# Israel Folau - Breach of contract or right to free speech?



## SirRumpole (7 May 2019)

No doubt Folau's comments were offensive to some people but the question I have is how much rights should an employer have to regulate the private lives of their employees ?

Folau's religious convictions have no impact on his ability to play football which is what he is employed to do, so why should his employer have a say in what he says when he's clocked off and no longer under the control of his employer ?

I reckon the ARU has breached his civil rights to hold and express an opinion while not 'on the job' and if they sack him he should sue them.


----------



## jbocker (7 May 2019)

There is no such thing as real free speech with your employer. 
You can say what you like against the bosses wishes but it will probably cost you.


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2019)

This is a tough one in my opinion. Israel has every right to speak his opinion but we also must recognise the right to the Liberty of his employer organisation to exercise their rights.

I believe they are a hierarchy of liberties and and where the superior right is in this case I just do not know.

On the one hand I don't think it was very smart for Israel to have said that on a public forum, but also I think it is incredibly mean-spirited for the rugby union to take this action.

Either way the Australian Rugby Union may suffer the consequences of their actions also, who knows?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2019)

In principle I'm in the "right to free speech" camp so far as any normal run of the mill employee is concerned. If it has nothing to do with the employer's business, is done in personal time and is not in any way using company resources then no problem. FWIW I've always worked under rules very similar to that.

That said, I do see the point that a professional sports player is a bit like a politician or CEO. Highly paid and never truly off duty so far as representing others is concerned. There's a valid point in that context not about his views as such but about publicly expressing them.

Free speech as a concept however is not "subject to......". Either you have free speech or you don't, by the very nature of the concept what someone's saying doesn't change that.

What I see wrong with the seemingly modern "only if it's acceptable content" approach is that if we turn the clock back a relatively short period of time, half a human lifetime or so, well anyone advocating that homosexual acts ought not be illegal or that the natural environment ought to be protected was very much expressing a view that was against mainstream thinking at the time.

Had what seems to have become the modern approach of censorship been applied back then, well anyone simply advocating that being gay shouldn't be a crime would never have been given space in newspapers due to their views being at odds with the mainstream and the church. Likewise the TV stations would never have run the films the environmental movement desperately wanted to air given those on the other side were a source of paid advertising. The news editors may well have disagreed but they still ran the story they disagreed with because doing so was the proper thing to do from a freedom of speech perspective. 

I absolutely disagree with this man's comments in so many ways but the notion of supporting free speech by its nature means accepting others saying things I don't agree with.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> No doubt Folau's comments were offensive to some people but the question I have is how much rights should an employer have to regulate the private lives of their employees ?
> Folau's religious convictions have no impact on his ability to play football which is what he is employed to do, so why should his employer have a say in what he says when he's clocked off and no longer under the control of his employer ?
> I reckon the ARU has breached his civil rights to hold and express an opinion while not 'on the job' and if they sack him he should sue them.



ARL has no issue with his right to have an opinion.
However, contracted players cannot damage the brand.
Separately, influential members of any society should be setting an example. 
The example set by Folau is not one that seems reasonable to condone.
I think Ian Roberts made some pretty good points about what happens when high profile players make comments which are unacceptable to a fair size chunk of Australian society.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> However, contracted players cannot damage the brand.




He hasn't, if anything he has damaged himself.

The ARU can simply disassociate themselves from his comments, it's not a sacking offence.


----------



## moXJO (7 May 2019)

"Drunks,  Adulterers,  Homosexuals"
He basically told Australia you are going to hell.
He had a right and religious freedom to say it. I don't think there was a social media clause in his contract either.

 But I don't think that exempts him from the consequences of public response. It will cost rugby Australia millions in sponsors and legal/public relations.

Islanders can be very religious. 

I think there are few issues here. One being his right to say it. This was a quote from the bible so is the bible now up for censorship. No, thats not really the argument. But it feels like its coming close from some segments of society.

And the other is how players conduct themselves when representing a business, brand or organization. So contracts should be moving with the times (many businesses already have a clause) where it directly stipulates what can and can't be done or said.

In this case I beleive he didn't have that particular clause in there. But its still covered.

 The argument would be interesting to see though. How will they spin quoting the bible? 

A lose- lose case.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> He hasn't, if anything he has damaged himself.
> The ARU can simply disassociate themselves from his comments, it's not a sacking offence.



That's naive.
Folau is a contracted player.
He's definitely breached the players' Code of Conduct.
I do not know what constitutes a sacking offence but my view is that Folau's conduct does not meet that threshold. 
Rugby Australia knew before resigning him that he was a media liability, and his individual contract demanded in my view that a clause about social media commentary were without controversy.  If that clause is not there, then RA is up shyt creek.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> This was a quote from the bible....



It's not in mine.
He could have got these from the Bible, but seemed to overlook them:

selling one’s daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
stoning one to death for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2)
women not being permitted to speak in church (Corinthians 14:34)
not wearing clothes woven from two materials (Leviticus 19:19)
not eating shellfish (Leviticus 9:10).
I guess it depends which god people choose as to the foolishness of their beliefs. 
Perhaps books that arose from practices condoned a few thousand years ago should be updated.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> and his individual contract demanded in my view that a clause about social media commentary were without controversy.




I don't believe employers should have a right to insert such clauses.

They infringe on an individual's private life which is of no relation to the job that the employee does.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2019)

The inherent problem with religion is just that, it's religious and believers aren't usually willing to debate the validity of it.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't believe employers should have a right to insert such clauses.
> 
> They infringe on an individual's private life which is of no relation to the job that the employee does.



What you think or believe are not relevant.
Folau's activities/behaviours off the field can potentially adversely impact the "brand" and affect the employer's revenue stream.  Reputational damage can cost millions.
An employer has a right to specific remedies where contracts identify what constitutes a breach, and such breaches occur.
It is entirely reasonable that employers are able to protect the viability of their businesses by limiting potential harm from their employees.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> It is entirely reasonable that employers are able to protect the viability of their businesses by limiting potential harm from their employees.




When their activities affect what they do on the job yes, otherwise no.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't believe employers should have a right to insert such clauses.
> 
> They infringe on an individual's private life which is of no relation to the job that the employee does.



If the comments relate to the employer in some way then I think fair enough. Long before the internet came along it was always the case that criticising your employer publicly was one way to get sacked.

A few employers may have decided to turn a blind eye to some things due to management supporting the "free speech" principle but it's pretty standard as a concept.

If it has nothing to do with the employer's activities though well then I agree totally for any normal employee. If someone works for Coles and wants to hand out "how to vote Greens" cards on election day well then that ought to be fine assuming they're not standing on Coles' property, aren't wearing a Coles uniform, aren't on paid time, haven't in any way used company resources and so on. Just because most of Coles' customers don't agree shouldn't be of any relevance.

Where I can see the problem is that the nature of a professional sports player is somewhat different to an ordinary run of the mill employee in that everything they do will attract attention _because_ of their employment. That being so, I can see the point about the employer wanting to present a consistent image and so on from a "business is business" perspective.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If the comments relate to the employer in some way then I think fair enough. Long before the internet came along it was always the case that criticising your employer publicly was one way to get sacked.




He did not criticise his employer from what I can see.



rederob said:


> It is entirely reasonable that employers are able to protect the viability of their businesses by limiting potential harm from their employees.




Would you accept any employer telling you that you couldn't post here ?


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> When their activities affect what they do on the job yes, otherwise no.



No, when their activities demonstrably affect their employer's revenue, then the employer can seek redress.
Similarly, private school students do not have free rein to discredit their schools or teachers or principals on social media outside school hours.
Employers have a right to protect their investment, and the foolish actions of employees that do it harm are not immune from the law.
Interesting byline is that one of the most litigious organisations in the world in terms of protecting its image is a certain Church.


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2019)

Compare - Kopernick(sp?)

Fundamental difference is that his behaviour was onfield and during employ,  but,  are there lessons there?


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Would you accept any employer telling you that you couldn't post here ?



It's not where you post, it's what you post.
Nowadays I am very cautious about what I post.
Defamation in the cyberspace is real and actionable.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> No, when their activities demonstrably affect their employer's revenue, then the employer can seek redress.



A question is how far does it go?

For example Rugby Australia is sponsored by Qantas. As with all airlines Qantas uses a lot of jet fuel and is thus a fairly big polluter in terms of CO2.

Now what if one of these rugby players posts something online urging people to vote for a political party which advocates a carbon tax or other price on CO2 emissions?

Not directly bad for the employer but not good for a major sponsor's business if someone's going to tax them more.

So what's the response? Sack them?

Or the link is too indirect since it's only the sponsor and not the employer itself being harmed by the action being advocated?

My point there is about where to draw the line on this overall concept not about Qantas or climate change specifically, they're just an example. I picked politics given that religion has already been done....


----------



## SirRumpole (7 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> A question is how far does it go?
> 
> For example Rugby Australia is sponsored by Qantas. As with all airlines Qantas uses a lot of jet fuel and is thus a fairly big polluter in terms of CO2.
> 
> ...




Yes indeed a good reply.

The area seems so broad that any employer could seemingly call a breach of contract for virtually any statement by an employee that potentially, possibly, directly or indirectly (note legal jargon ) causes a loss of revenue , or even loss of reputation for the employer.

Just found this under the Fair Work Act

*Discrimination*
Under the FW Act, it is unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against a person who is an employee, former employee or prospective employee because of the person's race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer's responsibilities, pregnancy, *religion, political opinion,* national extraction or social origin.

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-...ts/rights-and-obligations/protections-at-work


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> A question is how far does it go?
> 
> For example Rugby Australia is sponsored by Qantas. As with all airlines Qantas uses a lot of jet fuel and is thus a fairly big polluter in terms of CO2.
> 
> ...



The nature of the damage needs to be unambiguous.
The damages need to be quantifiable.
The source of the damage needs to be verifiable.
The jurisdiction needs to provide a means for remedy.
In your example the linkages appear too tenuous for any liability to be prosecuted.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The area seems so broad that any employer could seemingly call a breach of contract for virtually any statement by an employee that potentially, possibly, directly or indirectly (note legal jargon ) causes a loss of revenue , or even loss of reputation for the employer.



Not so.
The law sets a high bar.
Reputational damage claims are not common in Australia: defamation is more common path to damages claims.
Here's an example of a successful case.


----------



## moXJO (7 May 2019)

rederob said:


> It's not in mine.
> He could have got these from the Bible, but seemed to overlook them:
> 
> selling one’s daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7)
> ...



From this most likely:

*“Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11, CSB)*


----------



## Tink (8 May 2019)




----------



## rederob (8 May 2019)

Tink said:


>




Tink, if you have a comment about Folau or freedom of speech, then make it.
But your dogwhistling twitter feeds from Peterson do not belong in this thread. 

(I don't think they belong anywhere except in the Twitterverse, which seems an apt place for twits.)


----------



## Tink (8 May 2019)

I have made a comment about Melbourne, and Margaret Court as an example.

The attack on Margaret Court Arena for her views.


----------



## moXJO (8 May 2019)

Rob what bible were you reading to not find the quote?


----------



## rederob (8 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Rob what bible were you reading to not find the quote?



I have various King James versions.
Here is something more contextual.


----------



## moXJO (8 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I have various King James versions.
> Here is something more contextual.



Ok thought it might have been something different. Its in the king james version.

 It is a quote from the bible so it will be interesting to see how they play it. Especially with the amount of islanders that play.


----------



## rederob (8 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Ok thought it might have been something different. Its in the king james version.
> It is a quote from the bible so it will be interesting to see how they play it. Especially with the amount of islanders that play.



The decision has already been made.
It's a clear breach of the players' Code of Conduct.

WRT the Bible, there were no contemporaneous references to homosexuality.  Those references are only found in relatively recent versions.  But that's not really the point.  Free speech can have consequences.  That is, your right to an opinion does not confer an immunity from other actions. This has been very much proven by the number of political candidates who have now been disendorsed.

As an aside, that Folau can believe that I, as an atheist, could go to Hell is very amusing. 
Perhaps worse, however, is his idea that Christians can gather converts by targeting their frailties. 
I suspect most people are aware they are not perfect as it's part and parcel of the human condition.

If course, if he had posted at ASF I would have asked that he provide evidence of what he claims.


----------



## moXJO (8 May 2019)

rederob said:


> The decision has already been made.
> It's a clear breach of the players' Code of Conduct.
> 
> WRT the Bible, there were no contemporaneous references to homosexuality.  Those references are only found in relatively recent versions.  But that's not really the point.  Free speech can have consequences.  That is, your right to an opinion does not confer an immunity from other actions. This has been very much proven by the number of political candidates who have now been disendorsed.
> ...



I thought the church recently backed away from there being a "hell" or something to that effect? 
It wasn't actually in the bible and just used to scare cash out of people.

I only heard it briefly and didn't get the full story so don't quote me on that.


----------



## jbocker (8 May 2019)

So what Israel is telling me if I repent all my sins, I will be allowed in Gods Kingdom. What if I do that 5 minutes before I drop off dead.  I think John Wayne did that and converted to a Catholic.
Not that I have to repent for much!


----------



## Macquack (8 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Islanders can be very religious.



Being a athiest, I have always been very suspicious of why Jesus Christ who could walk on water did not venture down to the Southern Hemisphere to enlighten first hand the local Pacific Islanders and Indigenous Australians etc. Instead the locals were left in the dark until the white man missionaries came a knocking and spread the gospel. Sounds like pure brain washing to me.


----------



## moXJO (8 May 2019)

Macquack said:


> Being a athiest, I have always been very suspicious of why Jesus Christ who could walk on water did not venture down to the Southern Hemisphere to enlighten first hand the local Pacific Islanders and Indigenous Australians etc. Instead the locals were left in the dark until the white man missionaries came a knocking and spread the gospel. Sounds like pure brain washing to me.



Well whitey came in and told us all how it was. Now they get offended at what they created. Religion is deeply ingrained on many of the elders.  And you are right it was basically brainwashing. 

But you also have to look at it from the blacks point of view. You were basically told you were not equal through the actions of previous whites. You then have religion that tells you that you are all equal under God. They feed you and educate you. And well,  your faith grows strong. For the damage that they did, they also did some good. Those who had stronger faith were able to keep away from some of the pitfalls of western society.

This whole situation will cause friction for many while its in the news.


----------



## Macquack (21 June 2019)

Is see Israel Folau has set up a GoFundMe page to help raise $3 million towards his legal fees in fighting the Australian Rugby Union. The guy is loaded and now he is crying poor.  What a bloody disgrace.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Is see Israel Folau has set up a GoFundMe page to help raise $3 million towards his legal fees in fighting the Australian Rugby Union. The guy is loaded and now he is crying poor.  What a bloody disgrace.




That was my first impression too but,
he said he's already spent $100,000 in legal fees at Rugby Australias hearing. Going to the Federal Court and High Court will run into millions.

Being a Christian I'm guessing he gives away a lot of money to various charities.

I'm guessing the Gofundme page wasn't his idea, but ultimately his responsibility yes. There'd be a lot of people in his ear.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> That was my first impression too but,
> he said he's already spent $100,000 in legal fees at Rugby Australia's hearing. Going to the Federal Court and High Court will run into millions.
> Being a Christian I'm guessing he gives away a lot of money to various charities.
> I'm guessing the Gofundme page wasn't his idea, but ultimately his responsibility yes. There'd be a lot of people in his ear.



I am confused.
Folau worships someone who can turn bad people into good people so they can enter some (fictional) heaven.
But this god he worships cannot get his employers to see he is right?
Something here is amiss, don't you think?


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I am confused.
> Folau worships someone who can turn bad people into good people so they can enter some (fictional) heaven.
> But this god he worships cannot get his employers to see he is right?
> Something here is amiss, don't you think?




Mate, I'm not saying he's a genius, but people with Faith do "interesting" things.

FWIW I think that head of RA should be sacked and Alan Joyce disqualified from holding any Director responsibility.


----------



## tech/a (21 June 2019)

Ahhh Religion.

Where your or my beliefs are more right than my or your beliefs.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

Communists


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

And may I ask my fellow drunk fornicator atheists on this site, do you take offence enough to think Folau shoulda been sacked?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> And may I ask my fellow drunk fornicator atheists on this site, do you take offence enough to think Folau shoulda been sacked?




Nuh. To me it's a matter of what an employer can tell you to do or not to do.

Once you "clock off", the employer *should* have no control over you and your life is your own.

Otherwise you are a slave.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> And may I ask my fellow drunk fornicator atheists on this site, do you take offence enough to think Folau shoulda been sacked?



The issue relates to his employment contract which includes a code of conduct.
Nothing prevents anyone from holding a religious point of view.  Expressing that point of view publicly can be judged quite differently.
Example: Mr Fake Person's religious belief is that men should have many wives, and their ages are immaterial.  Fake is a primary school teacher.  On weekends Fake is found at street corners disseminating literature consistent with his beliefs.
What should the school do?


----------



## tech/a (21 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Nuh. To me it's a matter of what an employer can tell you to do or not to do.
> 
> Once you "clock off", the employer *should* have no control over you and your life is your own.
> 
> Otherwise you are a slave.




Your not a slave you *are paid well* for what you do for your employer
You have a choice. If you were offered more you'd go elsewhere.

Your employer should also have a choice if you make a choice which
effects your employer. Just as I'm sure that if your employer made a choice
that effected you enough you'd leave.

Your employer doesn't have control over what YOU do
That's the point *YOU HAVE CONTROL!*


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> What should the school do?




The headmaster should have a word to him.  It's called a head fake.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

tech/a said:


> Your employer should also have a choice if you make a choice which
> effects your employer. Just as I'm sure that if your employer made a choice
> that effected you enough you'd leave.




Folau's beliefs do not affect his employer.

They are his own personal opinions. His employer has the right to disagree.

Contracts of employment should not infringe on people's civil rights, and freedom of expression is one of those rights.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> The issue relates to his employment contract which includes a code of conduct.
> Nothing prevents anyone from holding a religious point of view.  Expressing that point of view publicly can be judged quite differently.
> Example: Mr Fake Person's religious belief is that men should have many wives, and their ages are immaterial.  Fake is a primary school teacher.  On weekends Fake is found at street corners disseminating literature consistent with his beliefs.
> What should the school do?




What is Fake employed to teach ? Physics or Maths ? No conflict of interest there.

Religion ? Shouldn't be taught in schools anyway.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

Yes @rederob and @tech/a but having a punishment befitting the crime is the issue I believe.
Folau's conduct dosent really cause harm to the company's brand. Outside of this issue, Israel Folau actually improves the brands image imo. He comes across as a wholesome (perhaps naive) choirboy.


----------



## tech/a (21 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Folau's beliefs do not affect his employer.
> 
> They are his own personal opinions. His employer has the right to disagree.
> 
> Contracts of employment should not infringe on people's civil rights, and freedom of expression is one of those rights.




To do nothing implies to many that the employer is in agreement or supportive.
His employer is disagreeing--There is disagreement with the disagreement.
So you have no line for freedom of expression.
Your line will be different to mine even if you don't have one.
What is your line?


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Folau's beliefs do not affect his employer.
> 
> They are his own personal opinions. His employer has the right to disagree.
> 
> Contracts of employment should not infringe on people's civil rights, and freedom of expression is one of those rights.




I think that's the cause of action they are pursuing - the employer can't impose those restrictions or termination due to expressing religious beliefs.


----------



## wayneL (21 June 2019)

Do we have a cite of which term of contract he has purportedly breached.  That is key I think. 

As a general principle though, not withstanding the above, I think its a dangerous precedent. What other proclamation might get you sacked? 

A moderate view on CC? 
The cruelty of Halal slaughter. 
Veganism? Carnivorism? 
Moderate political views?   
Child discipline?
Criticisms of paedophilia (the next shoe to drop possibly? )? 

What if one if the Islamic players made a proclamation most of us find offensive?
Destruction of Israel? 
Female genital mutilation? 
Behead infidels? 

We know some do hold those beliefs,  even if it isn't on Twitter.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 June 2019)

I'll simply observe that there's a difference between the context of freedom of expression and so on versus whether or not someone agrees with the content.

I disagree absolutely with this man's views, indeed I'm none too keen on the entire concept of religion, but there ought to be consistency.

If he's sacked for expressing a religious view then any player who expressed the opposite view should also be sacked.

Either it's acceptable for them to be commenting publicly about religion or it's not. What religion they follow shouldn't alter that - either they can promote it or they can't.

Same with any issue. If it's not acceptable for someone to promote the Greens then it shouldn't be acceptable for them to promote One Nation either. Etc.

I can follow the point about an employer not wanting their high profile employees to comment to the media but that should be a blanket rule for all. If it's "no religion" or "no politics" then it's no commenting about religion or politics. What their actual religious or political view happens to be shouldn't be a factor in that.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Do we have a cite of which term of contract he has purportedly breached.  That is key I think.
> 
> As a general principle though, not withstanding the above, I think its a dangerous precedent. What other proclamation might get you sacked?
> 
> ...



