Social When Sports Don't Support the inclusive view - but their religious beliefs

Teppodama said:
Yes, it actually is. There's argument on whether it should be and often regardless is suggested as a more acceptible alternative but it is in fact a word. Just an old one.
Click to expand...
Nah, it was said by people who were confused and just stuck. I've known this for quite a while.

Doesn't make it a word just because some people say it.
 
bandicoot said:
Nah, it was said by people who were confused and just stuck. I've known this for quite a while.

Doesn't make it a word just because some people say it.
Click to expand...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Is irregardless a word?

Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Click to expand...
As I said, it's a word just not one in popular use and regardless is generally suggested as a better alternative.

http://www.businessinsider.com/irre...ary-mean-girls-lexicon-merriam-webster-2017-6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
 
Yorkist said:
He isn't taking anything from anyone though. He's just stating his opinion.
Click to expand...
The opinion, when put into action, is a return to the situation homosexuals were in just a few years ago. There's no reasonable expectation that people who feel as he does simply want to speak their minds but leave marriage equality and such in place.
 
Grunk said:
Here is an absolute sports superstar in Australia - played all 3 codes and is on millions a year. But he can't help himself - his religious views are against the open gay support trend - he made it clear at our referendum on gay marriage that he would not be supporting it. So he has been very open for years on his beliefs - but the response from the Exec is now to call him in to conflict with their inclusion policy. Now his latest post - on gays going to hell is really stirring things up.

I don't know the answer - but he may have a valid point that he is being the one persecuted for his religious views.


----
Dual international Israel Folau did not appear to be in the mood to compromise on the eve of a crucial meeting with his employers on Tuesday, posting biblical references to being "persecuted" for his beliefs.

Folau has come under fire for saying on Instagram that gay people are destined for hell. He was called to meet with Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle and Waratahs chief executive Andrew Hore at RA headquarters on Tuesday morning.

.....

RA is under pressure from major sponsors Qantas, Asics and Land Rover to distance themselves from Folau's comment of last week, which appears to be in breach of the game's code of conduct and inclusion policy. Castle said last week RA was treating the matter seriously.

--------

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...-no-sign-of-backing-down-20180409-p4z8lk.html
Click to expand...

what if you have religious views that say gluttons are going to hell, and you talk about it all the time? does the team you represent have a right to protect itself from your views? what if you think people of other skin colors are inferior, based on your religious views? would this still be persecution of the racist person....simply because their racism is justified in some centuries old text?
 
Swing said:
The opinion, when put into action, is a return to the situation homosexuals were in just a few years ago. There's no reasonable expectation that people who feel as he does simply want to speak their minds but leave marriage equality and such in place.
Click to expand...

Words don't equal action. Calm your tits.
 
tenor.gif
 
Teppodama said:
If he's making his comments while officially representing his team and sport then fuck him.

If he's doing so in his capacity as a mere citizen expressing his views in an unofficial capacity then fuck them.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with that.
 
Yorkist said:
Words don't equal action. Calm your tits.
Click to expand...
They don't, but they certainly imply it; and we have thousands of years of history to look back on in regard to how religious people disagree with those whose life styles they don't approve of. And that often equaled action based on (guess what?) words written in a book.

You're the one who seems to be getting excited. I've already forgotten this guy's name.
 
I think the modern trend of trying to get people fired or blacklisting them for unpopular opinions is more unhealthy for society than the opinions themselves.

Whether we're talking about Colin Kaepernick, or Kevin Williamson, or that Jarrar lady, or this Australian athlete. Silencing people isn't persuasion.
 
It's funny how all these people who are against gays becuase of their religion spew their hate online and then right away go and watch lesbian porn.
Every single one of them is a hypocrit and a waste of space, water and oxigen.
 
Swing said:
They don't, but they certainly imply it; and we have thousands of years of history to look back on in regard to how religious people disagree with those whose life styles they don't approve of. And that often equaled action based on (guess what?) words written in a book.

You're the one who seems to be getting excited. I've already forgotten this guy's name.
Click to expand...

That's hardly exclusive to religious people. I'm am atheist myself, but I'd point out that biggest mass killers have been atheist communists.
 
Yorkist said:
That's hardly exclusive to religious people. I'm am atheist myself, but I'd point out that biggest mass killers have been atheist communists.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be exclusive to them. The point is simply that I'm not buying into the idea that Mr. Fire and Brimstone would stop at expressing his ideas if he could take it further.

