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?'