Yes, RA made that clear, so read what they said.
RA requires players to treat everyone equally and with dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation; not to use social media to breach expected standards of behaviour; and not to make public comments or otherwise act contrary to the best interests of the game.
On that standard you will note that *religion is not mentioned*.
Falau will need to show that religion was in fact the basis of his termination.
If I were prosecuting the case I would *never *use the word "*religion*" at all, and only ever refer to his personal beliefs as his personal motivating factor in tweeting.  And I would not wander from the code of conduct as being the foundation of player respect for each other and the betterment of the game.
As to your other points, there are laws that proscribe certain types of statements and actions, and they would be applied accordingly.


----------



## jbocker (21 June 2019)

Take care Israel you might be creating some Idolaters (if you haven't already).
Might have been better to have kept your message offline and spuik it after your contract had ended.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

jbocker said:


> Take care Israel you might be creating some Idolaters (if you haven't already).
> Might have been better to have kept your message offline and spuik it after your contract had ended.




Have you seen Israel Folau? You see him alongside all the other Wobblies and he has the best genetics - could play anyway except Prop or Hooker with enough training. He should be your idol too 

(assuming he's not totally fast twitch like Lote Tuquiri was).


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> my comments are in blue.



Yes, RA made that clear, so read what they said.
RA requires players to treat everyone equally and with dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation; not to use social media to breach expected standards of behaviour; and not to make public comments or otherwise act contrary to the best interests of the game.
You know this for a fact? I think David Pocock going back to Sth Africa and shooting defenceless Animals is a lot worse.

You like that Wayne. Sorry Rob


----------



## wayneL (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, RA made that clear, so read what they said.
> RA requires players to treat everyone equally and with dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation; not to use social media to breach expected standards of behaviour; and not to make public comments or otherwise act contrary to the best interests of the game.
> On that standard you will note that *religion is not mentioned*.
> Falau will need to show that religion was in fact the basis of his termination.
> ...



I wouldn't mind seeing the actual clause(s). 

In Izzy's mind,  he is trying to save them, as silly as that may be to many. Clearly the intent was not to disrespect.

Nor do I believe there was any substantive effect on RA (DKs example highlights this),  in fact,  their own actions appear to have been more detrimental to themselves.

IMO,  this is nothing more than a manifestation of the current radical gender politics and certain Acters flwxing their new found political muscle.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> You know this for a fact? I think David Pocock going back to Sth Africa and shooting defenceless Animals is a lot worse.
> You like that Wayne. Sorry Rob



I did summarise in context, so here are the breached elements in detail:

to promote the reputation of the game and to take all reasonable steps to prevent the game from being brought into disrepute;
not to do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult or humiliate another participant on the ground of the religion, sexual orientation, disability, race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person;
not to conduct themselves in any manner, or engage in any activity, whether on or off the field, that would impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of matches and competitions or in the integrity and good character of participants; and

not to do anything which adversely affects or reflects on or discredits the game, the ARU, any Member Union or Affiliated Union of the ARU, or any squad, team, competition, tournament, sponsor, official supplier or licensee, including, but not limited to, any illegal act or any act of dishonesty or fraud.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> IMO, this is nothing more than a manifestation of the current radical gender politics and certain Acters flwxing their new found political muscle.



What a load of bollocks!


----------



## wayneL (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I did summarise in context, so here are the breached elements in detail:
> 
> to promote the reputation of the game and to take all reasonable steps to prevent the game from being brought into disrepute;
> not to do anything which is likely to intimidate, offend, insult or humiliate another participant on the ground of the religion, sexual orientation, disability, race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the person;
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## wayneL (21 June 2019)

Well Robbee, only one of those causes seems to be in question and looks likely to be tested in court.

We shall see.


----------



## qldfrog (21 June 2019)

Funny how the players who did not sing the anthem on the fields have not been involved in a similar sacking
On the field,, not on their own time expressing a potentially divisive political view
So definitively a politically biaised sacking, funny how no one raised that issue..maybe someone did..did not follow too closely


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Funny how the players who did not sing the anthem on the fields have not been involved in a similar sacking
> On the field,, not on their own time expressing a potentially divisive political view
> So definitively a politically biaised sacking, funny how no one raised that issue..maybe someone did..did not follow too closely




That was Rugby League, under the ARL.
Israel Folau is playing Rugby Union under the ARU.
But your point is entirely correct.


----------



## IFocus (21 June 2019)




----------



## IFocus (21 June 2019)

*Israel Folau Takes Part In Ancient Christian Tradition Of Crowd-Funding His Own Salary*






*CLANCY OVERELL* | _Editor_ | CO



https://www.betootaadvocate.com/bre...249578206&mc_cid=6d67485865&mc_eid=811d5aa322


----------



## Value Collector (21 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Once you "clock off", the employer *should* have no control over you and your life is your own.
> 
> .




They haven’t taken away his right to say what he wants, they have just exercised their right to not be associated with him if he says things that hurt their brand.

No doubt he signed a contract with all sorts of clauses describing how he should act while he was being paid to represent the club and the league.

He didn’t have to sign up to those terms or accept the big pay days, he is a free man, but he did sign the contracts and did accept the pay.


> Other wise you are a slave




A slave would be beaten into submission, he was simply let go and is free to continue making any public comments he likes.

Definitely not a slave.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> *Israel Folau Takes Part In Ancient Christian Tradition Of Crowd-Funding His Own Salary*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Cmon Mate, you don't give Coins, it scratches the Silverware.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> They haven’t taken away his right to say what he wants, they have just exercised their right to not be associated with him if he says things that hurt their brand.




A contract of employment should be about employment not what someone says out of hours.


----------



## qldfrog (21 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> View attachment 95611



I pay a more than fair amount of taxes as a rich bastard who dares to earn more than the minimum wage for free healthcare and hospital, 
on the other hand, I do not give anything to churches..as really, this is what is threatened: faith.
I am a non believer so I would fight against my taxes being spent on churches..and I actually do, for chaplains etc
But on the other hand, knowing we are spending 50 billions on obsolete even before design submarines, I will not give a cent for extra funding to Australian hospitals, or welfare:  salvos etc:
donations for me are O/S, animals and nature, which are not gov funded.
In summary: I would feel right, as a believer if I was one, to donate to Folau
If it is your money, do what you want with it, and faith is a bloody good reason to believe in a cause in my opinion
Here we start to silence what is the basis of our civilization whether you like it or not, and under what, the pretense of freedom?


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I pay a more than fair amount of taxes as a rich bastard who dares to earn more than the minimum wage for free healthcare and hospital,
> on the other hand, I do not give anything to churches..as really, this is what is threatened: faith.
> I am a non believer so I would fight against my taxes being spent on churches..and I actually do, for chaplains etc
> But on the other hand, knowing we are spending 50 billions on obsolete even before design submarines, I will not give a cent for extra funding to Australian hospitals, or welfare:  salvos etc:
> ...




The point is really not just about religion , but any subject on which the employee chooses to comment on which does not affect the performance of their job.

Anti vaxing, anti or pro political parties whatever they are or social policy , if your employer doesn't like what you say you can apparently get the sack for "bringing the company into disrepute", and yet people like Alan Joyce can use the resources of his company's shareholders to campaign for his own kind, even though they are a small minority of the population.

It's all heading in the direction of diminishing the power of the individual and encouraging group-think. 

I believe that George Orwell had something to say about that some time ago. Very prophetic.


----------



## qldfrog (21 June 2019)

True, but here we attack the basis of our civilisation/culture.
I am a non believer yet adhere to the judeo christian values, most of them I agree with.
I know 1984, brave new world..this is bloody now, and with all due respect with your side of politic SirRumpole, it is not a fascist nazi far right dictatorship leading the way to this nightmare as I would have guessed 40y ago, ..not a new Franco or Pinochet but the sons of those who once fought for freedom, liberty, knowledge, education.
It must be hard to take, I am saddened by what happened to the "real aspirational idealistic left" for better words, which made most of my family ancestors.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 June 2019)

I'll always hold in the highest regard those who are willing to present with objectivity and fairness the opposing view to their own or at least seek to understand it.

In the business world it's a rare thing but there's a few in the resource industries that aren't scared to present alternative views which contradict either the company's own short term interests and/or the official corporate line.

At a personal level I've always sought to understand both sides of anything and I know others with similar views but I also know people for whom that concept is anathema.

Broadly speaking the oldies seem more open minded than those under ~30 or so. Just an observation.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The point is really not just about religion , but any subject on which the employee chooses to comment on which does not affect the performance of their job.



Folau signed a document that related to his employment in that he represented Rugby, and agreed to abide by a code of conduct which, if not followed, was detrimental to his teammates and the game.  That code applied both on and off the field.  Folau does not go off the clock after a game, or after training, with respect to the code he agreed to and which was fundamental to his employment in every regard. 


SirRumpole said:


> ... if your employer doesn't like what you say you can apparently get the sack for "bringing the company into disrepute"



Personal opinions expressed publicly should not bring any company into disrepute, but reputational damage to the company might see you in hot water.  


SirRumpole said:


> ... Alan Joyce can use the resources of his company's shareholders to campaign for his own kind, even though they are a small minority of the population.



Joyce donated $1m of his own money to the "YES" vote.  Separately, QANTAS continues to be proactive in representing minority interests, and its board rightfully should support its CEO in being treated equal to others in the community.


SirRumpole said:


> It's all heading in the direction of diminishing the power of the individual and encouraging group-think.



No, individuals retain the power of "choice" and should exercise that with some knowledge of consequences.  In Alan Joyce's case, he was fighting for the individual to freely choose who they love and could have a right to marry.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Folau signed a document that related to his employment in that he represented Rugby, and agreed to abide by a code of conduct which, if not followed, was detrimental to his teammates and the game.  That code applied both on and off the field.  Folau does not go off the clock after a game, or after training, with respect to the code he agreed to and which was fundamental to his employment in every regard.
> Personal opinions expressed publicly should not bring any company into disrepute, but reputational damage to the company might see you in hot water.
> Joyce donated $1m of his own money to the "YES" vote.  Separately, QANTAS continues to be proactive in representing minority interests, and its board rightfully should support its CEO in being treated equal to others in the community.
> No, individuals retain the power of "choice" and should exercise that with some knowledge of consequences.  In Alan Joyce's case, he was fighting for the individual to freely choose who they love and could have a right to marry.




You believe Folau brought the ARU into disrepute? Ban David Pocock for shooting animals in Sth Africa while on the ARU payroll too.
Secondly Joyce used Qantas to further the LGBIT cause. The ARU then has been roundly criticized for jumping into the SSM debate and taking one side.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

Almost everyone in this thread (Atheists) are going to Hell.
I'll never play Rugby Union in Australia now due to this post. Does that make sense?
But I'd probably get away with it though coz I'm only attacking Atheists.


----------



## rederob (21 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> You believe Folau brought the ARU into disrepute? Ban David Pocock for shooting animals in Sth Africa while on the ARU payroll too.
> Secondly Joyce used Qantas to further the LGBIT cause. The ARU then has been roundly criticized for jumping into the SSM debate and taking one side.



You have 4 separate issues.

The ARU will have no difficulty representing themselves.
Who is David Poocock?  Is it illegal to shoot animals in SA?
QANTAS can act for itself as it wishes.  Shareholders can make it account.
I don't follow what the ARU does, but whether they did, or did not, support SSM is again for them to decide, and those who elect them to bring them account if they acted against the body's interests.
I think Folau is a great athlete, and he's academically as gifted as Anthony Mundine.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (21 June 2019)

rederob said:


> my comments are in blue lol.



You have 4 separate issues.

The ARU will have no difficulty representing themselves.not sure what this has to do with the price of eggs in China, other than showing what a David v Goliath battle Folau in undertaking financially speaking.
Who is David Poocock? Is it illegal to shoot animals in SA? Is it illegal to post Biblical verses on Instagram.David Pocock plays for the Wobblies too.
QANTAS can act for itself as it wishes. Shareholders can make it account. Yes but if Joyce wasn't CEO would they jumped so fully into the SSM debate - I think not.
I don't follow what the ARU does, but whether they did, or did not, support SSM is again for them to decide, and those who elect them to bring them account if they acted against the body's interests. The ARU flew the flag for SSM.
I think Folau is a great athlete, and he's academically as gifted as Anthony Mundine. This isn't about qualifications.


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2019)

I don't understand, how someone can be sacked for speaking his mind, unless what he says is illegal.


----------



## Macquack (21 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I don't understand, how someone can be sacked for speaking his mind, unless what he says is illegal.



Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.

He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.
> 
> He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).



So he has to sell his religious beliefs, I'm not religious personally, but it seems to be a bit totalitarian to say someone can't voice his dislike of a belief, that has been held for 2000 years.
It actually sounds like, an oppressive regime. IMO


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.
> 
> He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).



Actually if you look at it in a holistic way, this whole green, anti anything mainstream, is becoming a bit of a cult thing.
No rhyme, no reason, nothing other than a desire for change and no logical way of achieving it.
Social media seems to have achieved, a way of connecting lost people, searching for something that is difficult to find.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.
> 
> He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).




He was paid for his football skills not his opinions.


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> He was paid for his football skills not his opinions.



What is next?


----------



## StockyGuy (22 June 2019)

Perhaps the real issue is the way people in the community in any way idolise bonehead professional jocks.  I'm not averse to watching sport, especially NRL, but there's very few sportspeople whose opinion or example mean anything whatsoever to me.  I mean they talk in a steady stream of clichés for a start.

There's so many sides and layers to this case.  At end of day Folau was biting hand that feeds him - ARU is dependent on sponsorship.  Sponsors can disappear in the blink of an eye.  He'd been warned before and he persisted.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ed-on-qantas-sponsorship-20190620-p51zm8.html  Link makes very clear sponsors DO care about such controversies.  And when a big one leaves, usually other sponsors also re-evaluate.  It's bad manners to compromise your employer in that way in a high profile public position.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> A contract of employment should be about employment not what someone says out of hours.




A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.

At the end of the day he is being paid to represent a club, both on the field and off it.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> So he has to sell his religious beliefs, I'm not religious personally, but it seems to be a bit totalitarian to say someone can't voice his dislike of a belief, that has been held for 2000 years.
> It actually sounds like, an oppressive regime. IMO




No he doesn’t have to sell his religious beliefs, he chose to.

If he wanted to represent his beliefs he should have got a job at church or maybe at the time of signing he should have negotiated to get certain clauses removed from the contract.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.


----------



## qldfrog (22 June 2019)

Funny in a way is the reason he is such an idol and role model , is that Folau is not involved in drunk rampage, rape allegations, sex scandals etc
And this is probably because of his religious beliefs he is such a good guy compared to so many of our other top sport athletes
Some irony here...


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.
> 
> At the end of the day he is being paid to represent a club, both on the field and *off it.*





I don't think so. 

There has to be a demarcation between employers time and private life.


----------



## lindsayf (22 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
> Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.



To some degree I am offended by anyone who smugly thinks that the people around them will go to hell ( experience unspeakable torture forever. It is not an uncommon thing of course.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

lindsayf said:


> To some degree I am offended by anyone who smugly thinks that the people around them will go to hell ( experience unspeakable torture forever. It is not an uncommon thing of course.




Then, I wonder if he actually believes it.
There are a few different interpretations of heaven and hell etc.

But he seems a nice Bloke, just brought up in that Islander Christian environment.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently.



Rugby Australia's website has 28 pages of details pertaining to their Code of Conduct, and I previously linked to a brief document which was used at club level and *signed *off.   I should have used their website link, so apologies.
I could not find a copy of what Folau actually signed on the internet, so here are the clauses he appears to have breached:
1.3 Treat everyone *equally*, fairly and with *dignity* regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, *harassment *or *discrimination* has no place in Rugby.
1.6 Do not make any *public comment that is critical* of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any* public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, *a team, a club, a competition or Union.
1.7 *Use Social Media appropriately*. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but *do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code* or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations. 
1.8 *Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit.* If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.​As I said in an earlier post, *religion *need not be in consideration in terms of his high level breach of the Code as Folau's comments did not disparage religion.   


Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.



Folau is not prevented from expressing his beliefs.  However, if and when he chooses to do so, he has to accept that he made undertakings wrt to his employment that should be considered.  Actions have consequences.


Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.



Given I do not follow Rugby, and its poster boy has made comments which are plain silly from where I sit, then in my eyes there has been an adverse affect.  His comments have also affected the code's sponsors, and they are able to measure that impact in dollar terms, so it becomes a material impact on the sport.
Be aware that Folau's case has little to to with anyone being "*offended*" by his comments, as he fell at the first hurdle by not treating everyone *equally*, fairly and with *dignity.   *Those concepts are typically "Christian" and, from a religious perspective, tend to paint him into a corner.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.




You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?

The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.

There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?
> 
> The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.
> 
> There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.




Yep, that's the issue. Does the ARU have the right at Law to censor or terminate based upon quoting Biblical verses. They believe not - its not a legal Contract or Termination.
That's why they are prepared to go all the way to the High Court.

Izzy just has too many hangeroners I'd say. Too many people in his Ear and using him.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?
> The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.
> There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.



Rumpy, you continue to completely miss the many points at issue.
In the world of everyday work, one is *required *to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.  
RA has codified this and clearly expects players to treat *everyone equally, fairly and with dignity.*
As an employer, RA is successful because it has, in detail, clarified how all matters are to be addressed by all participants, including spectators.  It has done this to maintain and protect its *BRAND*.
Folau has used the media in a manner which both disrespects his player colleagues and damages the brand.   Worse, he had been warned, so has acted maliciously.  He needs to be very careful that RA do not, after the court case, pursue him for damages which will be quantifiable.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> In the world of everyday work, one is *required *to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.




As long as he respects his code of conduct on the field and at other times when "on duty" , then he has fulfilled his obligations.

He's probably insulted virtually all of his colleagues with his statements, but that doesn't affect his ability to do what his job is which is to play football.

As for "damage to the brand", he is one cog in the "machine". I doubt if sponsors are going to pull out of a lucrative arrangement just because of what one bloke says.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> As long as he respects his code of conduct on the field and at other times when "on duty" , then he has fulfilled his obligations.



Not so at all Rumpy.
In Folau's case *you *would have us believe that he only needs to abide by the RA's code of conduct for about 2 hours each week.  After that *you *would consider it ok to disrespect his colleagues and damage the brand.
Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.  
It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law.  Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.
Rather than repeat yourself, you need to show why your idea has substance.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Rumpy, you continue to completely miss the many points at issue.
> In the world of everyday work, one is *required *to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.
> RA has codified this and clearly expects players to treat *everyone equally, fairly and with dignity.*
> As an employer, RA is successful because it has, in detail, clarified how all matters are to be addressed by all participants, including spectators.  It has done this to maintain and protect its *BRAND*.
> Folau has used the media in a manner which both disrespects his player colleagues and damages the brand.   Worse, he had been warned, so has acted maliciously.  He needs to be very careful that RA do not, after the court case, pursue him for damages which will be quantifiable.




Rob, the case Folau's team are running is that the ARU does not have the right at Law to impose those religous restrictions or terminate him.
Either the Contract or the Termination is ILLEGAL due to relevant Statutes.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Not so at all Rumpy.
> In Folau's case *you *would have us believe that he only needs to abide by the RA's code of conduct for about 2 hours each week.  After that *you *would consider it ok to disrespect his colleagues and damage the brand.
> Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
> It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law.  Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.
> Rather than repeat yourself, you need to show why your idea has substance.



Quoting a religious text in what he believes to be saving peoples souls is a very fine line for dismissal. He obviously has a case.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
> It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law. Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.




So you believe that employers should have the right to impose conditions on employees that bind them every minute of their lives ?

 I agree that sometimes this is necessary, eg out of work hours drug taking where the effects may still be present during working hours. However the idea that this should also extend to expression of beliefs is anathema to anyone who believes in a free society.

So lets take another example.

Player A has trouble with his car, can't get any satisfaction from his dealer or the car maker, so vents his problems on social media. Oops, said car maker turns out to be a sponsor. Grounds for sacking ?


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

The media has a lot to answer for imo.
This fight is influenced by a larger push back. His gofundme page clocked over half a $mill from $400k in record time thanks to all the pc whinging articles that appeared.

If you feel like donating for shts and giggles and to make peter fitzSimmons ashamed to be australian:

https://au.gofundme.com/israel-folau-legal-action-fund


Given that you are all probably heading to hell you might as well make some bribes to carry the lords favor as well:

https://www.gofundme.com/davie-is-in-a-life-threatening-condition

https://www.gofundme.com/support-matts-fight
https://www.gofundme.com/Alex-Noble-IfightUfight


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2019)

Gents,  what about this point expressed elsewhere:

Whether you believe Folau is in breach of his employment terms is immaterial.

Rugby Australia is in breach of the law, i.e. The Fair Work Act (employee cannot be sacked for religous expression).

A contract or Code of Conduct cannot be in breach of the Fair Work Act.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

Just read Peter Fitzsimmons article

https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/israel...ou-just-go-fund-yourself-20190621-p5204j.html

and I agree with @Macquack and others, the sad reality as Fitzsimmons points out is that there are more worthy and desperate causes out there more worthy of our limited charitable dollars.
Still, Folau should not have been terminated imo.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Just read Peter Fitzsimmons article
> 
> https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/israel...ou-just-go-fund-yourself-20190621-p5204j.html
> 
> ...



