Banned for your beliefs

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

1 minute ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Not by your logic.

 

 

You’re going to have to explain this one to me I’m afraid 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

24 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I never had you down as a right winger Johnny Boy. I seem to remember the BNP making similar arguments 20 years ago, basically if you don’t want to integrate and live like the majority you should just go to a different country that shares your beliefs 

I'm not a right winger, I'm a Liberal, which is why it concerns me greatly that by 2050 there will be 13 million people in this country (17.2%) who still follow a religion which didn't have its reformation and will make decisions at the ballot box accordingly. And that the vast majority of these people are not pro-gay rights and are pro-death penalty. 

It is because I am a Liberal that this worries me. If I were some sort of staunch Christian religious conservative that would probably be music to my ears. 

I believe that multiculturalism works in this country for the overwhelming majority of ethnic and religious groups, but that one will always have a compatibility problem unless there is some sort of reform, which only they can do.

If that makes me 'right wing' the whatever. I'm not really sure what right wing means anymore. Its a bit odd being called 'right wing' by somebody who is arguing for the right of people to be pro-homophobic, or whatever it is that you want to excuse in the name of religion, I think that sounds a lot more Jacob Rees-Mogg than my position. 

As a liberal, I want people to be free to be gay if that is what they happen to be. 

If I was given the job of God 2.0 and able to rebuild the world in my image I'd be done with religion in its entirety, put them all in the bin, and call myself 'The Sea', so that people just worshipped the sea instead of me, perhaps then they'd stop over fishing and clean up some of the plastic waste.

Edited May 31 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[Fen Canary 1,386]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Clearly Fen and LYB disagree and the ladies are not for changing to quote Thatcher (which makes me vomit).

I know how this makes me view their motives and I’m sure others will also draw their own conclusions. I am however going to stop trying to impose my view in support of tolerance. 

You seemingly only have tolerance for those that share your views, which is rather paradoxical. Surely tolerance means you allow and respect other people to hold different opinions, even if the vehemently disagree with them?

Believing it’s ok for people to face punishment for simply not wanting to show support for a cause is incredibly intolerant 

 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

3 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

You can sleep with who ever you want too

Thanks, when are you bending over to receive my rod?

[TheGunnShow 7,095]

Nice to see the flat-out lie that this is "stopping him from earning a living" is still being uncritically mentioned. He simply would not get appearance money/bonuses for that one game only but would still get his basic wage. Like everyone else in the squad who didn't make the team for that week, regardless of reason.

[Fen Canary 1,386]

3 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

You can sleep with who ever you want too.

 

 

No I can’t, the wife would kill me 

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

4 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

You can sleep with who ever you want too.

 

 

Yes. I agree. But you choose to have an affair. You don’t choose which gender you are attracted to. Some people are attracted to all genders, some are attracted to none. So I suppose in a sense it is true as Bisexuality is actually a choice of sorts in so far as you choose which partner you want to have at the time. But I’m arguing that a gay man or a gay woman for example, those only attracted to the same sex, have not made that attraction through choice.  

Edited May 31 by SwearyCanary

[Iwans Big Toe 356]

Just now, SwearyCanary said:

You’re going to have to explain this one to me I’m afraid 

Just did

[Fen Canary 1,386]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Nice to see the flat-out lie that this is "stopping him from earning a living" is still being uncritically mentioned. He simply would not get appearance money/bonuses for that one game only but would still get his basic wage. Like everyone else in the squad who didn't make the team for that week, regardless of reason.

So he would lose money? How is that not a punishment? It’s no different to a fine 

[SwearyCanary 1,314]

1 minute ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Just did

Very eloquently too 😂. So I’ll make my assumptions about your beliefs too and quickly move on to never talking to you 

[Fen Canary 1,386]

3 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I'm not a right winger, I'm a Liberal, which is why it concerns me greatly that by 2050 there will be 13 million people in this country (17.2%) who still follow a religion which didn't have its reformation and will make decisions at the ballot box accordingly. And that the vast majority of these people are not pro-gay rights and are pro-death penalty. 

It is because I am a Liberal that this worries me. If I were some sort of staunch Christian religious conservative that would probably be music to my ears. 

