.

If Folau drags the sponsors into court for months of bad publicity, you might well find the pressure on RA to settle becoming irresistible.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Thank you for your beautiful post about kindness and tolerance. I fully agree.

---

Dear Ttbn,

Isn't the problem with Thomas, rather that instead of doing productive work, he was made to work in advertising/promotions, for the sake of brainwashing other people to buy products which they do not need? The attempt to make him damage his relationship with God was only adding an extra insult to injury.

---

Hell is probably a cool place to be, compared with having to work for such bad employers.

The underlying problem here is capitalism, whereby people are forced to degrade themselves and act against their morals and religious convictions in order to pay their bills. The answer to this is a universal basic income (sometimes called "Negative Income Tax").

Hell is probably a cool place to be,
Yuyutsu,
Well, when Trump went to the other side he was given the choice of Heaven or Hell. he looked at heaven where everything peaceful & serene & quiet. He then went to hell where there was partying & drinking & he spotted Clinton & Monica in a corner with Monica doing what Monica was famous for. Trump beamed & said to the Devil, "wow, this is great, I can handle that".
So, the Devil turned & said "ok, Monica, you can go now !".

NNS,

You have hit the nail on the head. Well said.

The point of this post is to show that some people who preach tolerance are not tolerant themselves. They are frauds. The post has nothing to do with laws and who is right and who is wrong, it is about the hypocrisy, stupidity and arrogance of people who take it upon themselves to decided who can say what.

Hey ttbn

"Has to be a plan, I think."

- Thanks, that's all I wanted -

Because IF there is a 'plan', THEN naturally the next logical questions can only be:

'What plan?' and 'By whom?'

The fact is, condemning gays and others to hell is
vilification. Especially when quoting from a book
written by men and translated from the Greek to
English 2000 years ago and open to interpretation.

We've ended up with a huge controversy.
And emotions running high. One of those attacking Rugby
Australia's code of conduct was Sydney's Anglican
archbishop Glenn Davies who eloquently defended Folau's
" right as a citizen to speak of what he believes without
threat to his employment."

David Marr in his article 27th June 2019, in The Guardian,
asks, Is this the same archbishop who compelled 34
Anglican headmasters and headmistresses last year to sign
an open letter demanding the law continue to allow them to
sack gay teachers and expel gay students?

As Marr points out there's one rule for religious schools
and another for the rest of society.

Folau is free as a footballer to vilify gays without losing
his job but were he coaching coaching rugby at a Sydney
Anglican school and tweeting approval of gays it might
well see him shown the door.

If you are demanding rights for yourself which you won't
extend to others, that's not freedom. It's privilege.

And the quality of tolerance is indeed strained.

Marrr points out that we're now in the midst of this
pandemonium because Folau changed his mind.

For a $4 million contract he initially agreed to go easy
on denouncing, among other vices, the evils of
homosexuality. He traded his freedom of speech for money.

So why say yes in the first place and sign a contract if
that's such a profound violation of his rights and his
faith?

And why does he now expect more millions from Rugby Australia
because he's copped the ordinary consequences now of
going back on his word?

Marr auggests that it appears that Folau's
target (homoasexuals - which he inserted amongst others) is
everything in this scenario.

Marr asks -

If Folau was insisting on vilifying say - Jews, the rich,
the disabled, would anyone object to Rugby Australia
insisting the shut up about it?

AC,

I have said what my post is about. I'm not interested in getting into the ins and outs of a duck's bum, and moving away from the subject - that some people who preach tolerance do not practice it themselves.

Hi there FOXY...

I couldn't agree more with your Post! You raised many questions about this man, who appears to me, as a bit of a prima donna. In my mind, he either should play football and keep his own counsel on his moral & religious views or give it up altogether if he can't reconcile those beliefs with his current contractual obligations.

Hey ttbn,

I guess maybe I mistakenly viewed your comment in the context of 'displaying a pattern of behavior within big business', rather than how you meant it in a context of 'intolerance or hypocrisy by those who speak of tolerance'.

I appreciate that you've made us aware of this issue and I'm trying to make a conscious effort not to post too much of the types of comments I do on your threads.

In regards to the context I viewed your comment, recognising the problem is simply the first step and I tend to want to explore the issue further and find it's cause and look for solutions.