FitzSimmons article amount to "Why won't you think of the children". In turn donations to folau spiked. 

People donating to Folau are doing so in the belief that they are upholding a freedom from authoritarianism that has crept in. Something that affects everyone. It's about the law being tested, not the person or what he has said. 

This has grown above the comments now.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Rob, the case Folau's team are running is that the ARU does not have the right at Law to impose those religous restrictions or terminate him.



That's true about Folau's team, but RA is not prosecuting his religious expression as such but, instead, the obligations he has to his  colleagues and the rugby code. 



Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Either the Contract or the Termination is ILLEGAL due to relevant Statutes.



Here we are on the slippery slope of *unlawful *versus *illegal*. 
Ultimately the courts will determine if it was *unlawful*.
However, it is *not illegal* to have a code of conduct and expect players to abide it unless elements are indeed not supported in law.  I cannot see any elements of the RA Code of Conduct being contrary to law.



moXJO said:


> Quoting a religious text in what he believes to be saving peoples souls is a very fine line for dismissal. He obviously has a case.



You should take the time to read on the matter at hand. 
RA allows religious expression to the extent it is consistent with how players treat each other.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You should take the time to read on the matter at hand.
> RA allows religious expression to the extent it is consistent with how players treat each other.



RA is not the law last time I checked. But it will be interesting to see the outcome. RA has lost either way imo.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So you believe that employers should have the right to impose conditions on employees that bind them every minute of their lives ?



To the extent they have obligations which they agreed and are binding in their employment (and are lawful), then the answer is clearly *yes*.


SirRumpole said:


> Player A has trouble with his car, can't get any satisfaction from his dealer or the car maker, so vents his problems on social media. Oops, said car maker turns out to be a sponsor. Grounds for sacking ?



You would need to show how it affected his employment contract and I cannot see any chance it does, unless there were other things said that got the player into deep water.


SirRumpole said:


> However the idea that this should also extend to expression of beliefs is anathema to anyone who believes in a free society.



I realise you cannot.
It will not matter how many times I say it, you will just ignore the fact employers have a right to protect their workers from the slights of their coworkers, and to protect their business 
It is as simple as realising that some actions carry consequences.
If Folau wants to continue to exercise his beliefs publicly then he should remove himself from undertakings preventing him from disrespecting those he plays with.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

From an article:

One of the stated objectives of Part 6-4, Division 2 of the Fair Work Act is to give effect to International Labour Organisation Conventions 111 and 158, which were adopted in 1958 and 1982 respectively, then and ratified by Australia in 1973 and 1993.

The ILO is an agency of the United Nations. Under these two instruments of international law, Australia agreed that it would enact laws eliminating religious and other discrimination in employment AND that it would legislate so that employment can't be terminated on invalid grounds, including because of an employee's religion.

According to the ILO, such religious discrimination includes discrimination based on a person's expression of their religious beliefs.

Accordingly, section 772(1) of the Fair Work Act makes it unlawful (subject to some irrelevant exceptions) for an employer to terminate an employee's employment because of, or for reasons including an employee's religion. And if an employee's religion includes a person's expression of their religious beliefs - "believers" hardly worship in a vacuum - then was Folau terminated for reasons including his religion, or not?

If an employee's employment is nonetheless terminated because of reasons including those which are statutorily unlawful under section 772(1), the employee has 21 days after the termination, to apply to the Fair Work Commission, asking it to deal with the matter.
Usually, the FWC deals with such matters by way of mediation or conciliation. Those methods of touchy-feely dispute resolution won't cut the mustard though, in resolving the dispute to the satisfaction of either RA and Folau. So once the FWC agrees, the Act requires it to issue a certificate to that effect. Thereafter, Folau is free to take his unlawful termination case to the Federal Court of Australia.
Remember, we're dealing with "unlawful" termination, not a guillotining which is merely unfair or harsh. Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasons INCLUDING that unlawful reason.

And if RA can't prove the termination had nothing at all to do with religion, then the Federal Court has the full jurisdiction to order that RA reinstate Folau; pay him full compensation; pay his (no doubt significant) legal bills; and pay a civil penalty of $A50,000 or more.

It's fair to say that an immense amount hinges on RA being able to absolutely delineate between it having terminated Folau's employment because he breached RA's applicable code of conduct by reason of expressing his religious beliefs; but NOT because of his religion, religious beliefs or the expression of those beliefs.

Moreover it's a dangerous division to say that a professional athlete's right to genuinely express their religious beliefs is mutually exclusive with his or her right to work.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> People donating to Folau are doing so in the belief that they are upholding a freedom from authoritarianism that has crept in.



That is a guess.  I could equally claim they are religious zealots a and homophobes.


moXJO said:


> It's about the law being tested, not the person or what he has said.



It's actually going to be about Folau's ability to claim the Fair Work Act covered his right to say what he did.
RA's actions have nothing to do with the Fair Work Act wrt to religious freedoms, so Folau is trying to cast a very wide net to draw it in.
It's also the case that Folau's public profile has significantly contributed to the damage he has done to the game, so it exactly opposite to your claims.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> That is a guess.  I could equally claim they are religious zealots a and homophobes.



Yes that too.



rederob said:


> It's actually going to be about Folau's ability to claim the Fair Work Act covered his right to say what he did.
> RA's actions have nothing to do with the Fair Work Act wrt to religious freedoms, so Folau is trying to cast a very wide net to draw it in.
> It's also the case that Folau's public profile has significantly contributed to the damage he has done to the game, so it exactly opposite to your claims.




Um no see above.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> From an article:
> (and in response to your "Um no see above")



Darren Cane's article was very good (doubt he prepared much of it - stand to be corrected!).
Should RA lose its case it opens many floodgates in sport, because some of the provisions that RA relies on are unique to this industry.
Worst of all would be that social media could be used to actively humiliate and denigrate (that is, completely *disrespect*) anyone you play with or against.
Courts make some interesting rulings on occasion, but tend to favour the rights of business to protect  their interests.
As you said earlier, the loser has been and is likely to continue to be Rugby, irrespective of the outcome.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> It will not matter how many times I say it, you will just ignore the fact employers have a right to *protect their workers from the slights *of their coworkers, and to protect their business
> It is as simple as realising that some actions carry consequences.




That's a typical snowflake response. People get slighted everyday and they have the right to respond in kind.

But tell me, how many people do you think actually agree with what Folau said ?

Social media has been awash with those opposed to him, as has mainstream media. He's been made to look small and that's where "protection" comes from, the people. In fact Folau probably needs more protection from the "drunks and fornicators" in his team than anyone else does. 

Folau's views can be dismissed in 2 words, "prove it". That's all that needs to be said, the rest is grandstanding and virtue signalling by the ARU.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)




----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a typical snowflake response. People get slighted everyday and they have the right to respond in kind.



As I said before, you need to show your points have merit.  All you do is repeat yourself.


SirRumpole said:


> But tell me, how many people do you think actually agree with what Folau said ?



Who cares!
This is about an employee disrespecting this colleagues and damaging his employer.


SirRumpole said:


> Social media has been awash with those opposed to him, as has mainstream media. He's been made to look small and that's where "protection" comes from, the people.



Again, it has nothing to do with why RA has acted.
Aside from that, his views are very funny to a lot of people.  He is welcome to them, but as a role model he really should not be so immature.


SirRumpole said:


> Folau's views can be dismissed in 2 words, "prove it".



Too funny Rumpy.
Why not read and understand some of the foregoing.  The most obvious transgression, beyond doubt, is his use of social media in a manner he has been previously warned against.
I get that you don't get it, so try to provide something else that's at least relevant.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> As I said before, you need to show your points have merit. All you do is repeat yourself.




Because you simply fail to understand my point, 

*An individual's private life has nothing to do with their employer.*

OK ?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> and damaging his employer.




Prove his employer has been damaged.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

I swear Sdajii has hijacked Rob's account.


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Prove his employer has been damaged.



Exactly. 

RA's actions have done the most damage to RA. If folks just rolled their eyes and let this issue slip under the waves... It wouldn't even be an issue. 

Also,  my concern is what sort of can of worms does this open? Any sort of comment that may offend any of generation snowflake *could result in the same.

Where is the line now? 

What happens when P gets added to LBGTQXYZ. Will it be sackable to shxtcan pedos? (I'm being rhetorical, but this future scenaro would not surprise me)


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> *An individual's private life has nothing to do with their employer.*



Agreed.
But this has nothing to do with what balls they juggle at home, and you still cannot grasp that point.


SirRumpole said:


> Prove his employer has been damaged.



Seriously?
Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?


wayneL said:


> RA's actions have done the most damage to RA. If folks just rolled their eyes and let this issue slip under the waves... It wouldn't even be an issue.



Then why didn't Folau do that?


wayneL said:


> Also, my concern is what sort of can of worms does this open? Any sort of comment that may offend any of generation snowflake *could result in the same.



Typical of your garbage.  Apply some thought to come up with real issues - because it is not too hard.


wayneL said:


> What happens when P gets added to LBGTQXYZ. Will it be sackable to shxtcan pedos? (I'm being rhetorical, but this future scenaro would not surprise me)



You mean when should we *not *put *BS* in front of all your posts?


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 June 2019)

Seems like a very slippery slope to me.

This time - rugby team sacks player for expressing religious view saying it harms the team.

Next - coal mining company sacks truck driver who posted online that climate change might be a real thing and that people will die because of it.

The coal mine would have a stronger argument that the comment amounts to a direct attack on their business than the rugby team does, given that they’re not in the business of religion, but I still don’t think anyone should be sacked over it.


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Agreed.
> But this has nothing to do with what balls they juggle at home, and you still cannot grasp that point.
> Seriously?
> Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?
> ...




LMAO 

I designed the second half of thatpost specifically for you, Komrade.

Consider yourself trolled.

Notwithstanding that however, the broad thrust of my point still stands. Although I don't expect pedophilia to be accepted as mainstream anytime soon, despite their attempts, the identitarian victim culture will soon invent creative ways to be grievously offended by one or another triviality. 

Your denial (and pathological need to indulge in ad hom) does nothing to disprove this objective truth. 

Look what happened to the NFL,  look how the AFL is alienating its core.

Watch what happens to RA from this. 

People should take a little advice from Chopper Reid and harden the fxck up. Stick and stones an' all that.

I mean it like us mate, wvery time yo ad hom me,  makes me more convinced of your status as a p1ssant cultural vandal. 

But free speech and all that.  You're entitled to prove you're a leftist idiot.

(and to be clear,  Im make a point about ad hom,  in case you missed that)


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> This time - rugby team sacks player for expressing religious view saying it harms the team.



Except RA continues to be clear that his religious views are not the cause of sacking.


Smurf1976 said:


> Next - coal mining company sacks truck driver who posted online that climate change might be a real thing and that people will die because of it.



That would need to be supported some contractual way, so exactly how do you propose it would apply?


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Seriously?
> Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?




Prove that sponsorship opportunities have been damaged.

Do you really think that people go to football matches to hear religious speeches ?

Maybe they just go to see football. An amazing idea to you I'm sure.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Your denial (and pathological need to indulge in ad hom) does nothing to disprove this objective truth.



I post on what you present, which is riddled with ideological irrelevances, as typified in your last post.  
You need to learn why that is different to an ad hominem because you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Frankly, I ignore the majority of your posts because they are mostly superfluous.
Otherwise they introduce utter rubbish, as per this point:


wayneL said:


> Although I don't expect pedophilia to be accepted as mainstream anytime soon, despite their attempts, the identitarian victim culture will soon invent creative ways to be grievously offended by one or another triviality.



Pedophilia is illegal and I am not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise. Where is any evidence supporting your idea?
*NOWHERE*!


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I post on what you present, which is riddled with ideological irrelevances, as typified in your last post.
> You need to learn why that is different to an ad hominem because you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
> Frankly, I ignore the majority of your posts because they are mostly superfluous.
> Otherwise they introduce utter rubbish, as per this point:
> ...



You foolish man.

I have my reasons for not linking,  but its everywhere. Google it,  idiot.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (22 June 2019)

Delete the GoFundme page Israel. Donate the money to those causes more worthy - some of them are heartwrenching.

And careful who's in your Ear.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Except RA continues to be clear that his religious views are not the cause of sacking.
> That would need to be supported some contractual way, so exactly how do you propose it would apply?



She has to say that. Its unlawful to say otherwise. That will be the point argued in court. So like I said "will be interesting".


RA has done more damage to its brand amongst pacific islanders and those that are religious. It is now at a point where it is being framed as  "PC culture gone mad" and losing a lot of its base supporters. They were worried about losing sponsors, instead they put their fan base at risk. They made a big song and dance about it, then doubled down. 
I'd be firing people from the top down.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?
> 
> The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.
> 
> There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.




At the end of the day, the ARU is in the advertising and promotion business, and it is really a different kind of business.

It’s not employing low income factory workers, it’s writing checks for millions or atleast hundreds of thousands to people that it expects to be its representatives full time, not 9-5


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
> Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.




I doubt it would have to mention social media specifically, there would be some catch all wording that covers any behavior those in charge at the time don’t like.

Second point- they aren’t preventing him writing about his religious beliefs, he is free to write what he likes, but there is no law saying you must remain associated with someone you find vile.

Thirdly, I wouldn’t know, I don’t even like the game, nor did I know who this guy was before these headlines.

But it doesn’t really matter who is offended, it’s about what the advertisers who pay he bills think,


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So you believe that employers should have the right to impose conditions on employees that bind them every minute of their lives ?
> 
> I agree that sometimes this is necessary, eg out of work hours drug taking where the effects may still be present during working hours. However the idea that this should also extend to expression of beliefs is anathema to anyone who believes in a free society.
> 
> ...




The thing is, he isn’t really an employee, he is the product that is sold.

If he does something that spoils his image and he becomes damaged goods, he can no longer be seen as a salable product, so can’t be on the pay roll anymore.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

Donations up to $583k
Message from one of the people who donated:

$10
Mainstream Media stop dictating who people can support! Left wing authoritarian intolerant hypocrite


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Message from one of the people
> 
> $10
> Mainstream Media stop dictating who people can support! Left wing authoritarian intolerant hypocrite




I would genuinely be interested to find out if that person would feel the same way if it was a Muslim footy player quoting the Koran.


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I would genuinely be interested to find out if that person would feel the same way if it was a Muslim footy player quoting the Koran.



I doubt it to be honest.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> It’s not employing low income factory workers, it’s writing checks for millions or atleast hundreds of thousands to people that it expects to be its representatives full time, not 9-5




That's their problem.

I suspect the courts may take a different view.

We will see.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> I doubt it to be honest.



 So if they wouldn’t support a Muslim acting as Israel did, aren’t they being a hypocrite?


----------



## moXJO (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> So if they wouldn’t support a Muslim acting as Israel did, aren’t they being a hypocrite?



Thats a lot of assumptions to make on someone else's behalf. 
It's also leading a narrative to produce a fantasy result.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Thats a lot of assumptions to make on someone else's behalf.
> It's also leading a narrative to produce a fantasy result.




I don’t think so.

I think the people that want Israel to have the right to say what he likes in the name of his Christian beliefs, but wouldn’t support a Muslim saying the same thing in the name of their Islamic beliefs are most certainly Being hypocrites.

In my opinion he can say what he likes, whether he was Christian or Muslim I don’t care, but people do have the right to disassociate them selves from him also.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> In my opinion he can say what he likes, whether he was Christian or Muslim I don’t care, but people do have the right to disassociate them selves from him also.




Not when someones living depends on it and a contract has been signed, the breaking of which denies Folau the opportunity to earn an income.


----------



## Value Collector (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Not when someones living depends on it and a contract has been signed, the breaking of which denies Folau the opportunity to earn an income.




Depends on the contents of the contract doesn’t it.

Either way, I am not much interested in footy or footy players, so I will leave this discussion to you all.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Depends on the contents of the contract doesn’t it.
> 
> Either way, I am not much interested in footy or footy players, so I will leave this discussion to you all.




It's not actually about footy though is it ?

It's about individual rights vs employer control and could happen in any sector of the economy.


----------



## Macquack (22 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Not when someones living depends on it and a contract has been signed, the breaking of which denies Folau the opportunity to earn an income.



The way his GoFundMe page is going, he won't need a job.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> That would need to be supported some contractual way, so exactly how do you propose it would apply?



A large portion of employees in any industry are under employment conditions which contain words to the effect that "under no circumstances may an employee engage with the media in any manner in relation to the business or its activities unless specifically authorised to do so. Any media enquiries must immediately be referred to the appropriate section or person" or words to that effect.

Any substantial business will also have a policy which clarifies that "media" includes all radio, TV, newspapers and anything publicly accessible online. That is, any recorded or written communication which is not of a purely private nature. Communication with the media means any form - so you can't speak on the radio but you also can't send the radio station an email or have a chat with them off air about your employer. Etc.

ASF falls under that definition of media as does Facebook, Twitter and so on.

That's a pretty common arrangement in both white and blue collar roles in private enterprise and also in government and typically applies to the entire workforce apart from the most senior management and anyone else specifically authorised.

Less common but there's a few who will permit employees to comment on the business so long as they're expressing it as a personal view and not as official corporate policy. That's far less common though but it does exist.

Where the issue arises however is that such "don't speak to the media" requirements relate to the business and its activities and may extend to something about also not commenting on direct competitors.

What they don't normally do is place restrictions on anything else. So someone who works for a large building company can't talk about that building company, its employees (including management) or any of its projects and may also be prevented from discussing directly competing companies but there's nothing to say that they can't spend their private time preaching religion or complaining about the tax system or saying they don't like Donald Trump or whatever.

If Rugby Australia were in the business of preaching any religion (including atheism) then their stance would seem entirely reasonable in that Folau's comments would be a direct undermining of the business. In practice however they're not in the business of preaching religion and that's where their stance becomes harder to see as being reasonable.

For the record I'm atheist and don't agree with Folau's comments but that's not the point


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I don’t think so.
> 
> I think the people that want Israel to have the right to say what he likes in the name of his Christian beliefs, but wouldn’t support a Muslim saying the same thing in the name of their Islamic beliefs are most certainly Being hypocrites.
> 
> In my opinion he can say what he likes, whether he was Christian or Muslim I don’t care, but people do have the right to disassociate them selves from him also.




There are homophobes, pacific islanders, religious people of all faiths, those against authoritarianism, fans, friends, families, anti-media, anti pc, anti left,  etc.

Can't really group them all into that mindset.


----------



## StockyGuy (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> There are homophobes, pacific islanders, religious people of all faiths, those against authoritarianism, fans, friends, families, anti-media, anti pc, anti left,  etc.
> 
> Can't really group them all into that mindset.




Yes, even saw $10 donated by "Homosexuals Against Christophobia" LOL.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> There are homophobes, pacific islanders, religious people of all faiths, those against authoritarianism, fans, friends, families, anti-media, anti pc, anti left,  etc.
> 
> Can't really group them all into that mindset.




Regardless of which type of nut job they are, if they would still be hypocritical if they want him to be able to spout Christian nonsense but would not want a Muslim to say they same stuff.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not actually about footy though is it ?
> 
> It's about individual rights vs employer control and could happen in any sector of the economy.




It’s about an organization not wanting to keep him on the products list, after he causes himself to become damaged goods.

Think of him as a faulty product that just got recalled.

As I said he is not an employee paid to produce a product, he is the product, that gets sold to advertisers,


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> As I said he is not an employee paid to produce a product, he is the product, that gets sold to advertisers,




That's a quaint way of looking at it.

Products aren't usually paid an income and selling people is called slavery.

We'll see what the court says.


----------



## Tink (23 June 2019)

So, VC, are you advocating for puberty blockers, cross sex hormones & irreversible surgery for children?


----------



## lindsayf (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Donations up to $583k
> Message from one of the people who donated:
> 
> $10
> Mainstream Media stop dictating who people can support! Left wing authoritarian intolerant hypocrite



I find the level of support for him just wierd and disturbing.  There are actual important issues in this world.  We spend our time being distracted by irrelevances.  What does it say about our society?.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2019)

Reported he owns $7 mil of property just sold car worth $1/2 mil the Gofundme is a rort IMHO.

Its not like he didn't know what the gig was he had been warned already.

Work places and contracts are very different to even 10 years ago simple conversations will see you in front of HR with a warning keep it up and you will be fired Folau is no different (thank the conservatives for that one).

Folau freedom of speech hasn't been affected as the government haven't stooped him, his employer has fired him under the terms of his contract he signed and agreed to he is still free to say what ever he wants to.

He is completely free to keep saying what ever he wants and his employer is completely free to fire him end of story.


----------



## qldfrog (23 June 2019)

Free speech is a seriously important point in our society, as are its building blocks, and yes christian religion for us in the west, whether you are a Christian or not
So much more important than fake news about Iran or climate change.
My view..


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (23 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Reported he owns $7 mil of property just sold car worth $1/2 mil the Gofundme is a rort IMHO.
> 
> Its not like he didn't know what the gig was he had been warned already.
> 
> Work places and contracts are very different to even 10 years ago simple conversations will see you in front of HR with a warning keep it up and you will be fired Folau is no different (thank the conservatives for that one).




