Rugby Australia’s decision not to sanction Folau has divided sponsors
Image: Image: Israel Folau / Instagram.
Rugby Australia’s decision not to sanction Israel Folau for his comments on homosexuality has prompted at least one key corporate partner to pull its support from the code.
Folau recently came under fire for for gay people, before he defending his views and claiming that “sometimes the truth is difficult to hear”.
In an interview with , maker of the Wallabies’ official sports drink SOS Hydration said it would withdraw its support from Rugby Australia.
“For a number of reasons, there are no plans to move forward with our partnership,” managing director Andrew Shaw said.
“SOS supports inclusiveness and welfare of all athletes.”
However, other Wallabies partners have thrown their support behind Rugby Australia in light of Folau’s comments, saying that the code should be inclusive of all views.
One key Wallabies partner, Taylor Wines, said they would continue to support the team.
“Rugby is inclusive for everyone, whether you have religious beliefs or support same-sex marriage,” a spokesperson said.
A number of other sponsors are allegedly reviewing their position, with digital partner Accenture believed to be reviewing its position in the lead up to its contract in July.
Rugby Australia has revealed that it will not sanction Folau for his anti-gay comments or his claims that chief executive of Rugby Australia Raelene Castle had “misrepresented my position and my comments to appease other people”.
“Israel said he did not intend to upset people intentionally or bring hurt to the game,” Castle said.
“We accept Israel’s position.”
Well yet again, we find that many who profess to support the gay community, such a Rugby Australia, will suddenly stay silent, if it doesn’t seem controversial.. if a lot of subscribers were withdrawing support or there was a big back lash, they would be very vocal and supportive of their gay fans..
Not much happened when Folau gay bashes under the guise of ‘religion’ so Rugby Australia are now supporting him and his rights..
So the morale of the story is, be as homophobic and vocal as you like, say its your religion.. and if you don’t get too much kickback (unlike Margaret Court) then you’ll be fine to carry on..
That people can have their own views as a valued principle held by the Star Observer is a broad faced lie.
As you have censored my opinion and those that you publish are in Noam Chomsky鈥檚 parlance: 鈥渕anufactured consent鈥�.
Here is another which you will also no doubt censor:
NEWSPEAK: the man Israel Folau is prone to reckless and promiscuous {ie. dislocated temporality as opportunism} conduct and an unaccountability for his premature ejaculations which he claims is a piety.
鈥� PHARAOH’S PROPHYLACTIC 鈥�
“TWAT ‘N TRIPE.
‘TIS JUST THE THING.
DON’T BE A SNIPE.
AND DRESS YA DING.”
YOUTUBE: “CONDOM COMMERCIAL”
In English law, baron and feme is a phrase used for husband and wife, in relation to each other, who were accounted as one person by coverture {
– a cover or covering; shelter; concealment.
– Law. the status of a married woman considered as under the protection and authority of her husband.
ORIGIN: 1175鈥�1225; Middle English < Anglo-French, Old French. See covert, -ure
}. Hence, by the old law of evidence, the one party was excluded from giving evidence for or against the other in civil questions, and a relic of this is still preserved in criminal law.
That commercial is no longer available on YOUTUBE as it clearly conveyed the historical reality that the Papal prohibition over condoms as harm minimisation was not only a hypocrisy given his equivalent Egyptian / Roman basis of authority, but a crime against humanity of a magnitude as genocide.
– dolf
Initial Post: 17 April 2018
Thank-you for publishing my last comment.
I make a further additional remark that the LEGAL PRINCIPLE of coverture is the basis of the Christian era Jewish perspective: 鈥淛udge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?鈥� [1 Corinthians 11:13]
But it is neither a substantiation of any religious belief nor does your affections meet any legal requirements of any prerogative to bestow such upon another鈥檚 autonomy {
ie. the practice of coverture as a LEGAL PRINCIPLE demands the lifestyle use of a condom for any non-spousal heterosexual or bisexual sexual activity.
} over which we are going to condemn you religionists.
The condom commercial (URL omitted) shows usage of animal intestines for condom usage and archeological research has found that such usage and other forms existed with Egyptian culture.
People can have their own personal religious views. But unless you’ve been given some stone tablets carved by God spelling out what’s right and wrong, don’t lecture the rest of us about what God will reward or punish.
Just a few weeks ago traditional marriage advocate and family disappointer Barnaby Joyce was publicly stating that any judgement about his new family circumstances was between him and his God so those being critical of his hypocrisy should shut up.
Now we’re being lectured by the likes of Alan Jones that it’s wrong to criticise Israel Folau for pronouncing that he knows as “truth” that God sends gays to hell despite offering no evidence in support of this other than some man-written bible passages.
The anti-gay crowd want to silence others when it suits them and decry that we might object to somebody’s publicly stated opinions while defending courageously only free speech they actually agree with.
It’s a fraught situation, the public are seeing through it and sponsors are right to be frightened despite sponsoring an incredibly successful product on the field in the form of Australian Rugby Union.
Israel Folau can have all the religious opinions and freedom he wants, and if he’s clever he’ll keep them to himself and his close associates and not have to put up with being caught out when he’s being homophobic and un-Christianly judgemental of others he chooses to hate.