Just now, RJRS1301 said:

Yes Hanson P had a significant LGBT following in Australia as well

With a well-known lover of teenage boys as her chief of staff that's no surprise

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

With a well-known lover of teenage boys as her chief of staff that's no surprise

 

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

With a well-known lover of teenage boys as her chief of staff that's no surprise

No this was long before he joined as her chief of staff, never heard anything about his "alleged: predilection for teenagers. He was always openly gay, which is what caused problems with his former boss and all that stuff, with Dutton P and Slipper P years ago 

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

No this was long before he joined as her chief of staff, never heard anything about his "alleged: predilection for teenagers.

All you have to do is look up his Wikipedia entry; there are also a number of newspaper stories readily available via a Google search

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

All you have to do is look up his Wikipedia entry; there are also a number of newspaper stories readily available via a Google search

I would question who placed the entry there, and as long as they over the age of consent who cares.

Not that I am defending or supporting Hanson, but I am sure any scandal involved would have been used against them both

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I would question who placed the entry there, and as long as they over the age of consent who cares.

Fifteen is not the age of consent in Queensland - the teenager who "outed" him said he was fifteen at the time and that he was dumped for another fifteen year old. The police investigated but said in the absence of a formal complaint and an unwillingness to testify there was insufficient evidence to charge 

4 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Fifteen is not the age of consent in Queensland - the teenager who "outed" him said he was fifteen at the time and that he was dumped for another fifteen year old. The police investigated but said in the absence of a formal complaint and an unwillingness to testify there was insufficient evidence to charge 

Yes actually I now recall this episode, but as there were no charges they remain allegations only.

Lets give the benefit of the doubt, and not repeat salacious unproven allegations.

 

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

and not repeat salacious unproven allegations

Where's the fun in that? Gossip is what makes the world go around

14 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Does the original include the Apocrypha? Now that's where you can see Christianity in its true colors.

My version does. I would not recommend as reading material for anyone, it is a very hard slog getting through the Old Testament that has many things in it that do not agree with Christian practice today.

(could not reply earlier as I had to watch the Lions/Highlanders match last night)

5 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

I fail to see what her physical appearance has to do with competence

Seems men fail to comment on other men's appearances, but find it very comfortable to critique women in positions of power.

It is the 21st century, I invite you to join it, and relook at you values,

Also check the mirror while you are at it,

 

Men do not look at men as sexual objects, that is what women are for.

11 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

 

 

"I simply don't recognise your depiction of homosexuals as downtrodden, vilified victims of a prejudiced society- at least certainly not in the UK where I come from."

 

I never said that. Where did you get that from?

 

"The gay guys I know back home are pretty with-it, rounded and grounded individuals happy to live somewhere where they have the same rights as heteros, including marrying and adopting children."

 

Well good for them. I'm from the U.K. too by the way.

 

"I cannot imagine any of them having an attack of the vapours over Mr Folau's tweet of what his religion reckons will be their eventual fate."

 

Who's getting the vapours? I thought we were just discussing the merits or not of Mr. Folau's remarks.

 

Anyway, I've enjoyed this discussion. I know it's a hard life being a straight, white privileged male but try to keep your spirits up. ????

 

Cheers Krataiboy

 

 

 

 

 

If you look back through your posts, you will see you HAVE made numerous statements which led me to react as I did. However, I'M not going to nitpick! I've enjoyed our lively exchanges, too. Good luck.

46 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Men do not look at men as sexual objects, that is what women are for.

What rock have you lived under since time immemorial??

Heard of "same sex attracted"??

Interesting that you used the term "object" I think it reflects a lot about your values. 

Does your partner see themselves as an "object"??

 

 

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Does your partner see themselves as an "object"??

As a promiscuous gay man I certainly see my sexual partners as objects

On 5/18/2019 at 2:42 PM, Snow Leopard said:

I heard that Qantas are the issue and causing all the problems on this. 

Yes this the main reason why it has become so  public and drawn out. Qantas are the ARBs main and largest sponsor and their CEO is gay. So he is stamping his foot. I have read a lot  off  people that say they are gay saying that they don't care what he said.

17 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

As a promiscuous gay man I certainly see my sexual partners as objects

I was responding to a homosexually challenged (heterosexual) man

Enjoy yr day 

10 hours ago, nifty11 said:

Yes this the main reason why it has become so  public and drawn out. Qantas are the ARBs main and largest sponsor and their CEO is gay. So he is stamping his foot. I have read a lot  off  people that say they are gay saying that they don't care what he said.

RU Australia responded to a repeat offender, who had already received notice about his social media posts.

I am sure if another sponsor with the same acceptance of diversity and social media requirements as QANTAS, had a heterosexual CEO that sponsor would also have responded regarding withdrawing support.

 

A persons sexual orientation does NOT necessarily rule their social conscious but will perhaps give them a different lens to view the world through, perhaps a little more accepting of others.

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

RU Australia responded to a repeat offender, who had already received notice about his social media posts.

I am sure if another sponsor with the same acceptance of diversity and social media requirements as QANTAS, had a heterosexual CEO that sponsor would also have responded regarding withdrawing support.

