Essendon = Entitlement

[TigerMasochist]

No, it's not a good solution. The solution is to not be prejudiced against gays.

So then the solution is to be prejudiced against religious beliefs???

 

[TigerMasochist]

So if one of our players next season refuses to wear the Indigenous guernsey or pay in Dreamtime at the G because they consider it discriminates against white people we are ok with that?

Or if they don't want to play in Maddie's match because people with cancer should fund their own treatment instead of relying on charity that's all good as well?

If the modern civilized world is supposed to be a free n tolerant society the why the hell should anyone be coerced into promoting something they're uncomfortable with or don't believe in??? Some rules for some n different rules for others?

 

[TigerMasochist]

Yes, most definitely. They will be judged in the court of public opinion accordingly, as the GWS player is evidently happy to be.

Getting back to her (NOT TBR’s examples) I am surprised so many people agree that employers should have the right to force employees to wear a particular uniform that’s against their values - particularly if it’s not the uniform they signed up for; and it’s against values the employer should have known about when they employed them. Goes way too far.

Caused a fair old ruckus in the NRL this year when Manly tried to force all their players to wear a pride jumper. Lot of deeply religious islander boys not happy.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I don't see how it is against her values? They aren't asking her to be gay, just to show support to people who are.

It's not as though it is encouraging people to be gay as a marketing tool.

But it was forcing her to be a marketing tool for gay people which goes against the religious beliefs of her, her family, her community. Totally conflicted so she's left with no choice but to step aside for the week.

 

[The Big Richo]

But it was forcing her to be a marketing tool for gay people which goes against the religious beliefs of her, her family, her community. Totally conflicted so she's left with no choice but to step aside for the week.

Her beliefs are *smile*, TM. How come she isn't concerned that her religion requires women's sport to be removed from the eyes of men? That women's sport not have photos or videos taken of it? That her clothing be modest and not short or revealing?
Or that no gambling or betting be allowed on the sport or no music be played during practice or games?

Why is it she is happy to ignore all of those 'beliefs' but not this one?

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

So if one of our players next season refuses to wear the Indigenous guernsey or pay in Dreamtime at the G because they consider it discriminates against white people we are ok with that?

Or if they don't want to play in Maddie's match because people with cancer should fund their own treatment instead of relying on charity that's all good as well?

Whether I/we like it or not, it is their right to choose. How I/we feel about the person afterward, that's our right. If I/we speak up about it, it is also our right, as long as it's not discriminatory, in the eyes of the person you are referring to. Complete conundrum.....................yes, but that's how it is.

As much as I disagree with the views of his church, he should have been able to do the job. Could he have done the job effectively, as in the administrative part, yes, he was experienced and successful elsewhere. As an advocate for the entire club, that bit is certainly murky. Once all the information was out, I can't see how, and we did see, the entirety of the EFC and further would accept him. Should Essendon have employed him.............dumbest or equally as dumber move with all the other dumb moves they made in the last few years.

Just want to point out I'm being Devils advocate here. I agree with what your saying.

 

[year of the tiger]

But it was forcing her to be a marketing tool for gay people which goes against the religious beliefs of her, her family, her community. Totally conflicted so she's left with no choice but to step aside for the week.

From my viewpoint, not quite TM, you can stand next to someone and acknowledge them as a person, a human being who is free to choose their position in life, heck even show them some genuine love and care and look out for their health and well-being but at the same time not support what they may stand for. To me it is quite straight forward and as a person of no faith, this is what is missing in this whole religious freedom crap you here from many.

Whether I/we like it or not, it is their right to choose. How I/we feel about the person afterward, that's our right. If I/we speak up about it, it is also our right, as long as it's not discriminatory, in the eyes of the person you are referring to. Complete conundrum.....................yes, but that's how it is.

As much as I disagree with the views of his church, he should have been able to do the job. Could he have done the job effectively, as in the administrative part, yes, he was experienced and successful elsewhere. As an advocate for the entire club, that bit is certainly murky. Once all the information was out, I can't see how, and we did see, the entirety of the EFC and further would accept him. Should Essendon have employed him.............dumbest or equally as dumber move with all the other dumb moves they made in the last few years.

Just want to point out I'm being Devils advocate here. I agree with what your saying.

Personally, I can’t see how he could do both and be true to the values of both organisations. He would have to be an extreme hypocrite in my view to attempt that.

For example, he would turn up to the EFC and have to promote inclusion etc but when he turned up to his churchie job, he would have to throw the EFC values out the window and preach the anti abortion and anti gay messages that his church promotes.