Folau would've been on around $500,000 a season *average* for the last 10 years imo, with the last few years peaking at $1,000,000. Endorsements separate or included?
He ain't poor unless he's given away a lot, which a lot of Christians do. Still 7 million dollar property.

Wait, are his ARU and Waratahs contracts separate? If so add a lot more to that.

I believe Folau was unfairly sacked but if those figures above are correct the GoFundme page is a disgrace and whose ever idea it was is also a disgrace.


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> ... "under no circumstances may an employee engage with the media in any manner in relation to the business or its activities unless specifically authorised to do so. Any media enquiries must immediately be referred to the appropriate section or person" or words to that effect.



*Using social media* is completely different to *engaging with the media.*


Smurf1976 said:


> If Rugby Australia were in the business of preaching any religion (including atheism) then their stance would seem entirely reasonable in that Folau's comments would be a direct undermining of the business. In practice however they're not in the business of preaching religion and that's where their stance becomes harder to see as being reasonable.



Again, this is about a player disrespecting colleagues and damaging the brand.
Up to 4 clauses of RA's Code of Conduct were breached, and RA probably will use the one about "social media" to defend Folau's court action against them as the others were consequential.  RA would only need to determine the material posted was prejudicial, as such material has potentially many and varied sources (eg, an inappropriate photo could have had equally adverse consequences).


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

The argument is: was he fired because of his religious comments. If he was its unlawful. He has a right to the law being upheld regardless of the circumstances.
It is something that affects everyone and the outcome will reflect that.

Lets flip it.
I've seen a level of racism on certain segments of social media. Its all white people attacking him in the media. The lynch mob is predominantly white. A religious black man being pillared for a bible quote and fighting for his right to religious freedom. Gee thats never happened before.
"Quiet blackie just dance for our entertainment, No rights for you n/gger"
"And God forbid you ask for help"

Hows that strawman


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> *Using social media* is completely different to *engaging with the media.*
> Again, this is about a player disrespecting colleagues and damaging the brand.
> Up to 4 clauses of RA's Code of Conduct were breached, and RA probably will use the one about "social media" to defend Folau's court action against them as the others were consequential.  RA would only need to determine the material posted was prejudicial, as such material has potentially many and varied sources (eg, an inappropriate photo could have had equally adverse consequences).



Thats AR argument and they have to prove it wasn't the religious comments. That isn't the law.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Regardless of which type of nut job they are, if they would still be hypocritical if they want him to be able to spout Christian nonsense but would not want a Muslim to say they same stuff.



Thats exactly true and they might now think twice about it. But I don't agree that they are cut from the same cloth


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Thats AR argument and they have to prove it wasn't the religious comments. That isn't the law.



*False*.
Folau needs to prove the provisions of the Fair Work Act about religious expression etc. was the basis for termination, as RA has repeatedly said it was *not*.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> *False*.
> Folau needs to prove the provisions of the Fair Work Act about religious expression etc. was the basis for termination, as RA has repeatedly said it was *not*.



No RA have to prove it.


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> ...the GoFundme page is a disgrace and whose ever idea it was is also a disgrace.



GoFundMe can exercise its rights and *not *support;
*27. any other activity that GoFundMe may deem in its sole discretion to be unacceptable.*


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

Folau has to prove he has a case at the hearing first I thought? 

The court case:
Remember, we're dealing with "unlawful" termination, not a guillotining which is merely unfair or harsh. Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasons INCLUDING that unlawful reason.

And if RA can't prove the termination had nothing at all to do with religion, then the Federal Court has the full jurisdiction to order that RA reinstate Folau; pay him full compensation; pay his (no doubtsignificant) legal bills; and pay a civil penalty of $A50,000 or more.


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> No RA have to prove it.



LOL - Folau is initiating the action and therefore needs to *PROVE *his case, so it's not as you keep saying.
RA consider their grounds for termination were in fact lawful.
I think you are a bit confused here.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> LOL - Folau is initiating the action and therefore needs to *PROVE *his case, so it's not as you keep saying.



Read above

And here:

*Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasonsINCLUDING that unlawful reason.*


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> GoFundMe can exercise its rights and *not *support;
> *27. any other activity that GoFundMe may deem in its sole discretion to be unacceptable.*




Yes, but with Infants, Kids and people in general in dire poverty using Gofundme to fund lifesaving surgery etc Folau's page is an abomination.

GoFundMe won't delete the page Sdajii, it's getting great publicity.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Products aren't usually paid an income and selling people is called slavery.




His income is derived by selling his image, if he tarnished his image, his personal brand is no longer worth what he is being paid.

It’s all about selling an image, to advertisers.

For example, Britney Spears was dumped by Pepsi because she was seen drinking a coke.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

Tink said:


> So, VC, are you advocating for puberty blockers, cross sex hormones & irreversible surgery for children?




Wow, where did that come from!!!

Once again Tink you have lost me.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Free speech is a seriously important point in our society, as are its building blocks, and yes christian religion for us in the west, whether you are a Christian or not
> So much more important than fake news about Iran or climate change.
> My view..




No one is taking his right to free speech away.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> His income is derived by selling his image, if he tarnished his image, his personal brand is no longer worth what he is being paid.
> 
> It’s all about selling an image, to advertisers.
> 
> For example, Britney Spears was dumped by Pepsi because she was seen drinking a coke.



Muhammad Ali
Anthony Mundine
Dennis Rodman
Do you know how many controversial figures that said outrageous things there are. Its not about selling one particular image of yourself its about your skill set and ability to put bums on seats.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (23 June 2019)

Footy players and Athletes are still picked in a Team based on performance not image, unless they do something a lot worse than posting scripture on Instagram.
Yes, a good image like Folau's wholesome one will get you more money, but to say Athletes are picked based on image is wrong.


This feels like Groundhog day again lol.


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> *Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasons INCLUDING that unlawful reason.*



RA is not bringing the action, Folau is.
Folau is citing Section 772 of the Fair Work Act, and needs to show that his religion was among the reasons for his dismissal.
Given RA has not cited Folau's religion (that I am aware) as relevant to his dismissal, RA consider they have no case to answer in relation to Folau being discriminated against.
How do I make that clearer to you?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> For example, Britney Spears was dumped by Pepsi because she was seen drinking a coke.




So, she probably got a Coke sponsorship.

As I said before, the ARU is a monopoly employer, there is nowhere else for him to go, nationally at least.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> It’s all about selling an image, to advertisers.




Yes, but the advertisers react to the number of people watching the game and those people are a limited sector of society ie people who like Rugby Union and appreciate the skills of the game. 

I doubt if the fans are particularly worried or threatened about what Folau said, they would just have a laugh and hope he scores points for Australia.

It's just the Lefty snowflakes who likely never watch the game who are "outraged".


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> RA is not bringing the action, Folau is.
> Folau is citing Section 772 of the Fair Work Act, and needs to show that his religion was among the reasons for his dismissal.
> Given RA has not cited Folau's religion (that I am aware) as relevant to his dismissal, RA consider they have no case to answer in relation to Folau being discriminated against.
> How do I make that clearer to you?




An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons:..(f)…religion.

Section 351 requires the employee to prove an employer was _motivated_ to discriminate against him or her because of religion.

In contrast, under Section 772, Folau only has to show that his religion was merely among the reasons for the dismissal.


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for one or more of the following reasons, or for reasons including one or more of the following reasons:..(f)…religion.



OMG - Groundhog Day all over again!
Are you not reading what is happening?
*Religion was not the basis for termination.*
Folau needs to prove it was.


----------



## wayneL (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> It’s about an organization not wanting to keep him on the products list, after he causes himself to become damaged goods.
> 
> Think of him as a faulty product that just got recalled.
> 
> As I said he is not an employee paid to produce a product, he is the product, that gets sold to advertisers,



The product is scoring tries and winning games, not opinions.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> OMG - Groundhog Day all over again!
> Are you not reading what is happening?
> *Religion was not the basis for termination.*
> Folau needs to prove it was.





*Once unlawful termination is alleged, it's up to RA to prove the termination wasn't anything to do with any unlawful reason, or for reasons INCLUDING that unlawful reason.*


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

An unlawful termination claim attracts a reverse onus of proof.

This means that once an employee (or an industrial association entitled to represent the employee) makes a claim that the employee was terminated for one or more unlawful reasons, the employer will have to show that the termination was not for one of these reasons.

From fwa

Do you dismiss my opinion because I'm black robbie


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> The product is scoring tries and winning games, not opinions.



Nope, it’s having an image you can sell to advertisers and fans.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, but the advertisers react to the number of people watching the game and those people are a limited sector of society ie people who like Rugby Union and appreciate the skills of the game.
> 
> I doubt if the fans are particularly worried or threatened about what Folau said, they would just have a laugh and hope he scores points for Australia.
> 
> It's just the Lefty snowflakes who likely never watch the game who are "outraged".




Advertisers are always pulling out of campaigns when the celebrities involved mess up.


----------



## Value Collector (23 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So, she probably got a Coke sponsorship.
> 
> As I said before, the ARU is a monopoly employer, there is nowhere else for him to go, nationally at least.



There is plenty of other places for him to be employed, where he could use his football skills, he could coach teams after school.

Hell heaps of guys switch between union and league even.


----------



## wayneL (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Nope, it’s having an image you can sell to advertisers and fans.



Which in the game of Rugby,  is being good at the game of rugby. 

That's why people fill the stadiums, to watch a good game of rugby. 

Dammit,  those players have all sorts of vices I might not like. Don't care,  play the game well and I'm a fan. I'm not looking to go to dinner parties or socialise  with them ffs.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

I will agree with VC to a degree .His opinion is a finger on the pulse reflection of where society is at to the minute. Similarly "go woke go broke" may be AR undoing.


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> An unlawful termination claim attracts a reverse onus of proof.
> This means that once an employee (or an industrial association entitled to represent the employee) makes a claim that the employee was terminated for one or more unlawful reasons, the employer will have to show that the termination was not for one of these reasons.



Folau is seeking funding to fight his case in a higher court as the process with the FWC is *not *expensive.
RA will show that Folau was terminated for a breach of the Players" Code of Conduct, and this does not involve knowledge or otherwise of Folau's religion.  Effectively, at the FWC stage, RA has no real case to answer but, yes, it is required by law to respond.
To be clear at this point, here is what Folau is suggesting as the relevant part of the Act relating to his unlawful termination:

*race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin*
Effectively the FWC process is a "no contest" as it does not provide scope to draw in Folau's contention that he has a right to express his religious views in any manner he chooses, and without consequences.


----------



## wayneL (23 June 2019)

Can somebody please cite the *full code of conduct? It would be interesting if CoC is being selectively enforced, or not.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Effectively the FWC process is a "no contest" as it does not provide scope to draw in Folau's contention that he has a right to express his religious views in any manner he chooses, and without consequences.




Wow - a "no contest" you reckon. Don't think anyone (RA or Folau)  believes that. If that's true, a no contest, it won't get to the Federal Court even.

Back to you Mo


----------



## rederob (23 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Wow - a "no contest" you reckon. Don't think anyone (RA or Folau)  believes that.



RA would *not *have terminated Folau's employment without being on solid grounds, knowing full well the prospect of any counterclaim and costs.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> RA would *not *have terminated Folau's employment without being on solid grounds, knowing full well the prospect of any counterclaim and costs.




RA offered Folau $1,000,000 to settle. If they were that sure of winning they wouldn't have done that considering RA poor financial position apparently.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2019)

Isn't Qantas a major sponsor?

Agree with VC to me its about money little to do about the other issues raised.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> RA offered Folau $1,000,000 to settle. If they were that sure of winning they wouldn't have done that considering RA poor financial position apparently.




Could be to limit the fall out, clearly Folau has a big following RA will get hammered now no matter which way this goes.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Folau is seeking funding to fight his case in a higher court as the process with the FWC is *not *expensive.
> RA will show that Folau was terminated for a breach of the Players" Code of Conduct, and this does not involve knowledge or otherwise of Folau's religion.  Effectively, at the FWC stage, RA has no real case to answer but, yes, it is required by law to respond.
> To be clear at this point, here is what Folau is suggesting as the relevant part of the Act relating to his unlawful termination:
> 
> ...



The laws were changed
Fair work applies this law to my knowledge in the Federal Circuit Court with reverse onus of proof. And it was created to stop employers using loopholes with evidence. Its not just for fwa hearings. Section 772 is different from a section 351 and the most likely route he is going.

As for the court case, they will argue for years over definitions. Even seasoned lawyers are not sure how its going to play out.

His father is a pastor who now wants to make a statement. Might go some way to explain Folau's position. His brother also quit over it all. This is personal it ain't about the money.


----------



## wayneL (23 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Could be to limit the fall out, clearly Folau has a big following RA will get hammered now no matter which way this goes.



My earlier point exactly.  If the premise is that Izzy damaged RA name,  they've magnified that tenfold by being pious gender warrior twats.


----------



## Value Hunter (23 June 2019)

I honestly think Rugby Australia legally speaking does not have a leg to stand on. Hopefully Israel Folau bankrupts them. The workplace laws are very clear that an employee cannot be dismissed due to expressing their religious beliefs. It is very clear he expressed his religious beliefs and then was sacked for the statement he made (which is a religious belief). It is irrelevant what is contained in the contract he signed, because any part of a contract that does not conform to the law is invalid.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 June 2019)

rederob said:


> *Using social media* is completely different to *engaging with the media.*



For pretty much any substantial employer they'll have a policy which states that for the purposes of their media policy this includes social and all other media or alternatively they'll have a separate social media policy which says much the same thing anyway.

Very often that's the media policy they've had for years and someone simply added the words "(including social media)" in the appropriate place. Can't post anything about the business or its activities on social media.

What I find most intriguing about all this is that, and I'm referring more to society overall here than to this thread, it's those to the political "Left" defending RA and yet they're the ones with the most to lose from the broader concept.

I wonder what the view of these people would be if employers started cracking down on employees making political comment that isn't in the interests of the business?

So no posting on social media about anything that's sympathetic toward unions or which portrays Labor or Greens positively but if you want to hand out "How to vote Liberal" instructions then sure, go for it. There would be no shortage of business owners with that view politically but, thankfully, thus far at least they don't interfere with what employees do in their own time and which has nothing to do with the business. 

I expect the same people happy to see Folau silenced would suddenly become outraged at the denial of free speech.

Not that they'd be denied free speech of course. Being unemployed will give them plenty of time to say all they like. That's their own argument after all.

It's a slippery slope and much as I dislike Folau's comments I'm far more alarmed at the notion that someone is able to attempt to silence others' political or religious views via termination of employment in a situation where their employment is in no way related to the view being expressed.

If he'd commented about the game, his employer, other players or suggested that people would be better off watching some other sport then sure, that would clearly be out of line and reasonable grounds for termination. His employer isn't in the business of religion however and he's simply quoted verbatim a section of a very widely available religious text.

That's a text so widely available it's used in parliament, in court and is commonly the only book supplied in a hotel room. It would be one of, perhaps the, best selling books of all time.

If the content of the Bible is evil and not acceptable well then that's an argument for banning the Bible not for sacking a rugby player for quoting it online surely.


----------



## Macquack (23 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> There is plenty of other places for him to be employed, where he could use his football skills, he could coach teams after school.
> 
> Hell heaps of guys switch between union and league even.



Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.


----------



## StockyGuy (23 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.




Yes, it's a timely reminder that he's been more mercenary than the average.  I know it's not "relevant" but it again makes ya wonder why so many average punters are forking out for his crusade.  Presumably if he was so sincere he would've been sacked a lot earlier - but he apparently held off until he had made pretty good bank.  https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-un...donations-despite-7m-property-empire-c-179229

However it draws attention to another issue - it just isn't fair and reasonable that it costs SO much for legal representation (although he does mention that he's got an elite team on standby, he's not going to be skimping on costs in that regard - no Lionel Hutzs (for those who grew up with Simpsons)).  So many issues in this one!  I wonder how he'd be going if he'd gone full Westboro Baptist Church-style in his social media...


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Value Hunter said:


> The workplace laws are very clear that an employee cannot be dismissed due to expressing their religious beliefs



There are anti-discrimination laws which protect workplace colleagues from homophobia, and other protections from bullying and harassment, so it is fundamentally incorrect to say it's always ok to express religious views without consequences.


Value Hunter said:


> It is very clear he expressed his religious beliefs and then was sacked for the statement he made (which is a religious belief).



This point has been raised here many times and is a FALSE claim.  Had Folau been an *atheist *and made similarly disrespectful claims using social media then RA could have taken the same action.  If Folau had posted in inappropriate photo using social media, the outcome would be the same.
RA has a right and obligation to enforce its code of conduct and it did that. 


Value Hunter said:


> It is irrelevant what is contained in the contract he signed, because any part of a contract that does not conform to the law is invalid.



Then see my points about the code of conduct and explain what is unlawful.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> For pretty much any substantial employer they'll have a policy which states that for the purposes of their media policy this includes social and all other media or alternatively they'll have a separate social media policy which says much the same thing anyway.



Except that is not the distinction required.
To "*engage*" with the *media *is, definitionally, a deliberate *interaction *which has a potential outcome of having your words and information used by that media outlet to *amplify *your "story" - or, in the vernacular, "give it legs."  *You have no control of the process after engagement.
"Using" *social media requires only the use of a carrier service to spread your message, story, or information.  To the extent your use of a carrier service is lawful, *you are in control*.


Smurf1976 said:


> His employer isn't in the business of religion however and he's simply quoted verbatim a section of a very widely available religious text.



So what?
His employer has a social media policy.  Folau undertook to *use* social media in an appropriate manner, if he were to use it at all.  Folua had been advised previously about what was not appropriate in terms of that policy and seems to have deliberately ignored it.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a slippery slope and much as I dislike Folau's comments I'm far more alarmed at the notion that someone is able to attempt to silence others' political or religious views via termination of employment in a situation where their employment is in no way related to the view being expressed.




In a nutshell.


----------



## PZ99 (24 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.



Good call. Maybe he should donate that money to the Mascot Tower victims.

Wouldn't want his religious supporters falling through the cracks


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Had Folau been an *atheist *and made similarly disrespectful claims using social media then RA could have taken the same action.




Could have yes, but there is no obligation on them to do so.

In fact they would not take action against a player whose view agreed with their own group think.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau started off as a rugby league player for the Melbourne Storm. He code switched to the AFL to collect more cash, and then code switched again to rugby union to collect even more cash. The guy can sniff out a dollar as proven by his disgraceful GoFundMe enterprise.




No no no. Moving from a game Rugby League he grew up with and to a game he was never going to reach an elite level at meant he wouldn't reach elite pay levels in Aussie Rules.



Imagine if BP, Caltex etc sponsored R.A. No posting about Global warming if you played for R.A. @rederob


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> No no no. Moving from a game Rugby League he grew up with and to a game he was never going to reach an elite level at meant he wouldn't reach elite pay levels in Aussie Rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine if BP, Caltex etc sponsored R.A. No posting about Global warming if you played for R.A. @rederob




Making anti gambling social media comments in any sport these days could be grounds for dismissal.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Imagine if BP, Caltex etc sponsored R.A. No posting about Global warming if you played for R.A.



Except that these companies understand global warming and are actively doing their best to reduce their CO2 emissions.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Making anti gambling social media comments in any sport these days could be grounds for dismissal.



You are continuously clutching at straws.  There needs to be a context to what is and is not allowable, so making any old remark about what you can be dismissed for is meaningless.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You are continuously clutching at straws.  There needs to be a context to what is and is not allowable, so making any old remark about what you can be dismissed for is meaningless.




What is the context ?

What's to stop  employers writing in any exclusions they like ? If they can sack Folau for making  certain comments not related to his work, then they can do it for any comment that they believe can affect their business.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Except that these companies understand global warming and are actively doing their best to reduce their CO2 emissions.




OK Sdajii look, it was funny for the first half a dozen posts haha,  but Robs gonna be mighty miffed when he gets back and sees what youve done with his account. Logout NOW.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> What's to stop  employers writing in any exclusions they like ? If they can sack Folau for making  certain comments not related to his work, then they can do it for any comment that they believe can affect their business.



Completely untrue.
Folau was sacked for how he used social media.   
Employers have every right to protect their brand, and take action against employees who damage it.
You still do not get it.


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2019)

Can the comments be properly defined as homophobia?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Completely untrue.
> Folau was sacked for how he used social media.
> Employers have every right to protect their brand, and take action against employees who damage it.
> You still do not get it.




Except that is a pretty wide area isn't it, defined by the employer, under the general guise of 
"bringing the game into disrepute". 

As I said that can mean whatever the employer wants it to mean regardless of whether it interferes with freedom of speech of the individual.

Do you get that ?

From the ARU Code of Conduct

1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; *or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.
*
That is a catchall that effectively bans public comment that the management of the ARU considers to be detrimental to their interests. It's their opinion that it does , they don't have to show that it's *actually *detrimental, only *likely* (in their opinion).


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Completely untrue.
> Folau was sacked for how he used social media.
> Employers have every right to protect their brand, and take action against employees who damage it.
> You still do not get it.