I believe that multiculturalism works in this country for the overwhelming majority of ethnic and religious groups, but that one will always have a compatibility problem unless there is some sort of reform, which only they can do.

If that makes me 'right wing' the whatever. I'm not really sure what right wing means anymore. Its a bit odd being called 'right wing' by somebody who is arguing for the right of people to be pro-homophobic, or whatever it is that you want to excuse in the name of religion, I think that sounds a lot more Jacob Rees-Mogg than my position. 

As a liberal, I want people to be free to be gay if that is what they happen to be. 

If I was given the job of God 2.0 and able to rebuild the world in my image I'd be done with religion in its entirety, put them all in the bin, and call myself 'The Sea', so that people just worshipped the sea instead of me, perhaps then they'd stop over fishing and clean up some of the plastic waste.

This liberalism doesn’t extend to others that think differently from you though, and you’re happy to see them punished for doing so?

How is that any different from the religious fundamentalists you describe who would happily punish people for not following their own religious moral code (albeit with a much greater degree of severity)?

To me it sounds contradictory 

[TheGunnShow 7,095]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

So he would lose money? How is that not a punishment? It’s no different to a fine 

By that same logic anyone who doesn't make the final squad "loses" money. It's not remotely equivalent to a fine.

[Iwans Big Toe 356]

2 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

Very eloquently too 😂. So I’ll make my assumptions about your beliefs too and quickly move on to never talking to you 

You're Hogsear and I claim my £5.

 

 

[Fen Canary 1,386]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

By that same logic anyone who doesn't make the final squad "loses" money. It's not remotely equivalent to a fine.

They do lose money, but that’s performance based. It’s no different from a sales manager not getting their bonus because they failed to meet their sales targets.

Docking somebody’s wages for failing to show support for their employees favoured causes is completely different 

[TheGunnShow 7,095]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

They do lose money, but that’s performance based. It’s no different from a sales manager not getting their bonus because they failed to meet their sales targets.

Docking somebody’s wages for failing to show support for their employees favoured causes is completely different 

His wages weren't docked according to your BBC link though. He was just banned for four games.

[mrD66M 149]

20 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I'm not a right winger, I'm a Liberal, which is why it concerns me greatly that by 2050 there will be 13 million people in this country (17.2%) who still follow a religion which didn't have its reformation and will make decisions at the ballot box accordingly.

Have you ever considered the possibility that

a) stereotypes are lazy 

b) people are able to change their minds

c) maybe this country should have not colonised half the planet in the past so <those people> would not come here

d) whatever solution there may be to issues, it will work better to engage as many people as possible instead of (ostensibly) denying them a say because of their cultural background/ethnicity/religion. 

Just for starters?

No?

 

 

Edited May 31 by mrD66M

[Fen Canary 1,386]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

His wages weren't docked according to your BBC link though. He was just banned for four games.

Which is wrong in my opinion.

However others on here have implied he could have simply not played rather than wear a kit supporting a cause he doesn’t want to be involved in, and I was pointing out that doing so would cost him money.

If your boss gave you the choice of either showing support for their chosen cause or taking the day off unpaid then it isn’t really a choice, it’s coercion 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

This liberalism doesn’t extend to others that think differently from you though, and you’re happy to see them punished for doing so?

The individual concerned joined a league which was running this same annual campaign each season for several years before he decided to move to that league from Austria. He had the freedom of choice, he is a talented player, he could have moved to any of the big Asian leagues if he so desired.

I was a vegan for 5 years. I was vehemently against the eating of meat for much of this. I wouldn't have got a job at McDonalds and then refused to handle meat products. 

He had the freedom to either accept or reject a contract for a club within that league, but upon accepting that contract he is bound by that leagues rules. Just as if I'd accepted a job with McDonald's I'd be expected to handle meat products.

There is a balance to be struck and I don't think you are striking it. Plenty of Muslims deliver non-halal products or work in McDonalds handling pork (sausage McMuffins), some would refuse to work there because they consider it Haram to do so. Whether they accept a job working in McDonalds is up to them. 

What wouldn't be an option is accepting a job in McDonalds and then refusing to make and serve any McMuffin meals, or working for Deliveroo and turning up to collect a McDonalds order only to then refuse to deliver it because there is a McMuffin in it.

