NRL General Discussion Thread

[Organix]

Its a health issue....not a social one. Try again.

It's a human rights issue... no need

 

[Mr Fourex]

It's a human rights issue... no need

How is it human rights......no one is saying you can;t play in the NRL if your gay.

 

[Organix]

How is it human rights......no one is saying you can;t play in the NRL if your gay.

Indeed what the 7 are saying is that they don't believe that gay people have equal rights, and the NRL code of conduct states that participants are expected to demonstrate and protect these rights. So, no, noone is saying that. I am even not saying that. I am saying that they have breached their contract regardless. Nice strawman, though

 

[Mr Fourex]

You might consider the various Anti-Discrimination laws in Australia and rethink your response.

How is discriminating.....? Because I (the player) won't agree to your politics....?

It would be a different story if a player was refusing to play in a team with or against a player who has publicised their gayness....but that's not the case,
perhaps as well as religion..... these players simply don't want to play along with this political farce and are making a stance against politics being involved with professional sport?

 

[Emanon]

Why....?

Go and join a rally somewhere mate if you're looking for political entertainment......

I come here to watch the footy.....

I'm not interested in political entertainment, It's actually about trying to take the politics out of it in a way. So all that is left is something resembling a concept or theme more than a debate.

It would make far more sense having it be one and done than having this issue pencilled in for an entire round everytime they do the draw up because half of the players don't want to play because of religious beliefs.

I agree that Rugby league is not the place for it. But unfortunately this is the world we live in now. Music once used to be political and sport was an escape, now it's the other way around.

 

[Organix]

How is discriminating.....? Because I (the player) won't agree to your politics....?

It would be a different story if a player was refusing to play in a team with or against a player who has publicised their gayness....but that's not the case,
perhaps as well as religion..... these players simply don't want to play along with this political farce and are making a stance against politics being involved with professional sport?

No. Man, the mental gymnastics you're performing here is a solid 9, eh.

The NRL states that they expect players to respect the rights of everyone equally. The players do not respect the rights of LGBTQ+ to love and marry another LGBTQ+ person. It is that simple. It really isn't politics that someone be allowed to love someone else with reciprocity, is it?

It doesn't impact on anyone outside of those two people, and yet they can't respect their rights to love and engage in a recognised union equally?

 

[Santa]

How about if the NRL started shoving religion down our throats as well.....?

Professional sport should not be used as a platform for perceived social injustices IMO.....

Like I said, I see religion different to accepting people for how they are born (skin colour, sexuality, etc.). The only way I see that happening is if the NRL came out and said it's now a religious organisation.

Professional sport is the perfect spot to challenge social injustices imo.

 

[Mr Fourex]

The NRL states that they expect players to respect the rights of everyone equally.

I believe that was intended to reflect how you acted on the field, to other players......and it was primarily aimed at racism.

This is something else....because we aren't actually talking about a gay person being vilified on the footy field are we.....we're talking about refusing to go to Mardi Gras in Kings Cross, and because I just don't wanna....isnt a good enough reason.
Why am I a ****? I'm not abusing anyone...not hurting anyone by refusing to attend......?

 

[Sproj]

I have a few people at work who say they would refuse to wear a rain or lanyard if it was a requirement because they don’t want to be told from work what issues to campaign on or by forced to preach about an issue they just don’t care about and they are not homophones of religiously affiliated.

At work there is now an acknowledgement of country at almost every meeting and they get longer and longer and tend to usually be handled by a white person who then proceeds to white shame other white people.

In all of these things, people end up getting upset because they don’t want their work to dictate what they can / should / cannot / should not believe or say.

At the end of the day, this is the players’ jobs, what right does anyone have to tell them to have to wear any jersey that campaigns on any issue? This is a sport team in a sport, not a float in a Mardi Gras. Leave the politics and social out of it and just let them play.

Let’s look at it another way, if the Sea Eagles were bought by a communist country’s regime and told they’d have to wear a certain colour to show support for communists which is a minority group in Australia, would anyone be ok with that?

Just stick to three jerseys as previously mentioned. Manly the club screwed up here and whether you agree with the players or not, they have a right not to be dictated to about what they have to wear if it is not the colours of their team and they haven’t agreed to it prior, regardless of the issue.

 

[Kimlo]

No. Man, the mental gymnastics you're performing here is a solid 9, eh.