They do not have the right to go against workplace laws. And thats why its going to court.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Can the comments be properly defined as homophobia?




More like Christophobia going on around here.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> That is a catchall that effectively bans public comment that the management of the ARU considers to be detrimental to their interests. It's their opinion that it does , they don't have to show that it's *actually *detrimental, only *likely* (in their opinion).



Making an adverse comment about your employer has consequences.
This is not rocket science  .


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Making an adverse comment about your employer has consequences.
> This is not rocket science  .



He didn't make an adverse comment against his employer, unless it is a pre requisite that to be employed you must be LBGT, otherwise he just gave his opinion of those with that leaning.
It's a bit like someone saying all mechanical fitters are 'dicks' and should rot in hell, so the engineering firm you work for sacks you, because they employ some mechanical fitter's.
I think R.A are in more $hit than Ned Kelly.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Making an adverse comment about your employer has consequences.
> This is not rocket science  .




I can see you are on the side of big power and group think  against  individual rights, so if that is the stand you want to take so be it, that's your call.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> They do not have the right to go against workplace laws. And thats why its going to court.



Folau wants to show his termination was based on his religion, and that is why he is going to the FWC.
Even if Folau were an atheist his social media foray breached the code of conduct which he undertook to uphold.  RA know this and that is why they regard Folau's religion as incidental as that of an atheist who did the same thing.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> He didn't make an adverse comment against his employer, unless it is a pre requisite that to be employed you must be LBGT, otherwise he just gave his opinion of those with that leaning.
> It's a bit like someone saying all mechanical fitters are 'dicks' and should rot in hell, so the engineering firm you work for sacks you, because they employ some mechanical fitter's.
> I think R.A are in more $hit than Ned Kelly.




But he also hit out against drunks, idolators and fornicators.

Maybe he knows the ARU board better than we do.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I can see you are on the side of big power and group think against individual rights, so if that is the stand you want to take so be it, that's your call.



Not a good assumption at all.
I am very much on the side of individuals, but mindful of the consequences of one's action wrt to others.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It's a bit like someone saying all mechanical fitters are 'dicks' and should rot in hell, so the engineering firm you work for sacks you, because they employ some mechanical fitter's.



Tell me what was wrong with the worker saying what he did about mechanical fitters.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Tell me what was wrong with the worker saying what he did about mechanical fitters.



Absolutely nothing, same as what the rugby player said, it is just an opinion and it isn't against the law to have one. Yet


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

The other thing that comes into the debate of course is, someone has to establish there is a hell and that it is a terrible place. 
Otherwise he just told the gays and lesbians they are going to a fictitious place, that is in folklore.
I think R.A are in deep manure.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

Breaking news.

Folau's Go Fund Me account has been terminated. 

Another Group Think decision no doubt.


----------



## jbocker (24 June 2019)

All this money talk is showing me how out of touch Folau is with the day to day public and money. I take it, he is entirely engulfed by his religious beliefs and there are too many advisors in his ear, if there wasn't I would start to wonder about sniffing for a rat.


----------



## jbocker (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Breaking news.
> 
> Folau's Go Fund Me account has been terminated.
> 
> Another Group Think decision no doubt.



GOOD. Some sense at last.  Hadnt read that before my prior post.


----------



## bellenuit (24 June 2019)

GoFundMe's statement:

_“As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity. While we welcome GoFundMes engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion,” the statement read.

“In the days since Mr Folau's campaign launched, more than one million dollars have been donated to hundreds of other campaigns, large and small, across Australia. Those acts of kindness are the heart of GoFundMe.”

“Our platform exists to help people help others. Australians have shown themselves to be among the most kind and generous people in the world. We look forward to helping more Australians fundraise for causes they care about in the coming months and years.”_


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

bellenuit said:


> GoFundMe's statement:
> 
> _“As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity. While we welcome GoFundMes engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion,” the statement read.
> 
> ...




So why did they get involved at all ?


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So why did they get involved at all ?



Or does it beg the question, who decides what can be funded and what can't? Who becomes the moral adjudicator on that one.
From memory, didn't Sarah Hanson Young, start a go fund me page to sue the other Senator?


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2019)

Think about this

In my opinion I do not think the comments were homophobic in the slightest. They did not seek to discriminate or disadvantage LGBT people at all.

Likewise they did not seek to discriminate or disadvantage drunkards or idolaters. Drunks and those members of other religions who indulge idolatry otherwise members of those communities would have equal grievance.

It is curious that only homosexuality was selected, and please, ffs, the idea that this brings the ra into disrepute is totally ludicrous, as per my earlier argunent. 

Likewise, just go to my earlier argument about gender and sexuality politics and the flexing of new ideological muscles.

Furthermore all this serves to alienate probably a great swaithe the population just like they did with the NFL and the stupid take a knee BS... its core demographic I would suggest. 

Bye bye rugby,  yoy are doing a great job of destroying your sport.


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2019)

Yes PC bull**** as a pretext to push the globalist view, 
Grand scale mass manipulation
Ok now i have to give some cash to Israel.anyone knows how we can help fund his fight?


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Folau wants to show his termination was based on his religion, and that is why he is going to the FWC.
> Even if Folau were an atheist his social media foray breached the code of conduct which he undertook to uphold.  RA know this and that is why they regard Folau's religion as incidental as that of an atheist who did the same thing.



Thats the defense its not the outcome.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So why did they get involved at all ?



It just shows how much leverage the 'virtue signalers have' IMO, now they can stop people giving money to what they feel is a good cause, so obviously 'Go Fund Me' is o.k as long as the 'left' agree with the cause. lol
It may unintentionally drag them into the into the mud, amazing how a storm in a teacup, can become a full blown cyclone.
So now what happens, Folau can't afford to take on the war chest of R.A, this isn't going to end well.
Will Go Fund Me be sued, for stopping people donating?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It just shows how much leverage the 'virtue signalers have' IMO, now they can stop people giving money to what they feel is a good cause, so obviously 'Go Fund Me' is o.k as long as the 'left' agree with the cause. lol
> It may unintentionally drag them into the into the mud, amazing how a storm in a teacup, can become a full blown cyclone.
> So now what happens, Folau can't afford to take on the war chest of R.A, this isn't going to end well.




Yes that's right. Go Fund Me should just act as a broker or middleman between those who want funds and those willing to give them and shouldn't be a holier than thou judge of the merits of the case.

They obviously have the right to draw the line at criminal activities, but is seems that once again the group thinkers and virtue signallers have won.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes that's right. Go Fund Me should just act as a broker or middleman between those who want funds and those willing to give them and shouldn't be a holier than thou judge of the merits of the case.
> 
> They obviously have the right to draw the line at criminal activities, but is seems that once again the group thinkers and virtue signallers have won.



If Go Fund Me has already funded a similar case, it is setting a rather strange precedent, as you say the are either there to facilitate or they aren't.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

I wonder if there will be an out of court settlement and I wonder if we will hear about it?


----------



## jbocker (24 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Yes PC bull**** as a pretext to push the globalist view,
> Grand scale mass manipulation
> Ok now i have to give some cash to Israel.anyone knows how we can help fund his fight?



I am a bit confused are not all religions based on making it a globalist view.​


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Absolutely nothing, same as what the rugby player said, it is just an opinion and it isn't against the law to have one. Yet



Rubbish!  Folau clearly breached a provision of his employment!


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> In my opinion I do not think the comments were homophobic in the slightest. They did not seek to discriminate or disadvantage LGBT people at all.



If that were the case, then why did they need to do something to curry favour with Folau's beliefs?  What quality of person was attributed to them?


wayneL said:


> It is curious that only homosexuality was selected, and please, ffs, the idea that this brings the ra into disrepute is totally ludicrous, as per my earlier argunent.



I have never seen that was the case against Folau - what he did was use social media inappropriately.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Thats the defense its not the outcome.



But you keep suggesting RA has acted unlawfully, and cannot show how.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> what he did was use social media inappropriately.




According to his employer , which as I've demonstrated could cover a multitude of sins, real or imagined that employers could conjure up as an excuse to sack someone they don't like.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> According to his employer , which as I've demonstrated could cover a multitude of sins, real or imagined that employers could conjure up as an excuse to sack someone they don't like.



Yes, because in Folau's case, he signed a contract which included those conditions, and they were lawful.
Again, why repeat your points without understanding the context?


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Rubbish!  Folau clearly breached a provision of his employment!



Well that is what the courts are there for, obviously someone was worried, to force the withdrawl of funding.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> But you keep suggesting RA has acted unlawfully, and cannot show how.



Um no... I was originally showing that you didn't know the law prior. 
Is this the new tangent we are going on? 
*Moxjo proves Folau's case.*
*Wins admiration from all.*


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes, because in Folau's case, he signed a contract which included those conditions, and they were lawful.
> Again, why repeat your points without understanding the context?



This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well that is what the courts are there for, obviously someone was worried, to force the withdrawl of funding.



He is going the the Fair Work Commission, *not *the courts.
As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> He is going the the Fair Work Commission, *not *the courts.
> As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.



*wonders why Sarah Hansen Young's Gofundalefty wasn't taken down... Hmmmm


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.



If it were not true, then it would be an open and shut case and Folau would still be playing.  That is, he would immediately have taken his case to court, and not the FWC.
We are going over the same ground.
If you believe I am wrong, state the applicable law and show why RA's actions were unlawful.  
All this thread has done is dig over well trodden ground, and keep digging.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.



Only that he was not defending himself. RA was defending against an unlawful dismissal case. So he didn't break site rules by quoting the bible.

But 'go fund me' can choose who they do business with.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> He is going the the Fair Work Commission, *not *the courts.
> As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.



Well I suppose if the parties aren't happy with the outcome, it will end up in the courts anyway, which is probably where it should be dealt with.IMO

With regard Go Fund Me, if it can be proven they worked in a prejudicial way, or it could be considered a restrictive trade practice, that could be tested also. All really interesting, you might get called up to give evidence.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> If it were not true, then it would be an open and shut case and Folau would still be playing.  That is, he would immediately have taken his case to court, and not the FWC.
> We are going over the same ground.
> If you believe I am wrong, state the applicable law and show why RA's actions were unlawful.
> All this thread has done is dig over well trodden ground, and keep digging.



I  already linked articles and section 772. And that he is fighting it on those grounds. You were the one who thought it was already in court now you're trying to backtrack. 

My thoughts are that this is a test case and I don't know who will win. They will clarify definitions and meanings behind.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Except that is not the distinction required.
> To "*engage*" with the *media *is, definitionally, a deliberate *interaction *which has a potential outcome of having your words and information used by that media outlet to *amplify *your "story" - or, in the vernacular, "give it legs."  *You have no control of the process after engagement.
> "Using" *social media requires only the use of a carrier service to spread your message, story, or information.  To the extent your use of a carrier service is lawful, *you are in control*.




Read the actual policy of most large businesses or government departments.

In short - me posting on ASF is exactly the same as me being interviewed on ABC radio or contacting a journalist at the Australian so far as they're concerned and the same or very similar rules apply. No commending about the business, its activities or other staff including management or major shareholders. 

What you're reading right now constitutes me engaging with the media so far as rather a lot of employers are concerned. Note that it's being posted on a privately owned device in my time.

To the extent that there is a difference, well one would rationally expect less rules about social media than traditional media due to the smaller audience. However many people read this, it's going to be considerably fewer than the number who'd read it if it were published in the Age or was covered by any major TV network. 



> So what?
> His employer has a social media policy.  Folau undertook to *use* social media in an appropriate manner, if he were to use it at all.  Folua had been advised previously about what was not appropriate in terms of that policy and seems to have deliberately ignored it.




The issue is about the employer exercising control over an employee in regard to matters having nothing to do with with the employer's business, its activities, management and so on and whether or not that is reasonable.

The precedent is where the danger lies. There's no shortage of businesses who'd be more than happy to make sure their staff don't in any way promote all sorts of things, unions and the "Left" side of politics in general being the obvious example. 

Now, is it reasonable that employers effectively gag their employees outside of working hours from expressing a view that, for example, Labor has good policies, that climate change is a serious threat or that governments should increase funding to public hospitals?

Should you only be allowed to express your employer's view which is the opposite of your own?

My view is that a business has perfectly reasonable grounds for requiring that its employees don't publicly discuss the business, its products, management and so on but it's very different when it comes to completely unrelated matters having nothing to do with the business and expressed as a private view outside of working hours.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> In short - me posting on ASF is exactly the same as me being interviewed on ABC radio or contacting a journalist at the Australian so far as they're concerned and the same or very similar rules apply.



Not true - and I explained why.
You would be contractually forbidden to engage the media, whereas no specific restraint is placed on what you post at ASF.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue is about the employer exercising control over an employee in regard to matters having nothing to do with with the employer's business, its activities, management and so on and whether or not that is reasonable.



Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand.  In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (24 June 2019)

They should just give him his job back and tell him to stop being a cockhead.  A common sense ruling.


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Why is everyone repeating old ground.
> So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand.  In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
> I think that is naive.



How many ways does it have to shown that Issy in no way damaged their "brand"?

How many ways does it have to be pointed out that RA is shooting themselves in the foot and damaging their own brand in ways more profound than Issy ever could?


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Why is everyone repeating old ground.
> So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand.  In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
> I think that is naive.



I think what is naive, is terminating someones highly paid job, over the issue.
A fine, a suspension, maybe, to sack someone is taking it to a whole new level. IMO
That is of course, unless he was representing something like the Sydney mardi gras, then you could understand he may be sacked for what he said.lol

A lot of the general public, could have thought people brought the media into disripute, over the Margaret Court debacle. But the signalers can say what they like, god help anyone in their way. IMO

But it may well be the silent section, that said nothing, and now are prepared to back Folau who knows.
But the election certainly showed, a lot of people aren't in step with the media, when it comes to taking sides on the morality of issues.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Why is everyone repeating old ground.
> So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand.  In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
> I think that is naive.



He quoted a bible passage. He did not solely target homosexuals. They fired him because of what the passage from the bible said. They also did not understand the passage or Folau's intent. Other people interpreted to be "I hate gays".

RA damaged its brand amongst every Christian by firing him. They then tried to misinterpret what he said in the press releases.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Why is everyone repeating old ground.
> So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand.  In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
> I think that is naive.



Of course an employer has a right to protect their brand.

Whether or not they have the right to sack someone for making comments as a private individual, comments which were simply a direct quote from a very widely known and readily available book, which have nothing to do with the business is the question.

If the answer is "yes" well then that would seem to shut down rather a lot of public debate.

Assuming you're an employee of somewhere, what if your employer supports Folau either on principle (freedom of expression basis) or because they actually agree with his religious views? Should they be entitled to sack you for expressing a different opinion online?


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> He quoted a bible passage. He did not solely target homosexuals. They fired him because of what the passage from the bible said. They also did not understand the passage or Folau's intent. Other people interpreted to be "I hate gays".



I could post the very same Bible passage, and I am not religious.
If I were the same poster boy, but without religion, then RA could take the very same action.
So for the umpteenth time, it's his inappropriate use of social media that got him into trouble.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Of course an employer has a right to protect their brand.
> Whether or not they have the right to sack someone for making comments as a private individual, comments which were simply a direct quote from a very widely known and readily available book, which have nothing to do with the business is the question.



This is getting tedious - RA places  specific contractual obligations on players - clearly stated as applying on and off the field -  and these were breached.
Breach a contract and suffer the consequences.
Disagree with the consequences by showing they were unlawful.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I could post the very same Bible passage, and I am not religious.
> If I were the same poster boy, but without religion, then RA could take the very same action.
> So for the umpteenth time, it's his inappropriate use of social media that got him into trouble.



Religion is protected for the umpteenth +1 time. His social media feeds are testimony to the fact that he is deeply religious, his father has a church and he has form. If you posted it as a one off then you would get the ar$e because there isnt any evidence.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Religion is protected for the umpteenth +1 time. His social media feeds are testimony to the fact that he is deeply religious, his father has a church and he has form.



His religion is not in question - RA has made that point - groundhog day all over again.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> This is getting tedious - RA places  specific contractual obligations on players - clearly stated as applying on and off the field -  and these were breached.
> Breach a contract and suffer the consequences.
> Disagree with the consequences by showing they were unlawful.



I think R.A will be rueing the day, they had this rush of blood to the head, I would guess there has been some sleepless nights in H.Q.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> His religion is not in question - RA has made that point - groundhog day all over again.



The post was a passage from the bible.  His right to practice his religious beliefs (which preaching the word of the lord was last time I checked). His post was within his rights. It was not a negative passage but instructions on how to get in the lords favor. It was misrepresented by the mob and by RA. He didn't get fired because of a bloody cat meme did he. It was because he shared a religious passage.

And again it doesn't matter what Rugby Australia says, they are trying to save their own ass. 

Its the fwa or courts ruling  that will decide. And he has a case with a 50/50 chance imo.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> His religion is not in question - RA has made that point - groundhog day all over again.



If religion is not the issue then what exactly is the problem?

Would they have sacked him for quoting online the weather forecast for Sydney as taken directly from the Bureau Of Meteorology website?

Would they have sacked him for posting a price chart for shares in Rio Tinto over the past 5 years?

Would they have sacked him if he'd quoted the words of some gardening expert saying that now's the right time to prune the roses or whatever?

It looks to me very much like they've sacked him because of the religious content of his online posts and that's the issue.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

On a bit of a different tack, I see Anthony Mundine is going to play rugby again.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/more-...d/news-story/71eef0461ce34501206acd1da1c6ea17

I wonder if R.A will allow him to play? when he said, homosexuality and indigenous culture don't mix, which is pretty strong considering how many indigenous play the game.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/anthony-mundine-aborigines-homosexual-gay/5063836

From the article:
_Mundine posted on Facebook last night that promoting homosexuality in Aboriginal culture is not OK and Indigenous ancestors would have someone's head for it_.

It is all going to become very interesting.IMO


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> The post was a passage from the bible.



So what?  
He could equally have posted some shyt from the *Courier Mail* or the *Australian.*
What is relevant is the effect of the content, *not *its source.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If religion is not the issue then what exactly is the problem?



Breach of contract.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Breach of contract.



Interpretation  and precedents, that is what it will come down to, and who knows you may be right.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> So what?
> He could equally have posted some shyt from the *Courier Mail* or the *Australian.*
> What is relevant is the effect of the content, *not *its source.



Sorry doesn't wash.
 He is a practicing religious nutter within his right to practice. RA will have a tough case to fight.

We will have to agree to disagree. The outcome of the action is the only way we will know. Like I said 50/50, you might be right but we don't know at this point.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.



I cannot disagree with you because you have offered nothing.
All you do is repeat "*religion*" without showing how it is contractually relevant.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I cannot disagree with you because you have offered nothing.
> All you do is repeat "*religion*" without showing how it is contractually relevant.



Perhaps I'll make a youtube video for you so it's easier to understand. 
You started this thread saying it wasn't even a bible passage and have been consistently wrong since.
Do catch up.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I cannot disagree with you because you have offered nothing.
> All you do is repeat "*religion*" without showing how it is contractually relevant.



Section 772 is old ground a few pages back. Unlawful termination over religion.


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Section 772 is old ground a few pages back. Unlawful termination over religion.



So you keep saying, yet cannot explain why.
More of the same nothingness.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> So you keep saying, yet cannot explain why.
> More of the same nothingness.



Really....
I'll get started on that vid


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

Wow. Good stuff Rob. I think you've got him. Mo's dizzy from the wall he keeps banging his head against.
I'll give him a standing eight count - one, two, three ....


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Wow. Good stuff Rob. I think you've got him. Mo's dizzy from the wall he keeps banging his head against.
> I'll give him a standing eight count - one, two, three ....



You do have to give Rob, top marks for tenacity, as the lonely voice in the wilderness.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

Tag



rederob said:


> Breach of contract.




There was no Contract at Law. It was an unlawful Contract, due to the Fair Work Act 

Tag.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

Jee wiz a lot of back flipping and finger pointing going on.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...e/news-story/9081c1cb52f608a69d49e5ce31c17cc6

Hi Rob, I know it isn't a court case, but it seems to have all the trimmings of one.lol

From the article:
When Folau first launched the campaign on Friday, the Law Council of Australia said the issue of crowd-funding a law suit such as the one against Rugby Australia, opened up a “veritable can of worms” for the legal profession and the courts.

Law Council of Australia President, Arthur Moses SC pointed out that if Folau’s case was dismissed or the litigation failed, the money raised could be used to pay legal expenses of the opposing side.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Wow. Good stuff Rob. I think you've got him. Mo's dizzy from the wall he keeps banging his head against.
> I'll give him a standing eight count - one, two, three ....



I actually enjoy banter with rob. He's not afraid to get in a bit of rough and tumble. You learn from those you disagree with the most....