Camara accepted a job and moved to a country which is essentially pro-gay by constitution, to be employed by a club which supports an annual gay rights initiative, in agreement with an umbrella organisation which runs that initiative on an annual basis. He chose to accept those conditions. Just like Jordan Henderson chose to go and live and work in a country which has a poor record on gay rights, and was then criticised for it. I wonder what would have happened if he'd chosen to wear some rainbow laces at a Saudi game.

[Fen Canary 1,386]

4 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

Have you ever considered the possibility that

a) stereotypes are lazy 

b) people are able to change their minds

c) maybe this country should have not colonised half the planet in the past so <those people> would not come here

d) whatever solution there may be to issues, it will work better to engage as many people as possible instead of (ostensibly) denying them a say because of their cultural background/ethnicity/religion. 

Just for starters?

No?

 

 

As I say, all sounds rather BNP to me. The belief that these people are incompatible with the host country.

Funny how the far left and far right are often aligned on a great number of subjects. The horseshoe theory is very close to the truth I find 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,489]

35 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

He hasn’t said anything homophobic, he simply didn’t wish to be a part of a group that he presumably sees as promoting it.

Huge difference 

I never said that Camara said anything homophobic. I haven't seen or heard any quote attributed to him on the matter.

If he felt he was being asked to promote homophobia, then he's clearly mistaken, probably intentionally so.

[TheGunnShow 7,095]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Which is wrong in my opinion.

However others on here have implied he could have simply not played rather than wear a kit supporting a cause he doesn’t want to be involved in, and I was pointing out that doing so would cost him money.

If your boss gave you the choice of either showing support for their chosen cause or taking the day off unpaid then it isn’t really a choice, it’s coercion 

It doesn't. He still earns his basic wage. He just doesn't get the chance to get bonuses for that game only, and this is no different from any other player who does not make the matchday squad regardless of reason for not doing so, so this notion of coercion falls flat.

By definition, a bonus is not guaranteed, so you can't say it cost him money. At most it cost him an opportunity of getting more, but it didn't cost him any money per se. Now if he's fined in-house for that, that's a different story.

[Fen Canary 1,386]

1 minute ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I never said that Camara said anything homophobic. I haven't seen or heard any quote attributed to him on the matter.

If he felt he was being asked to promote homophobia, then he's clearly mistaken, probably intentionally so.

I meant promoting homosexuality. He hasn’t said or done anything homophobic, he just doesn’t want to be involved with a group that he presumably views as pro gay. To me that should be his choice 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

5 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

Have you ever considered the possibility that

a) stereotypes are lazy 

b) people are able to change their minds

c) maybe this country should have not colonised half the planet in the past so <those people> would not come here

d) whatever solution there may be to issues, it will work better to engage as many people as possible instead of (ostensibly) denying them a say because of their cultural background/ethnicity/religion. 

Just for starters?

No?

a). There is a thing called polling which tells us that in 2016, 52% of British muslims wanted homosexuality banned

b). They are, but it is also the fastest growing global religion.

c). It was the best thing that could ever have happened for a lot of those countries, we left our democratic systems, our railways, and our judicial system.

d). Whoa there, hold your horses, I'm not advocating denying anybody a vote. Although I might advocate that London and Birmingham become independent states.

What's for dessert? 

[Fen Canary 1,386]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It doesn't. He still earns his basic wage. He just doesn't get the chance to get bonuses for that game only, and this is no different from any other player who does not make the matchday squad regardless of reason for not doing so, so this notion of coercion falls flat.

By definition, a bonus is not guaranteed, so you can't say it cost him money. At most it cost him an opportunity of getting more, but it didn't cost him any money per se. Now if he's fined in-house for that, that's a different story.

Of course it’s costing him money. If he was picked to play (which he clearly was as he did play) then not playing due to not wanting to wear a shirt promoting causes he doesn’t want to be involved with is costing him money.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

7 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

As I say, all sounds rather BNP to me.

Well I'm certainly not, but if I were, then in order to remain consistent, you'd undoubtedly fight for my right to hold and share my beliefs wouldn't you? Including in the work place? As that's been the general theme of your posts on this thread?