The NRL states that they expect players to respect the rights of everyone equally. The players do not respect the rights of LGBTQ+ to love and marry another LGBTQ+ person. It is that simple. It really isn't politics that someone be allowed to love someone else with reciprocity, is it?

It doesn't impact on anyone outside of those two people, and yet they can't respect their rights to love and engage in a recognised union equally?

LGBT people have all those rights, and those players have the right to not wear LGBT jerseys. Inferring they think LGBT people have no rights is a conclusion you're drawing off limited context. Whether it's because they don't want to engage in politics, or because it's against their beliefs, ultimately that's their freedom to make that choice.

You know what real tolerance is? Accepting others see things differently and not trying to punish them.

The only disrespectful party in all this is Manly football club for not consulting players and turning this into a political shit storm when they could have handled this with much more grace.

 

[Organix]

I believe that was intended to reflect how you acted on the field, to other players......and it was primarily aimed at racism.

This is something else....because we aren't actually talking about a gay person being vilified on the footy field are we.....we talking about refusing to go to mardi gras in Kings Cross, and because I just dont wanna....isnt a good enough reason.
Why am I a ****? I'm not abusing anyone...not hurting anyone by refusing to attend......?

I don't think it makes any difference how you interpret it. Besides, in the code of conduct it refers to participants not just players. Go read it. No leg to stand on

 

[Mr Fourex]

Where is the players union on this.....?

Do those ***** actually do anything...?

 

[Galah]

Where is the players union on this.....?

Do those ***** actually do anything...?

Them in the corner currently waiting this one out.

 

[Organix]

I have a few people at work who say they would refuse to wear a rain or lanyard if it was a requirement because they don’t want to be told from work what issues to campaign on or by forced to preach about an issue they just don’t care about and they are not homophones of religiously affiliated.

At work there is now an acknowledgement of country at almost every meeting and they get longer and longer and tend to usually be handled by a white person who then proceeds to white shame other white people.

In all of these things, people end up getting upset because they don’t want their work to dictate what they can / should / cannot / should not believe or say.

At the end of the day, this is the players’ jobs, what right does anyone have to tell them to have to wear any jersey that campaigns on any issue? This is a sport team in a sport, not a float in a Mardi Gras. Leave the politics and social out of it and just let them play.

Let’s look at it another way, if the Sea Eagles were bought by a communist country’s regime and told they’d have to wear a certain colour to show support for communists which is a minority group in Australia, would anyone be ok with that?

Just stick to three jerseys as previously mentioned. Manly the club screwed up here and whether you agree with the players or not, they have a right not to be dictated to about what they have to wear if it is not the colours of their team and they haven’t agreed to it prior, regardless of the issue.

In this regard they already opened the door with indigenous Jerseys. Very hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Organix]

LGBT people have all those rights, and those players have the right to not wear LGBT jerseys. Inferring they think LGBT people have no rights is a conclusion you're drawing off limited context. Whether it's because they don't want to engage in politics, or because it's against their beliefs, ultimately that's their freedom to make that choice.

You know what real tolerance is? Accepting others see things differently and not trying to punish them.

The only disrespectful party in all this is Manly football club for not consulting players and turning this into a political shit storm when they could have handled this with much more grace.

Only in open society. In contractual terms they have agreed to the code of conduct.

This isn't really a tolerance issue, so much as an inadvertent outing of intolerance.

Like I said, hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Kimlo]

Only in open society. In contractual terms they have agreed to the code of conduct.

This isn't really a tolerance issue, so much as an inadvertent outing of intolerance.

Like I said, hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

It's not a contractual issue at all. They have every right in their contract to practice their faith, and more importantly, every legal right to practice it.

Just ask the ARU if they think they can sack someone for practicing their faith, they paid 4m to find that out when they realised it would never pass in a court of law.

 

[Organix]

It's not a contractual issue at all. They have every right in their contract to practice their faith, and more importantly, every legal right to practice it.

Just ask the ARU if they think they can sack someone for practicing their faith, they paid 4m to find that out when they realised it would never pass in a court of law.

I've said it enough that it's a breachof the code of conduct. It's about disrespecting others openly.

 

[Foordy]

I've said it enough that it's a breachof the code of conduct. It's about disrespecting others openly.

it's interesting that the NRL respect the players choice to breech the code of conduct. i wouldn't have thought that would happen