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.

So you're massively offended by what you deem as homophobia but are quite happy to sit back and watch someone who disagrees with you, be labelled a gay hater?

2017, everyone.

Lol ok. Nice talking to you.

Yep.

No, it highlights the unprofessionalism at the RFL and shows they are well aware of a referees sexuality and it effects how they treat him.

Well I suppose if you're "pretty certain" of this hypothetical future hypocrisy then that's all there is to it. Who needs evidence eh?

So the fact that a senior person at the RFL is accused of subjecting an unnamed individual to homophobic abuse, is evidence that the RFL is so pro-gay, that they are prepared to hold the allegedly gay James Child to lower standards of performance than his presumably straight colleagues?

I don't get it.

Just to be clear then James Child is the beneficiary of positive discrimination from the RFL. Our evidence of this is that he gets big games but doesn't get finals or semi-finals and it hss been alleged by his peers that he is the victim of homophobic abuse from the RFL. The RFL are doing this for 'moral brownie points that neither they or child have ever discussed

I look forward to you challenging everyone who has an opinion on an Internet forum but not 100% concrete evidence the same as this

No he's a victim of homophobic abuse by SOME individuals in the Match Officals Department, not the RFL. It shows sexuality is clearly well known and just some individuals abuse him verbally outside the workplace it doesn't mean they don't also take into consideration his sexuality when appointing him to games. If negative discrimination came into play during appointing his games they surely they wouldn't give him any big fixtures and token gesture TJ roles at finals (they'd give it to one of the week in week out TJ's. surely?) Like I said earlier in the thread that leaves the other option that they actually don't think he's good enough to refs finals but then every now and again give him big league games for some reason which clearly can't be because of his quality as a referee otherwise he'd have gotten a final/SF by now AS THE MAIN REF.

Very well put... and that's the crux of the issue for me....

Anyway, that'll be my last post on here, I need to iron my white gown and pointy hat, apply bepanthen to my new Swastika tattoo and hunt down a couple of those pesky unicorns before bed...

1) you have assumed the referee they are talking about is Child.
2) The allegations you posted were specifically about the RFL structurally covering for homophobic abuse.
3) there is no evidence, not even in the allegation you posted that this has any effect on the appointments but even if with no evidence we accept it was this would be evidence of him being the victim of homophobic discrimination which is in no way way shape or form also evidence of the complete opposite
4)Only you have defined his TJ work as token, id guess he is pretty proud to have officiated a World Cup final as a TJ.
5)Your 'other option' is a false dichotomy. There is a third far more likely and reasonable option. They think him good enough to referee regular season games, but not the best referee, the one who is given the semi's and finals.

So you're saying that he is benefiting from positive discrimination by being given roles equivalent to his level of ability?

I'm locking this.
I can't believe it's gone on for 22 pages.
There is nothing new being added so we are just going in circles based on an assumption of preferential treatment based on no evidence apart from personal views of a refs personal life and RFL opinion of his reffing ability.