 

A persons sexual orientation does NOT necessarily rule their social conscious but will perhaps give them a different lens to view the world through, perhaps a little more accepting of others.

Your sentence “with the same acceptance of diversity and social media requirements as qantas “ is a very ambiguous and conceptually dangerous ideology to peddle.

 

Who defines these diversity requirements. A corporation, RU Australia? Diversity is about inclusion of all people no matter their race, color, religion, or sexual orientation. Diversity by default includes the people who wish to worship and live there life under their own values. Does a corporation or a sporting body have the right to define the level of diversity they will tolerate when employing a person.

 

When do we cross the line and accept a corporation or sporting body can exclude a person because they think differently?  If it’s not allowed to say something in public then just thinking it should be enough for society and a corporation to shun you. Are you ok with that.

 

I may not agree with people but I see this situation as a reverse persecution and another form of bigotry.

 

I believe in the right to worship and religious freedom.

I believe in the right to express an opinion and the freedom of speech 

i believe in diversity and that diversity should be inclusive of the above 2 principles.

  

22 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

Your sentence “with the same acceptance of diversity and social media requirements as qantas “ is a very ambiguous and conceptually dangerous ideology to peddle.

 

Who defines these diversity requirements. A corporation, RU Australia? Diversity is about inclusion of all people no matter their race, color, religion, or sexual orientation. Diversity by default includes the people who wish to worship and live there life under their own values. Does a corporation or a sporting body have the right to define the level of diversity they will tolerate when employing a person.

 

When do we cross the line and accept a corporation or sporting body can exclude a person because they think differently?  If it’s not allowed to say something in public then just thinking it should be enough for society and a corporation to shun you. Are you ok with that.

 

I may not agree with people but I see this situation as a reverse persecution and another form of bigotry.

 

I believe in the right to worship and religious freedom.

I believe in the right to express an opinion and the freedom of speech 

i believe in diversity and that diversity should be inclusive of the above 2 principles.

  

I'll try to explain it for you. I own a nasal spray company. I hire you as the CEO because you have a great reputation as a marketer.

One of the conditions of employment is you cannot pick your nose in public, because that would adversely affect my company's brand.

You pick your nose during a sporting event, and it is televised world-wide. I warn you not to do it again. You pick your nose at a shareholders' meeting a few weeks later.

Are you saying I have no right to fire you?

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'll try to explain it for you. I own a nasal spray company. I hire you as the CEO because you have a great reputation as a marketer.

One of the conditions of employment is you cannot pick your nose in public, because that would adversely affect my company's brand.

You pick your nose during a sporting event, and it is televised world-wide. I warn you not to do it again. You pick your nose at a shareholders' meeting a few weeks later.

Are you saying I have no right to fire you?

False analogy. The High Court is unlikely to uphold a right to pick your nose. It has already upheld a right to political expression that cannot be overridden by legislation or contract. The question will be whether it will uphold a right to religious expression in a similar way. If Folau had expressed support for that non-inclusive political party, One Nation, there is absolutely nothing RU could have done about it

5 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

False analogy. The High Court is unlikely to uphold a right to pick your nose. It has already upheld a right to political expression that cannot be overridden by legislation or contract. The question will be whether it will uphold a right to religious expression in a similar way. If Folau had expressed support for that non-inclusive political party, One Nation, there is absolutely nothing RU could have done about it

We'll just have to see how ScoMo handles it, won't we? I expect he'll be siding with the god-botherers.

The High Court may or may not define Folau's rant as religious expression. I define it as hate speech.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

We'll just have to see how ScoMo handles it, won't we? I expect he'll be siding with the god-botherers.

The High Court may or may not define Folau's rant as religious expression. I define it as hate speech.

Day Two and we're already there - https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/christian-leaders-say-religious-freedom-was-among-factors-that-influenced-voters-20190519-p51oyn.html

4 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Day Two and we're already there - https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/christian-leaders-say-religious-freedom-was-among-factors-that-influenced-voters-20190519-p51oyn.html

To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Your sentence “with the same acceptance of diversity and social media requirements as qantas “ is a very ambiguous and conceptually dangerous ideology to peddle.

 

 

Who defines these diversity requirements. A corporation, RU Australia? Diversity is about inclusion of all people no matter their race, color, religion, or sexual orientation. Diversity by default includes the people who wish to worship and live there life under their own values. Does a corporation or a sporting body have the right to define the level of diversity they will tolerate when employing a person.

 

Yes a corporation can and many do have a written diversity policy, along with social media policies written into employment contracts , they allso frequently have codes of conduct not to bring the organisation into disrepute by the way an employee expresses opinions on social media, in the general media and not commenting without permission on certain aspects of the organistions business.

RU Australia have such policies, and Izzy had been at the very least verbally cautioned by both the excutive and the team coach regarding this matter previously.

I guess the next move if he wants to remain as part of RU Australia his next move could be a new hearing or the courts, but he is running out of time on that front, I think he had 72 hrours to lodge and appeal with RU Australia.

 

I actually defend his right to post what he did, although vehemently disagree with what was posted

 

Breaking news.

Izzy is NOT appealing the RU Australia decision to terminate his contract

Wonder where he has an offer from?

France said they did not want him

Where to from here??