As a CEO and chairman of each organisation - it would be untenable in my view but that’s just my take.

 

[DavidSSS]

So the Christians are wailing about how one of them has had to quit their job because the values of the organisation they were to head up contradict the bigoted views of the religion they ascribe to.

Apparently this is a travesty.

Um, are these not the same people who wanted the Federal Government to pass legislation allowing them to be excluded from discrimination laws, all so they could exclude anyone who's views or lifestyle they disagreed with from employment? They could use this, and have in the past, to dismiss people who are divorced, ever had an abortion, love people of the same sex and/or gender and anything else they can selectively choose and misinterpret from their "holy" book.

Bunch of monumental hypocrites.

While we are discussing the rules that religions claim apply to members of their religion, and that they wish to apply to everyone else, every religion, or at least the powers that be in their various factions, pick and choose what they follow in the their sacred texts, they don't follow everything in the so-called sacred texts, they pick what they want to follow and use to oppress others. It is all about power.

DS

 

[The Big Richo]

but at the same time not support what they may stand for.

Not having a go at you, YOTT, your post is very reasonable but I think there is an important point here.

A lot of times in these discussions being gay is spoken about in the same terms as what footy team you support or what you politics are, as a personal choice.

Being gay is not a choice, a belief, a lifestyle or another other voluntary action someone might use to describe it.

This is where I'm coming from with the comparison to racism and anti-semitism. Homophobia is on the same level of biological based hate, and should be just an unacceptable, but for some reason we excuse it behind beliefs.

If Tim Taranto comes out tomorrow and says I'm not wearing the indigenous jumper or playing Dreamtime at the G because I'm not comfortable supporting black people then he would never set foot in Punt Road and rightly so, no matter what he 'believed'.

Homophobia should be treated with the same standard.

 

[tigerman]

Been a shocking start as President from Barham. After he and Sheedy shafted Brasher, Barham's first press conference as president was one of the worst press conferences i've seen. He then preceded to treat Rutten disgracefully by publicly saying they were chasing Clarkson while Rutten was still the coach. Barham then appointed Thorburn to run a review on the club, he then gave him the CEO's job. The next day he told Thorburn to choose between his church and Essendon. All this while his mate Sheedy was throwing haymakers from the cheap seats.
Could make a movie about it.

 

[year of the tiger]

Agree BR - it’s not a choice.

What you ‘stand for’ is who you are as a person in that context.

I was also probably broadening the conversation a bit too, life is very nuanced but extreme views on anything is blind to nuance whether it’s religion, where your from, your gender, your income, your work. We have lost the ability to respect and love the person whilst debating the issue.

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

From my viewpoint, not quite TM, you can stand next to someone and acknowledge them as a person, a human being who is free to choose their position in life, heck even show them some genuine love and care and look out for their health and well-being but at the same time not support what they may stand for. To me it is quite straight forward and as a person of no faith, this is what is missing in this whole religious freedom crap you here from many.




Personally, I can’t see how he could do both and be true to the values of both organisations. He would have to be an extreme hypocrite in my view to attempt that.

For example, he would turn up to the EFC and have to promote inclusion etc but when he turned up to his churchie job, he would have to throw the EFC values out the window and preach the anti abortion and anti gay messages that his church promotes.

As a CEO and chairman of each organisation - it would be untenable in my view but that’s just my take.

Personally, I can’t see how he could do both and be true to the values of both organisations. He would have to be an extreme hypocrite in my view to attempt that. - Maybe not a hypocrite, but someone who believes that their personal beliefs are not issue to others.

For example, he would turn up to the EFC and have to promote inclusion etc but when he turned up to his churchie job, he would have to throw the EFC values out the window and preach the anti abortion and anti gay messages that his church promotes. - and that's why he was asked to resign from the the church role, when he said no, he got the arse.

As a CEO and chairman of each organisation it would be untenable in my view but that’s just my take. - and in the end, it wasn't just your take and he got the arse.

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

Been a shocking start as President from Barham. After he and Sheedy shafted Brasher, Barham's first press conference as president was one of the worst press conferences i've seen. He then preceded to treat Rutten disgracefully by publicly saying they were chasing Clarkson while Rutten was still the coach. Barham then appointed Thorburn to run a review on the club, he then gave him the CEO's job. The next day he told Thorburn to choose between his church and Essendon. All this while his made Sheedy was throwing haymakers from the cheap seats.
Could make a movie about it.

An absolute *smile* show!! I am so glad we have had such strong stable governance for a sustained period......................lets hope the new prez lives up to the last........at least.