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Really....
> I'll get started on that vid


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

Here is someone who needs to get a grip, really funny read IMO.lol
Should be writing books, great gift.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...mob-and-kills-folau-page-20190624-p520ps.html


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

It doesn't sound as though the 'problem', is going away.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...nding-campaign-shut-down-20190624-p520ss.html


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2019)

jbocker said:


> I am a bit confused are not all religions based on making it a globalist view.​



yes you seems quite confused in that matter  but in a non religious state, religion do not make the law whereas the leftist clique not only control the media but seems to decide which laws are right or wrong, applied or not...
anyway, let's give him some extra cash for the legal battle, “The only thing necessary for the *triumph of evil* is for good men to do nothing.” So I will do something


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> You do have to give Rob, top marks for tenacity, as the lonely voice in the wilderness.



Except that I do not agree with what RA did, but I accept they appeared to have acted lawfully.
The problem with Folau's case is that he thinks it is about religious expression.
Were I prosecuting RA's case, I would never use that word because it is not relevant.
It is about compliance with the code of conduct.
As this specific case is about using social media, we need to be mindful that code imposes conditions on players.  Those conditions relate to respecting all those who participate, including spectators, plus maintaining a positive image of Rugby.  And these conditions apply on and off the field.
Given that RA is a foundation member of Pride in Sport (an organisation committed to furthering LGBTI inclusion in sport), comments that are unsupportive - irrespective of any personal or religious beliefs - prima facie breach the code of conduct.
More generally, Folau's message was issued as a "*WARNING*" to people who related to any or all categories listed.  Furthermore, the warning was unequivocal about their wrongdoing and suggested a dire consequence (whether true or not).  Given it's not illegal to be drunk at home, or worship another being, amongst other things, it showed gross intolerance and a lack of respect for others.
We do not need to get into a debate or discussion about how Folau's comments were of Biblical proportion, because we are only concerned about the effect his message had.
The point here is that we test the outcome of using social media to the extent it is consistent with the code of conduct.  It is neither practical nor necessary that the code prescribe all the circumstances that could lead to a breach as in a fashion compliance is regarded as a trivial exercise.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Except that I do not agree with what RA did, but I accept they appeared to have acted lawfully.
> The problem with Folau's case is that he thinks it is about religious expression.
> Were I prosecuting RA's case, I would never use that word because it is not relevant.
> It is about compliance with the code of conduct.
> ...



And whether the punishment is deemed appropriate, for the infraction, or if it was used as a means to an end?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that RA is a foundation member of Pride in Sport (an organisation committed to furthering LGBTI inclusion in sport),




How many Rugby players do you think would be comfortable having gays at close quarters, in the dressing rooms and showers etc ?

It might be ok for the Board to issue such edicts, the front row scrum might have a different opinion.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> “The only thing necessary for the *triumph of evil* is for good men to do nothing.” So I will do something




Good Man Frog. That's a quote we should all live by.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (24 June 2019)

Reading through some Law articles  it sounds like religious expression isn't really protected. Folau will have to prove he was sacked due to his religion NOT expression of his religious beliefs.

Edit: wait, spreading the word of God is a part of Christianity.

Who knows lol.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Edit: wait, spreading the word of God is a part of Christianity.
> 
> Who knows lol.



Yes it is. He has to show that using social media is part of spreading the word of the lord. 


"What makes Folau’s claim unique is that it depends on the court’s view of whether he was dismissed for reasons that included his religion, as specified under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act.

This claim could be easier for Folau to prove than another part of the Fair Work Act commonly relied upon in discrimination cases, Section 351.

Case law tells us that Section 351 requires the employee to prove an employer was _motivated_ to discriminate against him or her because of religion. So, if an employer can point to an employee’s breach of their employment obligations as the reason for dismissal – instead of a discriminatory motive – then the employee’s claim fails.

In contrast, under Section 772, Folau only has to show that his religion was merely among the reasons for the dismissal.

However, in order to make his case, he will also need to demonstrate that his Instagram post constituted an exercise of his religion.

There are some big questions to be resolved here: how far does a person’s right of religious expression extend? Does being a Christian necessarily mean you can express the views of your faith in any public forum?

And does it allow Folau to express his views in the way that he did (noting that he says he was simply quoting from the Bible)?"

I've posted that about 10 times I'm sure.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act alleging the termination was because of his religion and, therefore, unlawful.

The application argues that as a manifestation of his Christian religion, including regular church attendance and preaching, Folau is:

…compelled to communicate the word of God and the message contained within the Bible.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act alleging the termination was because of his religion and, therefore, unlawful.
> 
> The application argues that as a manifestation of his Christian religion, including regular church attendance and preaching, Folau is:
> 
> …compelled to communicate the word of God and the message contained within the Bible.




It shouldn't just be confined to a "religious" defence though.

People should be able to express their opinion on any subject they like as long as it doesn't detract from them doing their job.


----------



## moXJO (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It shouldn't just be confined to a "religious" defence though.
> 
> People should be able to express their opinion on any subject they like as long as it doesn't detract from them doing their job.



Thats where the contract takes over. Religion is one of the things covered


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2019)

I personally think everyone's taking all this far too seriously.

Yes some rugby player quoted a section of the Bible that has some nasty words in it. Well sure, it's the Bible it's not a Mickey Mouse cartoon book so yes it says some rotten things. Religious books tend to be full of stuff like that and that's no secret.

It's like the conservatives who got upset about Dark Mofo last year and the inverted crosses. Offensive or something they claimed. Yeah whatever, most didn't seem too fussed and saw it as art. It's not as though there wasn't a great big Christmas tree not far away 6 months before and after.

Everyone needs to lighten up a bit is my view. It's some rugby player quoting words from a book and it's not as though he picked the worst sections of it by any means. Nobody's fired any shots or blown anything up. Nothing's physically in ruins, there's no river of blood, there's no sirens wailing.

Meanwhile there's thousands of people sleeping on the streets tonight here in Australia and there's however many people with all manner of problems from being victims of domestic violence through to being unemployed. Those are real problems far more serious than someone preaching religion.


----------



## satanoperca (24 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> How many Rugby players do you think would be comfortable having gays at close quarters, in the dressing rooms and showers etc ?



But that wouldn't mind a woman being in the dressing room. Tell those that are effected to grow some balls and be a man.
If the so called "gays" are grabbing their balls, then it is assault, but I am sure that they say men are happy staring at women's t1ts at the beach. What is the difference?


moXJO said:


> Folau has now brought a claim under Section 772 of the Fair Work Act alleging the termination was because of his religion and, therefore, unlawful.
> 
> The application argues that as a manifestation of his Christian religion, including regular church attendance and preaching, Folau is:
> 
> …compelled to communicate the word of God and the message contained within the Bible.



Who says religion is correct, or for that matter the bible is correct or has any relationship with current society.

All this sounds like a man in the future will come out and say he was sorry and that he is actually gay.

And who the fu---k cares. 

His religious belief is his own, but as someone whom is held high in society, doesn't give him a free pass to do what he wants in the name of religion.

His core values are valid to some degree, but his lack of understanding of his conviction are misguided.


----------



## Macquack (24 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> No no no. Moving from a game Rugby League he grew up with and to a game he was never going to reach an elite level at meant he wouldn't reach elite pay levels in Aussie Rules.



Yes yes yes. If you recall, the AFL enticed Folau over from the NRL with a massive deal ( estimated to be $6 million over 4 years). This was ridiculous money for a player that had never played aussie rules before but was part of the AFL's grand plans for their new expansion team the Greater Western Sydney Giants to seize the heartland of rugby league. Folau may have failed dismally but he was still paid as if he was an elite player.


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I personally think everyone's taking all this far too seriously.
> 
> Yes some rugby player quoted a section of the Bible that has some nasty words in it. Well sure, it's the Bible it's not a Mickey Mouse cartoon book so yes it says some rotten things. Religious books tend to be full of stuff like that and that's no secret.
> 
> ...



For once, i disagree:
 this is a show case for freedom of expression/speech, and the rulings will apply to all in the foreseeable future.

One more liberty down the drain of globalism brainwashing
Do not think, do not speak just parrot after me:
Trump is bad, churches are sexual perverts, as are all white heterosexual males, west is causing GW and the west needs to stop CO2, stop eating meat and earth will be safe
Ahh let's not forget, plastic is bad and an  Alice spring's retiree plastic shopping bag is killing whales
Did i forget anything?
Rince and repeat in your favorite ABC/newspaper tomorrow..
Anyway i stop here on that subject.
Australia needs a bill of rights...


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> For once, i disagree:
> this is a show case for freedom of expression/speech, and the rulings will apply to all in the foreseeable future.



I've decided to avoid this thread for the reasons I've outlined in another thread, that being that I'm currently of the view that discussing religion isn't helping this forum overall.

That does not mean I've changed my mind on the comments I've made, just that I think that it's a "can't win" situation for ASF. It's completely unrelated to investing and is only going to upset someone.

To clarify my point about it being taken too seriously though, well if my view there were applied then Folau would still be playing rugby.

That is, I am saying that RA and those taking offence are taking Folau's comments too seriously, not that people commenting on this thread are taking RA's decision to sack him too seriously. I perhaps should have been clearer on that detail.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (25 June 2019)

1. Looks like Folau worships money not the Lord. Another fake Christian giving Christians a bad name? Give the $750,000 to charity Israel, you don't need it apparently.
2. Looks like the Fair Work Act may not provide the protections Folau is seeking, but it is test case it seems.

Should an Employer's control extend to genuine expressions of religous faith?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is, I am saying that RA and those taking offence are taking Folau's comments too seriously, not that people commenting on this thread are taking RA's decision to sack him too seriously. I perhaps should have been clearer on that detail.




I certainly agree with the first point. If RA had just said "we don't agree with what he said, but support his right to say it", the situation would be over now., so RA botched it in my view.

On the second point, it's a matter of a person's right to state their opinions without being sacked for it. This is a pretty basic right in my view, whether the opinions are religious, political or anything else. These rights are worth fighting for as they apply to all of us, not just rugby players so I think  they have to be taken seriously.


----------



## qldfrog (25 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I've decided to avoid this thread for the reasons I've outlined in another thread, that being that I'm currently of the view that discussing religion isn't helping this forum overall.
> 
> That does not mean I've changed my mind on the comments I've made, just that I think that it's a "can't win" situation for ASF. It's completely unrelated to investing and is only going to upset someone.
> 
> ...



I understand, i read your comments on the other thread and so decided to close the debate also after editing my previous post last night.
To help Joe.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (25 June 2019)

Australian Christian Lobby to donate $100,000 AND set up a new website for donations.

There's a limited amount of charitable dollars out there and ALOT of better causes than this. Enough is enough.

Lawyers are saying his legal fees won't go near his $3 million target.


----------



## tech/a (25 June 2019)

Circular opinion

This is how 90% of the human race exist.

Trick is not to live in the 90% 

This is my opinion which is more correct than you opinion 
So listen up!


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (25 June 2019)

tech/a said:


> Circular opinion
> 
> !




NO, Australian Christian Lobby have donated $100,000. They also have set up a new donations website.

Fact not opinion!


----------



## tech/a (25 June 2019)

Circular fact then.


----------



## rederob (25 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> For once, i disagree:
> this is a show case for freedom of expression/speech, and the rulings will apply to all in the foreseeable future.



When you disagree, you need to show how your ideas are viable.
You do not and cannot.


----------



## rederob (25 June 2019)

On the second point, it's a matter of a person's right to state their opinions without being sacked for it. This is a pretty basic right in my view, whether the opinions are religious, political or anything else. These rights are worth fighting for as they apply to all of us, not just rugby players so I think  they have to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]Consistently wrong.
There are laws offering workplace protections for those aggrieved by the *opinions *of others.  That is, it is a* basic right* to attend your place of work and not be discriminated against, harassed or bullied.
You still do not get it Rumpy!


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2019)

rederob said:


> On the second point, it's a matter of a person's right to state their opinions without being sacked for it. This is a pretty basic right in my view, whether the opinions are religious, political or anything else. These rights are worth fighting for as they apply to all of us, not just rugby players so I think  they have to be taken seriously
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> There are laws offering workplace protections for those aggrieved by the *opinions *of others.  That is, it is a* basic right* to attend your place of work and not be discriminated against, harassed or bullied.
> You still do not get it Rumpy!




 Robbie , Folau is not bullying anyone, he's leaving that to God in the afterlife !

Can't you understand that ?


----------



## rederob (25 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Robbie , Folau is not bullying anyone, he's leaving that to God in the afterlife !
> Can't you understand that ?



That is not the point I made, so selectively drawing on just one of the issues I raised does not help your cause.
Unrestrained freedom of expression is not reconcilable with extant workplace laws.  But you have never been able to work that out.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Unrestrained freedom of expression is not reconcilable with extant workplace laws.




Noone is saying freedom of expression should be unconstrained.

I'm saying what Folau has said does not amount to bullying and does not affect his ability to do his job and therefore he shouldn't be sacked.


----------



## rederob (25 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm saying what Folau has said does not amount to bullying and does not affect his ability to do his job and therefore he shouldn't be sacked



He *warned *people, implied they were *sinners*, said they were headed for *hell*, but not if he did as quoted.  That's a classic case of bullying under any definition you throw up.


SirRumpole said:


> People should be able to express their opinion on any subject they like as long as it doesn't detract from them doing their job



No, so long as it is consistent with prevailing workplace laws and other contractual constraints.


SirRumpole said:


> If RA had just said "we don't agree with what he said, but support his right to say it", the situation would be over now.



RA cannot support contracted players breaching the code of conduct they agreed to and still you cannot see this!


SirRumpole said:


> On the second point, it's a matter of a person's right to state their opinions without being sacked for it. This is a pretty basic right in my view, whether the opinions are religious, political or anything else.



And I have shown it is *NOT*.


----------



## Logique (25 June 2019)

The _Australian Rugby Union_ doesn't dictate freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, and neither does _GoFundMe.   _Neither does _Qantas_, Mr Joyce_._

ACL donations page:
https://www.acl.org.au/donate_izzy
*How you can support Israel Folau*

_"...On behalf of the Australian Christian Lobby, I have spoken to Israel Folau to let him know that ACL will be donating $100,000 to his legal defence.."
Martyn Iles
Managing Director, Australian Christian Lobby_


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

If there has been any bullying going on IMO, it has been by the pro LGBT lobby, to get funding for Folau withdrawn.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...mob-and-kills-folau-page-20190624-p520ps.html


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

rederob said:


> He *warned *people, implied they were *sinners*, said they were headed for *hell*, but not if he did as quoted.  That's a classic case of bullying under any definition you throw up.



He *warned*, he *implied* they were doing something wrong and told them they would go to a *fictitious place*.

Doesn't sound like a strong case, for sacking someone to me.
Bit like sacking someone, for dropping the teapot, in the crib room. IMO


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2019)

Who did Issy bully @rederob ?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2019)

rederob said:


> He *warned *people, implied they were *sinners*, said they were headed for *hell*, but not if he did as quoted. That's a classic case of bullying under any definition you throw up.




Only if you actually believe in God, Heaven and Hell, if not the statement is meaningless.

And even then, he can't prove what he said so people are entitled to laugh it off.

Bloody hell, (no pun intended), it's one man's silly beliefs against a whole swag of SJW's who will weigh in against him.  The idea that one man's unproven beliefs are going to cause people to go out and top themselves is absurd.

The only damage he has done is to himself, but he still has a right to earn a living.


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

There can be illegal contract clauses if it goes against the law. Eg: Stopping people from joining a union or participate in union action.

I'm not saying thats what happened here. Just that a contract doesn't trump the law or peoples rights.


----------



## rederob (25 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Only if you actually believe in God, Heaven and Hell, if not the statement is meaningless.



I posted in the "5 Commandments thread.
Use applicable law to support you ideas rather than offer your opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I posted in the "5 Commandments thread.
> Use applicable law to support you ideas rather than offer your opinion.




Laws are passed by the ones that most benefit from them.

That doesn't make them right.


----------



## rederob (25 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The general argument in the Folau thread has not been about the Bible or religion, but about people's rights to express their opinions about any subject they choose without retaliation from their employers.



That's your idea.
Folau is going to see if the FWC agree with him that his termination was unlawful on the grounds of his *RELIGION*.  The FWC does not rule on matters of free speech.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

rederob said:


> That's your idea.
> Folau is going to see if the FWC agree with him that his termination was unlawful




Or excessive.


----------



## Junior (25 June 2019)

There are so many better people out there to defend or donate money to, than Israel Folau.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

Junior said:


> There are so many better people out there to defend or donate money to, than Israel Folau.



That in itself, doesn't make him unworthy.
Also it would appear some disagree, the donations are upto $500,000+
I won't post the link, it could get Joe in the manure.
All I think it has done, is turn a percentage of the population off the Go Fund Me website, which is unfortunate because needy people may well lose out.


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

Junior said:


> There are so many better people out there to defend or donate money to, than Israel Folau.



How many did you donate to today

Look I agree.
But people are free to donate to who they want to.


----------



## IFocus (25 June 2019)

Junior said:


> There are so many better people out there to defend or donate money to, than Israel Folau.





Nails it nicely I think Junior.

The idea some one as wealthy as Folau sucks money from the punters to defend his multi million dollar income dressed up as freedom of religion / speech is stunning.

Note when he was a lot poorer was he so public?

He is also not the only Christian in RA.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (25 June 2019)

Rob, true Christians act from Love. They are trying to help people, save them. True Christians hate no one.

Calm down please or the Easter Bunny  and Tooth Fairy will come and kick your ass. Is that bullying?

P.S. once again, I'm not a Christian, I hate everyone.


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Nails it nicely I think Junior.
> 
> The idea some one as wealthy as Folau sucks money from the punters to defend his multi million dollar income dressed up as freedom of religion / speech is stunning.
> 
> ...



Alternatively, unions have fought to keep protections and rights of workers enshrined in law. I know this case is unpleasant. But it can have wide ranging consequences either way it falls.

Apparently from days past- Folau is on the cover of a gay magazine in support of homosexuals.


----------



## satanoperca (25 June 2019)

You could look at it another way :

How much has the guy donated to charitable causes over the past 10 years as a % of his income? 
0% - then he is being a bit rich asking others to donate to his cause.
>5% - Okay, then it seems fair he has asked whether the cause is valid or not.


----------



## IFocus (25 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Rob, true Christians act from Love. They are trying to help people, save them. True Christians hate no one.
> 
> Calm down please or the Easter Bunny  and Tooth Fairy will come and kick your ass. Is that bullying?





Oh man can of worms there.

Christians by name are required or practice taking JC into their heart.

The teachings of JC are clear one of love to all, inclusiveness of all, forgiveness to all, acceptance  etc........get the picture......just don't read the rest of the Bible


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> You could look at it another way :
> 
> How much has the guy donated to charitable causes over the past 10 years as a % of his income?
> 0% - then he is being a bit rich asking others to donate to his cause.
> >5% - Okay, then it seems fair he has asked whether the cause is valid or not.




I've got no problem with him asking for money. It's a free country (sort of) people can give or not.


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)




----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> You could look at it another way :
> 
> How much has the guy donated to charitable causes over the past 10 years as a % of his income?
> 0% - then he is being a bit rich asking others to donate to his cause.
> >5% - Okay, then it seems fair he has asked whether the cause is valid or not.



Who made you "rule maker" ? 

How about: 
support his cause= donate.
Don't support his cause = don't.


----------



## HelloU (25 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> You could look at it another way :
> 
> How much has the guy donated to charitable causes over the past 10 years as a % of his income?
> 0% - then he is being a bit rich asking others to donate to his cause.
> >5% - Okay, then it seems fair he has asked whether the cause is valid or not.



OT
gofundme ...... if u want to honeymoon in Europe but can only afford Bali ...then make a page.
There are even pages for peeps to buy beer to drink ........
They are not really a judgemental site (usually) but a "service" site.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2019)

Junior said:


> There are so many better people out there to defend or donate money to, than Israel Folau.



That's hate speech! 

You're sacked!


----------



## Junior (25 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> That's hate speech!
> 
> You're sacked!




I don't think he should have been fired.  But it's sad that anyone would 'donate' their hard-earned to help a relatively wealthy person cover their own personal legal costs.  People lose their jobs every day.  Behave like an adult and go find another job.  

He may not have deserved to be sacked, but he was incredibly stupid with his use of social media.  Incredibly stupid.  And now he's inflicting further damage on his chances of being re-hired elsewhere in the industry.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2019)

Most people are incredibly stupid with their use of social media.  But if you're a regressive lefty or a Muslim, it's okay.

It only has consequences if you're center or center right... or Christian.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I've got no problem with him asking for money. It's a free country (sort of) people can give or not.



I bet R.A won't be opening a Go Fund Me page, they will have deep pockets, it will cost a fortune to take them on.
I'm amazed the way everyone is so quick to pay out on the little guy, yet in the next thread they are supposedly in there batting for them, really sends mixed messages.
Probably the very same reason, Labor miss read their voter base, it isn't who they think it is.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That in itself, doesn't make him unworthy.
> Also it would appear some disagree, the donations are upto $500,000+
> I won't post the link, it could get Joe in the manure.
> All I think it has done, is turn a percentage of the population off the Go Fund Me website, which is unfortunate because needy people may well lose out.




As I said "Go Fund Me", may well have done more damage to itself, than anything else.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ampaign-than-on-gofundme-20190625-p5210t.html


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2019)

>$800k Already. 