I would react the same way to an atheist white supremacists, or whoever.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
I think the modern trend of trying to get people fired or blacklisting them for unpopular opinions is more unhealthy for society than the opinions themselves.

Whether we're talking about Colin Kaepernick, or Kevin Williamson, or that Jarrar lady, or this Australian athlete. Silencing people isn't persuasion.
Click to expand...
Its not about persuasion, its about the bottom line. Nothing is sacred except for the dollar.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
I see that money is involved, but it is about much more than money. It's kulturkampf.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's true, from the perspective of the owners its about money but with the pressure from the public is not. To be fair this guy is kind of a cunt about it, saying gays are going to hell. Sure its true according to his religion but is it appropriate to say it? Kaep was trying to be respectful with his protest at least. Not saying he should be fired for it but still, I do think he could be a bit more tactful with the way he presents his religion.
 
Kafir-kun said:
Yeah that's true, from the perspective of the owners its about money but with the pressure from the public is not. To be fair this guy is kind of a cunt about it, saying gays are going to hell. Sure its true according to his religion but is it appropriate to say it? Kaep was trying to be respectful with his protest at least. Not saying he should be fired for it but still, I do think he could be a bit more tactful with the way he presents his religion.
Click to expand...
Kaep wore socks depicting cops as pigs. I don't see that as respectful. I don't know this Australian guy or how he's coming off. No need for us to reargue each case, but I think we could agree that everyone will give more credit to those expressing views they are already amenable to.

I think what can keep us from having to decide is to draw some strong lines. Things people say while on the job or i n uniform or while in a place where they can be reasonably (and I think this should be narrowly defined) seen as representing their employer should be the kind of things that employers can restrict via employee policy.

Things people say on their own time or on social media should be considered outside an employer's purview. I'm not saying this should be legally enforced. I'm saying it should be an ethic we all agree to hold ourselves to if we want to live in a liberal, pluralistic democracy.
 
Swing said:
They don't, but they certainly imply it; and we have thousands of years of history to look back on in regard to how religious people disagree with those whose life styles they don't approve of. And that often equaled action based on (guess what?) words written in a book.

You're the one who seems to be getting excited. I've already forgotten this guy's name.
Click to expand...

A book like the communist manifesto or Mao's little red book? The communists, who were officially atheist, killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.

And what do you think of the way those bakers in Oregon were treated? They lost their business and have had people wreck their property. The state is demanding that they pay the lesbians 135,000 dollars for not selling a wedding cake.
 
ocfightfan said:
A book like the communist manifesto or Mao's little red book? The communists, who were officially atheist, killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.

And what do you think of the way those bakers in Oregon were treated? They lost their business and have had people wreck their property. The state is demanding that they pay the lesbians 135,000 dollars for not selling a wedding cake.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to make this an atheism vs. religion thing. The issue I have is with people whose belief system (whatever the focus) requires that they condemn groups of people who are otherwise minding their own business. As far as people not wanting to provide services to homosexuals, I don't agree with it; but I also wouldn't put them in the same boat as this guy. Not wanting to cater to a group is a far cry from publicly denouncing them and saying they're going to burn in hell. I think a person given to the former behavior can still abide by a live-and-let-live philosophy. I don't feel the same way about someone who engages in the latter.
 
Swing said:
I'm not trying to make this an atheism vs. religion thing. The issue I have is with people whose belief system (whatever the focus) requires that they condemn groups of people who are otherwise minding their own business. As far as people not wanting to provide services to homosexuals, I don't agree with it; but I also wouldn't put them in the same boat as this guy. Not wanting to cater to a group is a far cry from publicly denouncing them and saying they're going to burn in hell. I think a person given to the former behavior can still abide by a live-and-let-live philosophy. I don't feel the same way about someone who engages in the latter.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with his approach to this, but I also don't believe this idea that they are "minding their own business". A significant number of them and their supporters are pushing to not only normalize their lifestyle but to demonize anyone who disagrees. People are being fired and having their businesses destroyed for any opposition. In addition they are now forcing kids to be indoctrinated into this stuff in the schools in California and soon Illinois, and it's spreading everywhere.

http://www.creepylibrary.com/

So, with the help of local and state police, this D.C. activist taught children about pornography, anal sex, sex toys, etc... telling them, specifically, that "the anus is potentially for finger's and penis's" and gave samples of the sexual lubricant she sells to the children to take home for their "sex toys and anal play."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,885
Messages
55,452,258
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top