It's not just me who doesn't agree with you. Just like it wasn't just me the first time you made this allegation. Just like it wasn't me the 2nd time you made this allegation. Just like it wasn't just me when in response to Hardaker being charged with actual homophobic abuse you called everyone fags and told them to go watch the antiques roadshow.

Not at all. What I wanted was for you to stop beating around the bush with phrases like "tell on yourself" so that you'd show your true colours.

Which you well and truly did when you called me a gay hater.

You're a pathetic human being.

Someone tried to link a person's sexuality to something that has nothing to do with sexuality. That is homophobic. Homophobia doesn't mean you 'hate' gay people, it means you view them differently. Same with any other type of phobia or prejudice. If you see a black guy walking down the street and grab your wallet that's racism, you don't have to 'hate' the guy or want bad things to happen to him for it to be racist.

No I didn't say or infer I wouldn't want them, I just pointed out how I expect the poster who asked the question would react when he tried to say it'd be ridicilous, which suggests he'd dismiss Child's claim as similarly he's dismissed the positive discrimination idea.

Try taking 2 minutes to read people's posts properly instead of jumping in head first in urgent desperation to criticise them.

Thanks for the info.

Not sure what it's got to do with Smokey calling me homophobic and a gay hater, though.

I'm not too interested in your argument with Smokey, it has to do with the fact that you seem to have taken objection to a homophobic person being rightly called homophobic.

No what you said was
If he made that claim, I'm pretty certain the same ones on here attacking the positive discrimination suggestions and the people who've said it.....would be the first people to attack the RFL demanding an investigation and that there's no place for negative discrimination. They wouldn't dare for a second try knocking Child saying he couldn't make that claim

Now I get that this is how you think others would react to that situatuon. I even agreed I would want an investigation I wouldn t knock him or say he couldn't make that claim. My question remains what would your reaction be to that situation the same as mine and you expect others, or different?

Well if you're not interested in someone's argument then don't go posting patronising comments on it.

Cheers.

the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Yeah, unfortunately this is a public forum and people are free to comment in any thread they wish.

Not sure why you think it was patronising BTW, if you already know and understand the things I said then why are you maintaining the same viewpoint and continuing to attack someone for correctly pointing out homophobia?

Still trying that hoping it will get some traction aren't you.

cry-bully and not even a very good one.

I'd be asking the similar questions as I'm asking now when I think positive discrimination could be possible. Is this a possibility? and yes it should be looked into further.

So you think all gay people, and all other minorities, should be constantly subject to job evaluations to see if they are being promoted beyond their capabilities based on positive discrimination?

Of course you're free to comment but why bother if you're not interested?

Me disagreeing that someone is homophobic, doesn't make me homophobic and it definitely doesn't make me a "gay hater"

So you think the two situations are equal?

If the gay person in question came out and publicly accused his employers of negative discrimination....which was the scenario offered up several posts ago......then I would be asking questions.

How you've twisted that into me questioning the job position of every minority individual in world I don't know.

You question one single persons job performance and suddenly you're accuse of wanting to question the job position of every gay, black, Muslim etc. In the world.

Because you and Smokey seem to have some sort of problem with each other that I don't know or care about. I wasn't commenting on that, I was responding to your disagreements that the OP was homophobic, because as I pointed out, he is.

Yeah, because there's a big difference between someone claiming that they are being discriminated against and some other person saying "he only has this job because he's gay/black/whatever". In the latter case you can level that accusation at anyone and use it to question the competence of anyone you don't like, which is what has happened in this thread.

They're fundamentally the same, a job performance effected by discrimination. I'm not saying positive discrimination is as worst as negative discrimination btw.....which is clearly the path you're trying to nudge me towards so you can rant again. It doesn't make it right or not worth questioning it.

It's like you are constantly on the verge of any epiphany.

I've no interest in comparing positive to negative discrimination in a battle to find the worst at all. What I was 'nudging' you towards was hopefully the realization that you are saying two very different things are similar.

1 a gay man claiming he had been the victim of discrimination in an industry it had already been demonstrably proven he had been discriminated against

2 the rantings on a messageboard of third parties

These two things are not 'fundementally the same'

Even two former refs Thomason and Stokes have publicly pointed the finger of homophobia at the Match Officals department, which shows a referees sexuality is at the forefront of people's thinking there.

The following from a newspaper article several months ago.

"The pair quit rugby league’s governing body earlier this year and claim members of the Match Officials Department have been subjected to humiliating abuse, including the homophobic taunting of one referee.

They also say complaints have been swept under the carpet by the RFL’s human resources department and chief operating officer Ralph Rimmer.

Stokes said: “It’s the least professional organisation in the world.

“I witnessed homophobic abuse being thrown about by a very senior member of the match officials department to another member of staff.

“This is supposed to be a professional organisation, yet here we are in a pub while somebody gets absolutely torn into about being gay – delving into his personal life and making a mockery of it because he happened to be with another man.

“He sat there and took it for about half-an-hour. I reported this to Ralph Rimmer when I left, but nothing has happened about it.”

This is the very antithesis of your argument. You understand that right?

Am I homophobic for disagreeing with you? Does that also make me a gay hater?

No, it makes you someone who doesn't understand what discrimination is, and seemingly doesn't want to understand since you accused me of being patronising when I tried to explain it to you.