[Fen Canary 1,386]

14 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Well I'm certainly not, but if I were, then in order to remain consistent, you'd undoubtedly fight for my right to hold and share my beliefs wouldn't you? Including in the work place? As that's been the general theme of your posts on this thread?

You’re free to hold those beliefs yes. However if those beliefs caused you to treat certain colleagues differently to others on account of their race/sexuality then that’s a different matter.

If your boss wanted to show support for a pro immigration group by wearing a badge then you should be able to refuse without facing any sanctions in that hypothetical situation 

[mrD66M 149]

5 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

a). There is a thing called polling which tells us that in 2016, 52% of British muslims wanted homosexuality banned

b). They are, but it is also the fastest growing global religion.

c). It was the best thing that could ever have happened for a lot of those countries, we left our democratic systems, our railways, and our judicial system.

d). Whoa there, hold your horses, I'm not advocating denying anybody a vote. Although I might advocate that London and Birmingham become independent states.

What's for dessert? 

a) were the polls anonymous? If the figures, the method, the sample size etc are accurate, then I will just say that this kind of question is meant to drive suggestible people a certain way,  push an agenda. I'm gonna give these "polling figures" (no verifiable source quoted) the benefit of the doubt for a moment and zoom out.

If you were to take that as objective truth, then where does it logically lead you? Likewise, if polls revealed that a particular demographic holds disproportionate wealth? Or another is over-represented in crime, etc - what is the next step?

It is disingenuous to say something like that for the sake of just saying it. But I guess in the innanets people like to stir sh!te. This is why something does not always need to be said even if it is 100% true (just recently the pandemic showed us what can happen when people panic and overreact) Most of us need to take responsibility for what we say if our words are to hold weight.

b) jumping from UK to global? Keeping focus helps. 

c) according to whom? Is this satire? I don't see any former colony calling to be retaken by their former empire at the moment. What do you see I'm not seeing?

d) hmm. So hinting in a) is ok, but you don't want to hold the flag... interesting. 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

6 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

a) were the polls anonymous? If the figures, the method, the sample size etc are accurate, then I will just say that this kind of question is meant to drive suggestible people a certain way,  push an agenda. I'm gonna give these "polling figures" (no verifiable source quoted) the benefit of the doubt for a moment and zoom out.

If you were to take that as objective truth, then where does it logically lead you? Likewise, if polls revealed that a particular demographic holds disproportionate wealth? Or another is over-represented in crime, etc - what is the next step?

It is disingenuous to say something like that for the sake of just saying it. But I guess in the innanets people like to stir sh!te. This is why something does not always need to be said even if it is 100% true (just recently the pandemic showed us what can happen when people panic and overreact) Most of us need to take responsibility for what we say if our words are to hold weight.

b) jumping from UK to global? Keeping focus helps. 

c) according to whom? Is this satire? I don't see any former colony calling to be retaken by their former empire at the moment. What do you see I'm not seeing?

d) hmm. So hinting in a) is ok, but you don't want to hold the flag... interesting. 

OK bro.

[mrD66M 149]

1 minute ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

OK bro.

You did ask for dessert. Eat up.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 843]

16 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

If your boss wanted to show support for a pro immigration group by wearing a badge then you should be able to refuse without facing any sanctions in that hypothetical situation 

How is that a comparable?

He wasn't asked to wear a 'pro gay' badge, he was asked to wear an 'anti homophobia' badge. the badge didn't say "you should tell your children to be gay", it was saying "you shouldn't abuse people for being gay". 

So the comparable wouldn't be being asked to wear a 'pro immigration' badge, but perhaps an 'anti racism' badge.

And I strongly suspect that if an employer provided employers with a uniform which included an anti-racism badge as part of its design, and that employee covered that anti-racism badge then they would encounter some issues. What possible justification could I have for doing that?

Homosexuality is not illegal in Mali but 98% of people in Mali believe that homosexuality is something that society should not accept.

Mali is a French-speaking former French colony. Personally I consider it to be France's duty to try and change attitudes towards homosexuals in the French-speaking world, rather than perpetuate them, and good on them for making this point and attempting to do that.