It seems the outrage Mob have misread the situation... Again.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> >$800k Already.
> 
> It seems the outrage Mob have misread the situation... Again.




Yep ,classic, the vocal minority of load mouths and bullies have blown their feet off yet again.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

The only good thing to come out of all this so far is, it isn't an Australian company that loses the commission, on the returned donations. Hooray

before the *American company cancelled the page and issued refunds* because Folau's cause violated their terms and conditions.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (25 June 2019)

I just witnessed a good rant on the afternoon news.  This woman was adamant that Folau's words constituted hate speech.  "It's hate speech...it's hate speech... I'm sorry but it's hate speech".  Then she took a breath and said "It's not right, I hate it".  

Does hating hate neutralize the original hate or add to it?


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

Rob,  whats your opinion of his previous work (gay magazine cover and work) helping, or hindering his claim?


----------



## IFocus (25 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Alternatively, unions have fought to keep protections and rights of workers enshrined in law. I know this case is unpleasant. But it can have wide ranging consequences either way it falls.
> 
> Apparently from days past- Folau is on the cover of a gay magazine in support of homosexuals.




Everyone has an opinion on the issue and no end of angles as Folau has played the religious card while being an extremely wealthy individual then just more fuel to the fire once he started fund raising.

A court is where it belongs to resolve the RA dispute and I think Reds assessment is pretty well spot on.

The whole conflict is really about thinking from 2000 years ago meets the modern age.


----------



## IFocus (25 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Rob,  whats your opinion of his previous work (gay magazine cover and work) helping, or hindering his claim?




Was that cover a dig at Folau or did he get paid?


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Was that cover a dig at Folau or did he get paid?



Legitimate. He did work with the anti discrimination campaign,  unbelievably. I thought it might be a gee up. But it seems legit.


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> The whole conflict is really about thinking from 2000 years ago meets the modern age.



I think he has a pretty good chance. 

Every religion thinks the other worshipers from other religions are going to hell. I think RA overplayed its hand.They have now put every religion offside and they know it. Notice their radio silence through the whole thing?

 Netball Australia and NZ did a much better job. The mob went after his wife and  they (at this stage) shut the wingers down.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> The whole conflict is really about thinking from 2000 years ago meets the modern age.



What's that David and Goliath?


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Everyone has an opinion on the issue and no end of angles as Folau has played the religious card while being an extremely wealthy individual then just more fuel to the fire once he started fund raising.
> .




I don't think he will have anywhere near as much funds available as R.A, then what happens they just bleed him dry through the courts and it becomes who has the deepest pockets.
As usual, it would just be a case of not letting truth get in the way, of idealism and the "mob".
I hope it does go to court, why someone should be able to be sacked, because they have differing moral beliefs to management is beyond the pale. I know Muja Power Station would have been out the gate, if someone had been sacked because the management didn't like their personal beliefs.
Actually if management said your religious beliefs and or sexual preferences were a condition of employment, they would be in court for discrimination.
It will be very interesting and I don't think, they will want it all tested, just my opinion.
They should have fined him and or publicly reprimanded him, to sack him was crazy. But who knows, maybe they wanted him out anyway and this seemed like an opportunity?
By the way I've never seen him play, or watched rugby, so don't have a clue how he fits in.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2019)

Cracked the $1,000,000


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Cracked the $1,000,000



That was fast.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

It is all starting to implode on the bullies. IMO

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/netbal...nce-with-folau-statement-20190625-p52112.html


----------



## moXJO (25 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It is all starting to implode on the bullies. IMO
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/sport/netbal...nce-with-folau-statement-20190625-p52112.html



She folded in faster time than it took Folau's donations to hit $1mill.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> She folded in faster time than it took Folau's donations to hit $1mill.



Possibly nervous, as to being next cab off the rank.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

I guess this guy, with a tea towel on his head must be wondering, if he lives in a parallel universe. Which by what he wrote, he may well do.lol    I wonder if he gets paid to write articles?
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...mob-and-kills-folau-page-20190624-p520ps.html

From the article:
_Firstly, it may mean that Folau might have to – hold the presses – dip into his own pockets to fund his legal appeal, instead of building it on $5 and $10 donations from a lot of well-meaning people who actually seem to think this is about religious freedom in Australia, as if that was ever under threat.

It might even mean that the likes of Alan Jones who has been indicating for weeks that he will back Folau financially himself in any such legal appeal will have to follow through.

What it mostly means though is that, whatever the law will ultimately say on the Folau case, the Australian mobstands firmly against both the whole absurdity of the "gays are going to burn in hell" thing, and the very idea of using a crowd like GoFundMe to make it legally safe to shove that view in the face of your employers, even when you have firmly promised not to_.

It will be interesting to see if 'Go Fund Me' sees a falling off in donations? 
I hope not but IMO it was a silly stand for them to take, maybe they watch morning T.V and adjust there settings, very interesting precedent going to be made. IMO


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

Cracked $1,369,000, I suppose there is more people interested, than the other'mob' thought.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

$1,497,000 still going strong, the media called this with the same accuracy as the election, Oh how the ravenous crowd roars.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

Noting that Joe has taken action to address the issue I've referred to about what's good and not good for ASF by making threads such as this visible only to those who opt in, I'll make another comment and that's to simply pass on something which came up in an offline discussion about this.

"Perhaps the best answer to the question is to ask another question. Hypothetically, if Folau had injured himself whilst producing his online content, which may happen due to for example a clearly not at fault incident such as the chair collapsing or computer catching fire, then would he have been eligible to receive Workers Compensation? If the answer is no, then it would seem that he was not at work when the incident occurred and that this is not a workplace issue but is a private matter."

Or words very similar to that.

Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Hypothetically, if Folau had injured himself whilst producing his online content, which may happen due to for example a clearly not at fault incident such as the chair collapsing or computer catching fire, then would he have been eligible to receive Workers Compensation?



That's not a good example for a lot of reasons.
But mostly because it completely lacks relevance.


----------



## Macquack (26 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> $1,497,000 still going strong, the media called this with the same accuracy as the election, Oh how the ravenous crowd roars.



The CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby said this morning that there were approximately 15,000 donors at a average donation of roughly $100. 15,000 cashed up christians supporting Folau is hardly the opening of the floodgates of support.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Rob,  whats your opinion of his previous work (gay magazine cover and work) helping, or hindering his claim?



I do not consider it relevant.
But here's the thing:
Imagine this idea of Folau's were found to be lawful.
You go to work and the walls are plastered with religious commentary of the worst kind, from any and every religion.  The new "freedoms" allow this to be so.  Workers are offended but employers can do nothing.
That's not a world I find acceptable.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I do not consider it relevant.
> But here's the thing:
> Imagine this idea of Folau's were found to be lawful.
> You go to work and the walls are plastered with religious commentary of the worst kind, from any and every religion.  The new "freedoms" allow this to be so.  Workers are offended but employers can do nothing.
> That's not a world I find acceptable.




A bit extreme isn't it ?

Religion is declining in this country and if the majority of employees found religious "commentary" unacceptable they would take it down themselves, the employer would not have to do anything.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> A bit extreme isn't it ?



You have never yet shown a grasp of what is at play here.
What I posted would be quite acceptable as it would be based on a person's religious beliefs no matter how vile.
That appears to be what you think "snowflakes" might be concerned about.  Yet when I put the shoe on the foot, you don't want to wear it.  No hypocrisy eh?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You have never yet shown a grasp of what is at play here.
> What I posted would be quite acceptable as it would be based on a person's religious beliefs no matter how vile.
> That appears to be what you think "snowflakes" might be concerned about.  Yet when I put the shoe on the foot, you don't want to wear it.  No hypocrisy eh?




I've no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.

Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable.

It's society in general that provides judgement on people's opinions but as long as a person does his job to the required standard, it's not a matter for the employer to sack them.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (26 June 2019)

They'll re-write the Legislation to get rid of absurdities, they always do.

Some Law expert claims Folau only needs $300,000 for legal fees. Over $1,500,000 already raised. Spoken for donations webpage says they'll give left over money to charity, "and it'll be charity promoting religous freedoms".
That's not a charity is it.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> They'll re-write the Legislation to get rid of absurdities, they always do.



It will be impossible to exclude what is written in religious works - without proscribing them - and that is all that Folau is claiming, as I understand it.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable.



You are forgetting that religious freedoms will allow them.
You also seem to overlook the fact that Folau's post has been regarded by many as offensive.
You appear to be happy to wave away what you don't find to be a problem.


SirRumpole said:


> ... as long as a person does his job to the required standard, it's not a matter for the employer to sack them.



That required standard in Folau's case included abiding by a *very clear written code of conduct* ON AND OFF THE FIELD.
But you just will not accept that, will you?


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> That required standard in Folau's case included abiding by a *very clear written code of conduct* ON AND OFF THE FIELD.
> But you just will not accept that, will you?




No I won't because that code of conduct diminishes the right of an individual to free speech, a right we should all fight our hardest to protect instead of knocking it down like you are intent on doing.

*Once again, employee conduct that does not interfere with an employee's ability to do their job is no business of an employer.

Employers have no right to control their employees private lives.*

Unless you can understand that then I'm afraid we will never agree on this issue.

And former Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs agrees with me.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionationa...folau-should-have-freedom-to-express/11246058


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

Haha good to see you boys still slogging it out.......


A balanced piece from the ABC as you would expect

Interesting religious organisations can deny employment based on religious belief where as anyone else cannot.


* The Israel Folau crowdfunding saga is not about freedom of religion"*


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...free-speech-simon-longstaff-analysis/11245082


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Haha good to see you boys still slogging it out.......




Yes, thanks to Joe for building us a nice little sand box.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> No I won't because that code of conduct diminishes the right of an individual to free speech, a right we should all fight our hardest to protect instead of knocking it down like you are intent on doing.



Yet you say exactly this: "*Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable.*"
Which is it?


SirRumpole said:


> Once again, employee conduct that does not interfere with an employee's ability to do their job is no business of an employer.



You are correct.  Except you have ignored the *employer's *rights, and you cannot see that you have despite pages of posts.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I do not consider it relevant.
> But here's the thing:
> Imagine this idea of Folau's were found to be lawful.
> You go to work and the walls are plastered with religious commentary of the worst kind, from any and every religion.  The new "freedoms" allow this to be so.  Workers are offended but employers can do nothing.
> That's not a world I find acceptable.



My thoughts of how it could be used are:

that it shows his post was not negative in the sense of "homosexuals are going to hell", but was a message of concern to get people into heaven.

He has previously taken action against discrimination. Specifically supporting homosexuals.

It would have to give his post some weight.


It's possible someone may "plaster the walls". But I don't think it would pass the 'workplace laws' sniff test even if Folau wins. 
Folau still has to show his message was not used to discriminate against. There are a few overlapping laws here. 

I'm wondering if it will go to settlement instead.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You are correct. Except you have ignored the *employer's *rights, and you cannot see that you have despite pages of posts.




Employers rights are concerned with an employee's behaviour ON THE JOB, not in their private lives.


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Employers rights are concerned with an employee's behaviour ON THE JOB, not in their private lives.




On the job wont apply here as Folau was part of the brand which is social media driven and written into his contract. Basically any time Folau used social media he was on the job.

BTW Folau was fully aware of this.


----------



## Logique (26 June 2019)

ACL has so far raised $1.7Mill.

Raelene Castle - CEO of Rugby Australia - needs to resign. This matter has been abominably handled. What would have been wrong with Issie's social media post just going through to the keeper. Nobody would have noticed! Ms Castle has damaged the reputation of Australia rugby.

Qantas - needs to withdraw it's sponsorship of Rugby Australia. This would allow Mr Joyce to focus on running the airline, as opposed to self-appointed arbiter of social mores.







> https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ss-backs-action-on-folau-20190509-p51lnv.html SMH, 9 May 2019:
> .. Joyce, the head of RA’s major sponsor Qantas, weighed into the scandal for the first time, telling the Australian Financial Review he was "quite happy" with the action against the 73-Test fullback...


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> On the job wont apply here as Folau was part of the brand which is social media driven and written into his contract. Basically any time Folau used social media he was on the job.
> 
> BTW Folau was fully aware of this.




Doesn't matter to me, there has to be a demarcation between employer time and employee time that a contract can't override.

We'll see what the courts say.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> that it shows his post was not negative in the sense of "homosexuals are going to hell", but was a message of concern to get people into heaven.



My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity.  The very nature of the construction of his post as a *warning *immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.


moXJO said:


> It's possible someone may "plaster the walls". But I don't think it would pass the 'workplace laws' sniff test even if Folau wins.



This is the slippery slope that would be opened.  There's some pretty nasty stuff in religious texts and if workers post it verbatim then they would be protected.  The crazy thing here is that workers who felt consistently disrespected by the material would have to appeal to the courts for a remedy as their employers would rightfully claim their hands were tied.
Separately, Gillian Trigg's argument is about "proportionality," and this is one I fully agree with as I do not believe termination was the smartest first choice. There are, however, several legal flies in her ointment.  The first is that to post what Folau did had no religious prerequisite.  The second is that it is necessary to consider the manner in which information is presented. "_Please hand me your money_" looks and feels very different when you are staring into the barrel of a gun.


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Doesn't matter to me, there has to be a demarcation between employer time and employee time that a contract can't override.
> 
> We'll see what the courts say.




Totally agree re demarcation between employer time and employee time, however that applies to mere mortals, in the age of superstar athletes being paid ridiculous amounts of money their private lives become part of their earnings stream.


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity.  The very nature of the construction of his post as a *warning *immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.
> .



If he had named names, I would agree with you, what he did was make a generalisation and included a religious chant.


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> The CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby said this morning that there were approximately 15,000 donors at a average donation of roughly $100. 15,000 cashed up christians supporting Folau is hardly the opening of the floodgates of support.



Definitely not, when you compare it to the donations R.A will use from its members and kids clubs etc.
All that has been achieved is R.A, has made an absolute balls up, from which there will be no winners.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity.  The very nature of the construction of his post as a *warning *immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.




Yeah, I'm unsure how it will go.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Totally agree re demarcation between employer time and employee time, however that applies to mere mortals, in the age of superstar athletes being paid ridiculous amounts of money their private lives become part of their earnings stream.



Given Christians make up a large portion of the world and the subsequent backlash. I'm not sure RA really made best use of the situation.

 Raelene Castle has damaged the brand possibly to the point of bankruptcy. The damage RA has done in handling the situation far outweighs what Folau posted.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> That's not a good example for a lot of reasons.
> But mostly because it completely lacks relevance.



If it’s not relevant then RA doesn’t have a leg to stand on surely ?

1. He hasn’t commented on his employer or it’s business etc so no argument there.

2. Employers can’t discriminate on the basis of practicing any religion so no argument on the basis that he shouldn’t be quoting passages from the Bible etc and reminding others of what it says.

3. Which leaves misuse of paid time, that he was working whilst he made the comments, as their only real argument surely? To argue that does of course require that he was deemed to be working at the time.

What else could they argue on the basis of?


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If it’s not relevant then RA doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
> 1. He hasn’t commented on his employer or it’s business etc so no argument there.
> 2. Employers can’t discriminate on the basis of practicing any religion so no argument on the basis that he shouldn’t be quoting passages from the Bible etc.
> 3. Which leaves misuse of paid time, that he was working whilst he made the comments, as their only real argument surely? To argue that does of course require that he was deemed to be working at the time.
> What else could they argue on the basis of?



All your points have been covered earlier.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Raelene Castle has damaged the brand possibly to the point of bankruptcy. The damage RA has done in handling the situation far outweighs what Folau posted.



RA will have professional indemnity insurance.  I am sure they will have received advice from their insurer about their options.  
I personally cannot see this matter ever going to court.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I personally cannot see this matter ever going to court.




You mean RA will admit they were wrong and pay out of court ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You go to work and the walls are plastered with religious commentary of the worst kind, from any and every religion.



That’s not a consequence of Folau winning the case.

The question is whether or not those employees should be allowed to express their views outside the workplace not within it.

Eg should your employer be allowed to ban you from this forum or restrict the views you are permitted to express to only those they agree with? 

That’s the issue, nobody’s suggesting doing it within the workplace.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I personally cannot see this matter ever going to court.




I think settlement is out. Folau now has the funds and every Christian wants to see this through. He has been 'martyred',  no backing out now.

I in no way think RA chances of winning are any better than Folau's. In fact the more you dig the less clear it becomes.


----------



## satanoperca (26 June 2019)

Posting on social media is publishing your view, not just voicing it.

A employer should have the right to protect their business if an employee causes damage by publishing their view outside of the workplace.


----------



## satanoperca (26 June 2019)

On could also argue that he has every right to discuss/voice his opinion in a church as it is a place of religion (relatively private), but putting on social media, is public and as has happened effects others outside of the church.


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Given Christians make up a large portion of the world and the subsequent backlash. I'm not sure RA really made best use of the situation.




Not across what all the options were for RA but given Folau was far and away its biggest superstar / draw card I wonder if there were other issues in the back ground because the down side was pretty big even before the blow up.

Certainly there is a lot of anger blow back coming out due to the marriage equity loss for the fundamentalist.  

 "Raelene Castle has damaged the brand possibly to the point of bankruptcy. The damage RA has done in handling the situation far outweighs what Folau posted."

Wont know that until it plays out IMHO


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> On could also argue that he has every right to discuss/voice his opinion in a church as it is a place of religion (relatively private), but putting on social media, is public and as has happened effects others outside of the church.



The argument then is: Folau is doing his duty as a Christian through spreading the word of the lord and saving souls.
So is this covered under 772 for religion or not? 
The employer cannot take away someone's rights under the law.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Not across what all the options were for RA but given Folau was far and away its biggest superstar / draw card I wonder if there were other issues in the back ground because the down side was pretty big even before the blow up.
> 
> Certainly there is a lot of anger blow back coming out due to the marriage equity loss for the fundamentalist.
> 
> ...



I think Joyce had a rage at RA and Castle sht herself a little and made a bad call. 

Yeah tough to see how it will play out. Rugby was already in trouble.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> That’s not a consequence of Folau winning the case.



It exactly *IS*.
Just in case you did not know there is a thing called the Sex Discrimination Act.  If Follau were to win, then what he posted becomes sacrosanct, despite the fact it prima facie breaches that Act.


Smurf1976 said:


> The question is whether or not those employees should be allowed to express their views outside the workplace not within it.



False, as they then have a right to express their views because they are not unlawful.  Remember their employer would have no right to act against what they express AT WORK as to terminate would be immediately unlawful.


Smurf1976 said:


> Eg should your employer be allowed to ban you from this forum or restrict the views you are permitted to express to only those they agree with?



This is based in entirely on what your employment contract legally allows. Again, this has been covered earlier. 


Smurf1976 said:


> That’s the issue, nobody’s suggesting doing it within the workplace.



*NOT THE POINT...* as I have explained above.


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2019)

I'm just surprised someone hasn't tried to play the race card yet.  I know it is utterly irrelevant,  but it almost always is,  when played. 

The hierarchy of intersectionality is a curious thing.


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

Well there is one thing for sure, it won't be a cheap case, as can be seen on here it is polarising and the outcome will have to be very measured. As it will effect all workplaces, people will be able to be sacked for what they say on social media, as long as the employers just put a general clause in their company policy.IMO
What if Folau posted that women will get trashed, if they played against the men, is he in breach of the R.A obligation to be an equal opportunity employer and sexual equality and no sex discrimination? Could he be sacked for saying that?
It was dumb of R.A to wade into this, just pure stupidity.


----------



## satanoperca (26 June 2019)

Thought this was interesting:
What constitutes a “religion”?
The leading High Court case regarding the meaning of the term “religion” is The Church of New Faith v Commissioner of Pay Roll Tax (1983) 154 CLR 120. In this case, the High Court of Australia (full court) unanimously held to be a religion, a church that followed the writings of the scientologist Ronald Hubbard (Church of New Faith).

In their deliberations, Wilson and Deane JJ held that the following principles could be used as indicators in determining whether a collection of ideas and practices constitute a religion:

• the ideas and practices involve belief in the supernatural;
• the ideas relate to people’s nature and place in the universe and their relation to things supernatural;
• the ideas are accepted by adherents as requiring or encouraging them to observe particular standards or codes of conduct or to participate in specific practices having supernatural significance;
• the adherents must constitute an identifiable group or identifiable groups;
• the adherents themselves see the collection of ideas and/or practices as constituting a religion.

In the same case, Mason ACJ and Brennan J held similarly, that a religion involves:

• belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle; and
• the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> The argument then is: Folau is doing his duty as a Christian through spreading the word of the lord and saving souls.
> So is this covered under 772 for religion or not?



Lots of religious people post their religious views on social media.  I personally have no problem with that.  
A few points:
Folau has no "duty" as such, else every other Christian would/should be doing similarly.
Folau exercised a freedom to express a religious belief, and had an opportunity to do it in a way which would not breach the Code of Conduct.  For reasons known only to him, he chose to express his views in a manner which the average person would likely deem inappropriate.  Some might say it was just silly, but some also found it disrespectful.  
There was an earlier comment about what if he posted a cartoon or similar.  The answer to that was learnt by the publishers of Charlie Hebdo.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Thought this was interesting:
> What constitutes a “religion”?
> The leading High Court case regarding the meaning of the term “religion” is The Church of New Faith v Commissioner of Pay Roll Tax (1983) 154 CLR 120. In this case, the High Court of Australia (full court) unanimously held to be a religion, a church that followed the writings of the scientologist Ronald Hubbard (Church of New Faith).
> 
> ...