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

So the Christians are wailing about how one of them has had to quit their job because the values of the organisation they were to head up contradict the bigoted views of the religion they ascribe to.

Apparently this is a travesty.

Um, are these not the same people who wanted the Federal Government to pass legislation allowing them to be excluded from discrimination laws, all so they could exclude anyone who's views or lifestyle they disagreed with from employment? They could use this, and have in the past, to dismiss people who are divorced, ever had an abortion, love people of the same sex and/or gender and anything else they can selectively choose and misinterpret from their "holy" book.

Bunch of monumental hypocrites.

While we are discussing the rules that religions claim apply to members of their religion, and that they wish to apply to everyone else, every religion, or at least the powers that be in their various factions, pick and choose what they follow in the their sacred texts, they don't follow everything in the so-called sacred texts, they pick what they want to follow and use to oppress others. It is all about power.

DS

I was bought up Catholic and although some of the values and ideas are in fact good or come from the right place on a whole, heck they lead to laws we all live by........ there are too many of those hypocrisies for me to feel comfortable to continue.

Having said that, I still remember seeing gay couples attending church..................one can assume, they were ok with the hypocrisies..................go figure.

What a world we live in.

 

[tigerman]

Forgetting about the rights and wrongs of Essendon and Thorburn, I hope he sues their arse off.

 

[tigertim]

So then the solution is to be prejudiced against religious beliefs???

No, they’re mutually exclusive.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Extraordinary isn’t it. Daddy Hird is getting in the paper almost weekly to have a sook. He had an article in earlier in the week ranting about the CEO process. I loved the bit under his picture “Alan Hird. Played 4 games for the Essendon Football Club”.

Who cares? Yet you would think this guy built the Club by himself. Played 4 senior VFL games………..

Gee, i am glad this fool did not play them for us.

The HS is merely a mouthpiece for the Hird family via Robinson.

At some stage the Editor should do his job and pull Robbo up.

I did look at one of his quotes and wondered how it would sound to him if only 3 words were changed.
His original quote was “ David Barham is a cowboy who thought he could get away with things, but a football club can’t be run by a cowboy”
Changed to : “ James Hird is a cowboy who thought he could get away with things, but a football team can’t be run by a cowboy”

 

[jimbob]

I did look at one of his quotes and wondered how it would sound to him if only 3 words were changed.

His original quote was “ David Barham is a cowboy who thought he could get away with things, but a football club can’t be run by a cowboy”
Changed to : “ James Hird is a cowboy who thought he could get away with things, but a football team can’t be run by a cowboy”

Apt.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Her beliefs are *smile*, TM. How come she isn't concerned that her religion requires women's sport to be removed from the eyes of men? That women's sport not have photos or videos taken of it? That her clothing be modest and not short or revealing?
Or that no gambling or betting be allowed on the sport or no music be played during practice or games?

Why is it she is happy to ignore all of those 'beliefs' but not this one?

Far as I'm concerned all religious / spiritual beliefs are bonkers *smile*. As for all those various concerns you've listed, guess it depends on how strongly and how deep n restricted her version of her faith is.
Doesn't matter which flavour of faith people choose to follow, they've all got variations of how strictly they adhere to the rules of the thousands of year old faith and how much they'll adjust / blur the lines to fit into the current society.
She's obviously drawn the line where she's willing enough to accept that some in her footy community are homosexual, but she's not into promoting their homosexuality as it clashes beyond tolerable within her family / religious community.

 

[TigerMasochist]

From my viewpoint, not quite TM, you can stand next to someone and acknowledge them as a person, a human being who is free to choose their position in life, heck even show them some genuine love and care and look out for their health and well-being but at the same time not support what they may stand for. To me it is quite straight forward and as a person of no faith, this is what is missing in this whole religious freedom crap you here from many.

According to an article I read in the Hun regarding her stance this is already exactly the position she has taken.

Personally, I can’t see how he could do both and be true to the values of both organisations. He would have to be an extreme hypocrite in my view to attempt that.

For example, he would turn up to the EFC and have to promote inclusion etc but when he turned up to his churchie job, he would have to throw the EFC values out the window and preach the anti abortion and anti gay messages that his church promotes.

As a CEO and chairman of each organisation - it would be untenable in my view but that’s just my take.

Therein lies the problem, all this forced inclusion and acceptance of everything all at the same time is purely *smile*. Humans being what they are, they all have different thoughts and beliefs. Everyone thinks that their thoughts and beliefs are far better than anyone else's n so they try to deride, abuse n shut down those opposing their particular views, or get hopelessly conflicted trying to fit into everyone's views.