In regards to 'tolerance' and 'dictating behavior and beliefs' my only thoughts at this point is how widespread this type of thing in going on with normal citizens in regular employment who aren't in the public spotlight.

I think I did have it right the other day though when I said the narrative is always 2 steps to the left so that they can continually shift the goal posts.

Foxy,

The fact is quoting a section of the bible that could cause offence to a minority group is not vilification by any reasonable definition. Only the most oversensitive activist could inflate this to vilification, and would distort the meaning to include anything that offended anyone.

Considering that posting offensive material about jews seems to be a national sport amongst the left whinge for which there never seems to be any consequences, you comparison falls flat.

Dear O Sung Wu,

It shall now be up to the courts to decide this case.

Interesting times ahead.

Hi FOXY...

Yup, the Courts will now decide something, where a bit of common sense should've prevailed? Introduce a legal remedy, means someone will be out of pocket, with nothing of substance to really to show for it.

AC,

No worries. I hope you didn’t feel rebuffed. I’m not the most diplomatic of people, and you are entitled to post whatever you want. I’m a stickler for sticking to the subject, but I should accept that other people are not the same.

Augusto Zimmermann has urged the Morrison government to introduce a ‘Restoration of Freedoms Act’, which would involve enacting legislation that restores the basic rights to free speech in Australia.

This is a big ask of a government led by Scott Morrison, who is reported as saying: “free speech doesn’t create one job, doesn’t open one business, doesn’t give anyone an extra hour. It doesn’t make housing more affordable or energy more affordable.”. What an appalling attitude from the leader of Australia!

Basic freedoms don’t matter to the Prime Minister as long as everyone has a job.

Zimmermann asks, “Isn’t that remarkably similar to the way the communists think?”

Zimmermann asks, “Isn’t that remarkably similar to the way the communists think?”
ttbn,
Zimmermann is twisting the meaning !

"Zimmermann is twisting the meaning !"

Care to explain how he is doing the twisting, individual? For people who know anything about communism, it's pretty straight forward.

Ah yes,
all communists think alike, just like all Conservatives,
Wallonians, Pireneans, and Danireans.

Sweeping generalisations enable people to make sense of the
world by simplifying its complexity.

These people have a distinctive set of traits,
including conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity. They are people
who are disturbed by
any ambiguity in sexual or religious matters, and they
see the world in very rigid and stereotypical terms.
They are people who have anti-intellectual
and anti-scientific attitudes.

The world is full of them.

In the UK, one Felix Ngole was dismissed from his post graduate degree by Sheffield University for expressing the Biblical view that homosexuality is a sin. The High Court supported the university's anti-Christian bigotry.

However, the UK Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision, ruling that the expression of views on theological grounds does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.

Hope for Israel Folau.

At least we haven’t sunk to Swedish depths, yet.

The Prime Minister of Sweden has vowed to force all priests to perform same-sex marriages, even if their faith tells them not to (which it obviously does).

PM, Stefan Lofven, had clearly said, “No priest in the Swedish Church can refuse to marry same-sex couples”. He reckons that priests who don’t perform SSM are like midwives refusing to carry out abortions. Apparently, one Swedish midwife has had to seek employment outside Sweden because of the thuggish government.

In another sinkhole of leftists ratbaggery and depravity, California, a group of “lawmakers” is pushing for “counsellors, pastors, religious workers and institutions to stop labelling homosexuality and transgenderism as a sin …..” Just change a couple of thousand years of belief to fit in with a few perverts.

Hi there TTBN...

You mentioned in another of your contributions herein, suggesting you're 'not the most diplomatic of people'! I don't know about that TTBN. I believe it's your pragmatism that ruffles some feathers, including mine - Initially.

That was until I realized you and I are usually on the same page, but we tended to express our views somewhat differently, is all. I also believe you adhere meticulously to the topic at hand (which for some of us, is difficult).

Therefore, I believe it's this inveterate pragmatism of yours, that results in you attempting to comply, as best you can, with the truth, and the topic under discussion. A reality that any one of us, can usually distinguish? And most would understand, the truth can be elusive at times. A fact that I can readily endorse, believe me.

The right to 'be offended' was a compulsory inclusion in the package deal of 'being born'.
I wonder if anyone actually has 'never ever been offended' at all in their lives?
I don't think so; Therefore:

- Let's all just face the facts of life's realities -
That being born included an obligation to be offended by something, somewhere at some point.