"Jedi" and "church of the spaghetti monster" are a real thing.
I looked at it years ago and apparently if you can get so many people to join you can then apply to become a religion.


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm just surprised someone hasn't tried to play the race card yet.  I know it is utterly irrelevant,  but it almost always is,  when played.
> 
> The hierarchy of intersectionality is a curious thing.



I think ATM the LGBT card trumps it.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Lots of religious people post their religious views on social media.  I personally have no problem with that.
> A few points:
> Folau has no "duty" as such, else every other Christian would/should be doing similarly.
> Folau exercised a freedom to express a religious belief, and had an opportunity to do it in a way which would not breach the Code of Conduct.  For reasons known only to him, he chose to express his views in a manner which the average person would likely deem inappropriate.  Some might say it was just silly, but some also found it disrespectful.
> There was an earlier comment about what if he posted a cartoon or similar.  The answer to that was learnt by the publishers of Charlie Hebdo.



This is a big bulk of the argument which is intent. Interpretation shouldn't matter. His past history would then be scrutinized which is why I wondered about his "gay mag cover". An ordinary person especially a homophobe would not go on the cover.

His father is a pastor and from memory he gave up football and went on a religious mission. He routinely posts religious messages.

Everyone that has met him says he has treated them with respect.

If I  worked somewhere and was deeply religious. Then every afternoon after work I would stand on a soap box preaching bible quotes. Am I now going to be sacked for practicing my religion?


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> "Jedi" and "church of the spaghetti monster" are a real thing.
> I looked at it years ago and apparently if you can get so many people to join you can then apply to become a religion.



Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think ATM the LGBT card trumps it.



Well,  at least one person on this thread reckons that is "Bollocks"


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .



I was an employer and a regular at some of the meets.

One case I remember well, was an incident in which a staff member was stealing from the till. So they installed cameras above the counter and fired the girl when she was caught.
Well thats illegal so she got her job back and a payout.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .




As long as it isn't discrimination they would be fine.There are basics in the workplace laws to protect employers.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .



I say we start a "knock off at 1pm with full pay" religion, thats gotta get members.

I'll be high priest you can be altar boy.


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2019)

ANZ!

WTF? 

I wonder how many accounts will be closed today?


----------



## rederob (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> I'll be high priest you can be altar boy.










(What if Folau had just posted a picture of the cover of a lawful magazine?)


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

Well all employers require to do, is put general sweeping statements in conditions of employment and then make anything a sackable offence.
At the end of the day Folau made a sweeping statement of a very general and broad nature, there was no threat as 'hell' isn't a place, if that is grounds for dismissal it opens up pandora's box for employers.IMO
If he had said I wish to bash gays and lesbians, that is a whole new ball game, but he didn't threaten them in any way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well there is one thing for sure, it won't be a cheap case, as can be seen on here it is polarising and the outcome will have to be very measured. As it will effect all workplaces, people will be able to be sacked for what they say on social media, as long as the employers just put a general clause in their company policy.IMO



It will also have the practical effect of partially shutting down the "Left" side of politics.

Apart from the relative few who are employed by businesses which have a political leaning that way, the rest won't dare comment in anything which could be considered a public forum. Social media, traditional media, street marches and so on.

Every past issue from the Vietnam war and the Franklin dam to more recent ones like gay rights would have been substantially silenced if the masses were precluded from expressing their view at the time by means of newspapers, street marches or whatever.

Politically, if Floau loses then it's a win for the Liberals and a loss for the Greens and Labor since it's the latter two who will find their supporters silenced far more than the former given that business is more inclined toward conservative politics.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> If I  worked somewhere and was deeply religious. Then every afternoon after work I would stand on a soap box preaching bible quotes. Am I now going to be sacked for practicing my religion?



If your soap box is on company property then that's not acceptable.

If it's somewhere else, and you are not wearing a company uniform etc whilst doing it, well then no problem in my view. Obviously whoever owns the land has to agree to you using it but it's got nothing to do with your work.

Only exception would be if whatever you're preaching was against the business. Eg working for a commercial fishing company, and then getting on your box and telling everyone that eating fish is bad, would clearly be an attack on your employer's business and it seems reasonable for an employer to expect that their employees won't intentionally undermine the business.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> (What if Folau had just posted a picture of the cover of a lawful magazine?)



That is possible one of the most amusing things I've seen.


----------



## satanoperca (26 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> there was no threat as 'hell' isn't a place, i
> If he had said I wish to bash gays and lesbians, that is a whole new ball game, but he didn't threaten them in any way.




Your statements are incorrect. If religion is defined in believing in the supernatural, then by definition someone who's faith defines hell as a place, believes in it. By your definition, God doesn't exist and so therefore nor should religion - bit unfair on believers.

So he did threaten those that are gays/lesbian and believe in the Christian faith and so hence believe hell is a real place.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> So he did threaten those that are gays/lesbian and believe in the Christian faith and so hence believe hell is a real place.




Folau was merely repeating what the Bible said. If people in those categories were religious, then it was the Bible who threatened them , not Folau.

Folau has no power to send people to hell, it's like the President of Peru threatening people with nuclear devastation.  If you don't have the power to carry out a threat, it's not a threat.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well all employers require to do, is put general sweeping statements in conditions of employment and then make anything a sackable offence.




The ARU already has this , something to do with "actions contrary to the image of the game", which of course means anything they want it to mean.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If people in those categories were religious, then it was the Bible who threatened them , not Folau.



If you believe that hell exists then rationally you’d also believe that you’re going there if you sin.

It would seem somewhat ridiculous if someone claimed to believe one part of the Bible but takes offence at someone quoting a different page.


----------



## grah33 (26 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well all employers require to do, is put general sweeping statements in conditions of employment and then make anything a sackable offence.
> At the end of the day Folau made a sweeping statement of a very general and broad nature, there was no threat as 'hell' isn't a place, if that is grounds for dismissal it opens up pandora's box for employers.IMO
> If he had said I wish to bash gays and lesbians, that is a whole new ball game, but he didn't threaten them in any way.




Good point. One wonders why people are so concerned about his comments. Perhaps its existence (Hell) is a real possibility for many people, so they feel threatened or disturbed. It is argued that Hell must exist for there to be a moral order in the world. I have also been told that Aristotle , or someone else, derived its existence from philosophy. And Christ of course, who values spread everywhere, warned about it several times. I think Folau , in his own style, was just trying to help people.


----------



## satanoperca (26 June 2019)

Can any Christians on this forum point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell.


----------



## willoneau (26 June 2019)

If Folau was a nobody no one would care what he say's and this wouldn't be news.


----------



## Logique (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Given Christians make up a large portion of the world and the subsequent backlash. I'm not sure RA really made best use of the situation.
> Raelene Castle has damaged the brand possibly to the point of bankruptcy. The *damage* *RA *[Rugby Australia]* has done* in handling the situation *far outweighs what Folau posted*.



Spot on mate


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Lots of religious people post their religious views on social media.  I personally have no problem with that.
> A few points:
> Folau has no "duty" as such, else every other Christian would/should be doing similarly.
> Folau exercised a freedom to express a religious belief, and had an opportunity to do it in a way which would not breach the Code of Conduct.  For reasons known only to him, he chose to express his views in a manner which the average person would likely deem inappropriate.  Some might say it was just silly, but some also found it disrespectful.
> There was an earlier comment about what if he posted a cartoon or similar.  The answer to that was learnt by the publishers of Charlie Hebdo.




The religion thing in this issue has been blown out of proportion.

I see no reason that religious expression should be given any more right than political expression or social expression or engineering expression or scientific expression.

The point is the ability/right to voice an opinion on ANY subject that the employee chooses without retaliation by their employer (unless expression of those views causes a reduction of ability of the employee to perform their employment duties).

Those rights should be codified in a Bill of Rights if necessary and should not be diminished by any contract of employment.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

A related thought is that I’m sure there’s plenty of employers who would have conservative moral views in general.

So is a ban on employees using Tinder appropriate? Or even any dating website? Or what about attending nightclubs and being photographed? Lots of sins in those places.

Or what if your boss is racist and sexist? They can’t apply that at work but they could ban you from any comment online in support of equality.

It all seems a very dangerous slippery slope to me.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Can any Christians on this forum point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell.



Being homosexual isn't a sin. Its the same sex bonking that is.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Can any Christians on this forum point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell.




Is Satan making the point Heaven and Hell are Man made concepts not specifically in the Bible


----------



## satanoperca (26 June 2019)

Thanks Moxjo, can you provide the reference in the bible where it states that same sex bonding is


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (26 June 2019)

*Galatians 5:19-21*
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Can any Christians on this forum point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell.





Not a Christian but have read the Bible

Just note that this is from Paul and translated from Greek of which there is some debate amongst scholars (isnt there always) as to what the correct translation should be as a word (not know)has been changed into two words in regard to the homosexual bit.

BTW JC didn't run down gays.

*1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New King James Version (NKJV)*
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2019)

Lots of different translations.

https://www2.bc.edu/james-bretzke/1Corinthians6TranslationsCompared.pdf


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Thanks Moxjo, can you provide the reference in the bible where it states that same sex bonding is



And Folau's post was taken from here:

*Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11, CSB)*


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

We are all in hell with the gays anyway. Everything's a bloody sin.


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

Some discussion here worth a read.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfun...ring-the-confusion-about-1-corinthians-69-10/

This bit may disqualify him "Unfundamentalist "

*Dan Wilkinson*

Dan is the Executive Editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians blog


----------



## IFocus (26 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> We are all in hell with the gays anyway. Everything's a bloody sin.





Not if you repent before dying......time yet Mo 

I make a few in that list of sinners........


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Your statements are incorrect. If religion is defined in believing in the supernatural, then by definition someone who's faith defines hell as a place, believes in it. By your definition, God doesn't exist and so therefore nor should religion - bit unfair on believers.
> 
> So he did threaten those that are gays/lesbian and believe in the Christian faith and so hence believe hell is a real place.



I can't wait to see that theory tested in court.
For there to be a viable threat, there has to be an ability to carry out the threat.
So how was Folau going to carry out his threat? ring god and tell him another is on the way, send the elevator down.
A bit like going to the police and saying your wife threatened to beat you to death, with a pigeon feather, I know who they would lock up.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2019)

ANZ and HCF giving out moral advice/direction is a bit rich isn't it.

Sleeping giants must be doing overtime.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 June 2019)

Taking a broader approach to all this it would seem to be part of a broader movement.

Post WW2 through to the 90's the concept of freedom of speech was beyond challenge. There was plenty of disagreement and debate over various things but rarely did anyone try to actually silence their opponents. Freedom of speech was seen as a higher principle above any particular issue.

Today however we have Trump, Brexit, trade wars, "fake news", clearly slanted reporting in the mainstream media and what amounts to the gagging of dissent, albeit only partially effective, in various forms via increasing restrictions online and in what traditional media will publish.

As an investor I'm taking the pragmatic approach with history as a guide and noting that rising nationalism, falling trade, open propaganda and a silencing of dissent are all preludes to war.

That may seem a bit extreme but the Folau saga is really just another example of the trend. It's like another random big storm that's part of a changing climate or another random small business closing that's part of a recession. Of itself not of major consequence, I doubt too many will miss one rugby player, but it's the trend that's important here in terms of where things are going. The Folau controversy won't cause a war of course but it's a symptom of the much broader trend in society.

So what's the best way to invest in war? I don't like it but a lot of things seem to be pointing that way so may as well try and make a profit out of it I suppose.


----------



## sptrawler (26 June 2019)

I hope you are wrong smurf, but it would sort out a lot of the Worlds fiscal imbalance, everyone taking about $300trillion, billion, zillion of debt.
If you have a war, it all gets reset, currencies and Countries debts become forgotten and production is ramped up. LNG export would be curtailed and domestic supply wouldn't be a problem, furnaces would re open or be re built.
Free movement of traveler's stops, drugs become a minor issue, because the young are off fighting and those at home are more concerned about food.
Then when the war finishes, the Countries sit around a table and decide how much each economy is worth, and with that the value of their currency.
It would be very interesting. IMO


----------



## PZ99 (27 June 2019)

Been avoiding this subject since my last post but since it's all over the 'net and I'm curious about what others think on this...

_It’s a debate that’s gripped Australia. Take our poll on the seven key questions at the heart of Israel Folau’s fight against his rugby bosses.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...u/news-story/95f75461fbb7bae32c41aefbe042e2f0

My responses in blue:



Spoiler































_


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (27 June 2019)

Israel Folau to appear on Alan Jones 's Sky News show tonight. I know you'll all be glued.
Remember, Jones has as much beef with R.A. as he does with Labor.


----------



## IFocus (27 June 2019)

This is worth a read from a gay

Makes the point of double standards quite well


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ree-speech-that-keeps-gays-in-the-firing-line


----------



## wayneL (27 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> This is worth a read from a gay
> 
> Makes the point of double standards quite well
> 
> ...



Hilarious! The left decrying double standards...  That's really funny


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

It could have been a lot worse, imagine if Folau had said sinners have to do active military service, on Battlestar Galactica. Never to be allowed to return to Earth, unless they rid the Universe of Klingon's, now I could understand him getting sacked for that.


----------



## IFocus (27 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Hilarious! The left decrying double standards...  That's really funny




No not left but a perspective from a gay person interesting that religious organisations (not all) expect freedom to discriminate against others and yet cry foul if they feel discriminated against or their freedoms are constrained.

Note the number of people thrown out of religious organisations for saying things they don't agree with.

The whole thing cuts both ways.

Also note the difference between freedom and privilege.

BTW the only surprise from PZ's polls was the gofundme vote


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

They have stopped taking donations.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...r-passing-2-million-mark-20190627-p521tg.html


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> This is worth a read from a gay
> 
> Makes the point of double standards quite well
> 
> ...



Hmm another white guy stepping on legal rights of coloured people. Its like a reverse 1960s rights protest in which we lynch the darkie.

I haven't seen anything like it. Its funny stuff. Both left and right are doing some polar opposite things during this whole event.
Fertile ground for my kinda stirring.


----------



## wayneL (27 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> No not left but a perspective from a gay person interesting that religious organisations (not all) expect freedom to discriminate against others and yet cry foul if they feel discriminated against or their freedoms are constrained.
> 
> Note the number of people thrown out of religious organisations for saying things they don't agree with.
> 
> ...



In principle I agree with your points,  but what makes me laugh is that the left are (currently) the worst transgressors of the principle


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> This is worth a read from a gay
> 
> Makes the point of double standards quite well




It does but two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes.

Rather than silencing Folau I'd take the opposite approach and deal with the problems with churches.

In the same way that rather than making everyone poor because some people are poor, I'd rather overcome the problem by putting those who are poor due to unemployment etc into paid work with decent wages and paying sensible rates of welfare to those genuinely unable to work.

Same with anything. If my house is flooded then setting yours on fire isn't resolving anything. Better to stop the source of the water, dry the place out and replace the carpets.


----------



## IFocus (27 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It does but two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes.
> 
> Rather than silencing Folau I'd take the opposite approach and deal with the problems with churches.




Take on the churches and you will be burned at the stake 

Important to understand Folau doesn't represent all Christians or most churches he condemns Idolators which is the Roman Catholic Church..........funny how they have remained silent no doubt happy some one else takes the spot light.   

Personally I don't really care either way but I do think long term this will damage Christians as a whole.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It does but two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes.
> 
> Rather than silencing Folau I'd take the opposite approach and deal with the problems with churches.




Indeed so. David Marr was just on ABC saying that a chemistry teacher in a religious school should not be sacked for being an atheist. I agree as I think it comes down to what the person was employed to do. Do religious views have any effect on a persons ability to teach chemistry ? No. Should the chemistry teacher be sacked ? No.

Do Folau's religious views have any effect on his ability to play football ? No. Should he be sacked ? No.

QED.


----------



## Macquack (27 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> This is worth a read from a gay
> 
> Makes the point of double standards quite well
> 
> ...



The following quote from the article has been pretty much overlooked:-

"For a million bucks a year, he agreed to go easy on denouncing, among other vices, the evils of homosexuality. He traded his freedom of speech."

I thought the same, as in, did Folau sell his soul when he signed the Rugby Australia contract. If he changed his mind, fair enough, except he then broke the conditions specified in  the contract. Is that the actions of an honourable person?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> I thought the same, as in, did Folau sell his soul when he signed the Rugby Australia contract. If he changed his mind, fair enough, except he then broke the conditions specified in the contract. Is that the actions of an honourable person?




He's probably trying to test whether the code of conduct is lawful if applied to his private life.


----------



## Macquack (27 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> He's probably trying to test whether the code of conduct is lawful if applied to his private life.



I don't think it is his private life when he posts it on the internet.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

It is starting to get interesting.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...settlement-on-folau-saga-20190627-p521yw.html

From the article:
_Folau rejected overtures of a settlement worth half the value of his four-year, $4 million contract, before his code of conduct hearing last month and spoke in church of such a compromise being the devil's work_.

And this:
_Davis conceded Folau's attitude appeared to be hardened against a compromise but said RA and NSW Rugby had to keep trying.

"I would like to believe it was possible," he said. "Common sense is the least common of our senses at times but everyone's got until tomorrow and we are trying to encourage people to mediate and find a middle ground. But it takes two to tango_.

I would suggest sphincter's are tightening.
Maybe if they had shown a bit of common sense, they wouldn't be in the predicament, it's a bit rich to belittle someone, then try and buy them off to cover the fopaux. IMO


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> He's probably trying to test whether the code of conduct is lawful if applied to his private life.



Also whether they can dictate, how he wishes to voice his religious beliefs.

I'm not religious and neither pro or anti gay, I'm just a live and let live sort of person, but the way the virtue signalers have gone after him is appalling. IMO
I hope he kicks their butts, all over the court system, it's about time someone stood up to the bullies.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> I don't think it is his private life when he posts it on the internet.




If he makes comments in his own time then it's his private life.


----------



## satanoperca (27 June 2019)

Wow, you guys still going on about this. Talk about kindergarten childen trying to discuss economics, great enthusiasm, little knowledge.

For what is it worth this is the most insightful comment I have read so far :

"
ThinkitThrough

1 hour ago

*1. There should not be a religious freedom argument in this case.*
What Folau posted was not a religious passage - it was a *meme *expressing an opinion. It is irrelevant if Folau has arrived at that opinion via his interpretation of a faith. *He did not post a scripture or religious text*. He posted a personal view or his agreement with the meme maker's personal view.
*
2. Freedom of speech has not been impeded.*
Folau is/was employed in a capacity that not only needs his atheletic talent, but requires him to be a publicly recognised 'figure head' or representative of a number of brands and sporting associations.

When employed in a 'representative' capacity of any brand, it standard measure to ensure that the views you make public are not in conflict with your employers 'brand' image. When you agree to receiving a pay cheque in this capacity, it represents the compensation you receive for agreeing to the contract terms, which may include rules and expectations for publicly made comments/appearances/opinions etc.

*If you choose to make conflicting or "off brand" opinions public, then you do so accepting the consequence that you may no longer be employed as a representative of those "brand/s"*.

You do however, retain the freedom to make your views public.
*No one is suggesting Folau be imprisoned, fined or personally prosecuted for his opinion - which is what freedom of speech protects*.
He was free to say what he wanted and no one is suggesting he should be 'gagged'. However, he must also accept his employment consequences as a brand representative.

The 'issues' here are misleading, a waste of resources, media coverage and public attention. "

But don't worry about the detail, everything should be decided upon with emotion and not fact or logic, lol


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Wow, you guys still going on about this.




So are you.


----------



## satanoperca (27 June 2019)

oh please old man, do I need to compile a chart showing your contribution to this thread against every other poster.

Anyone with the nic prefixed with Sir, I Satan, the believer in the supernatural and all things that cannot be proven, places the following upon SirRumple, his/hers family and associated family and friend the following:
"I Satan curse you, your children, family and friends to ill health and sickness for as long as the curse holder(Satan) wishes (eternity) For every time you or your loved ones fall sick, are in illness or die, it was the result of your ignorance SirRumple that this situation resulted, due to your comments and beliefs, Satan places this curse on you. 
Be warned, that Satan has placed this curse on only three people in 20 years, 2 of those people died with 14 days and the third lives with great health, but their loved ones have not, his wife died within weeks and both his children were in a horrible car accident, that is the power of the supernatural and of belief"


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (27 June 2019)

Does it come across as any surprise that Satan himself is against Christians expressing their religion lol.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 June 2019)

To suggest that freedom of speech is not impeded by means of an employment contract precluding it has a lot in common with saying that the law does not impede drink driving or murder.

Indeed it doesn't, the law in no way physically stops you or me from driving under the influence of alcohol or from murdering someone. It does however impose significant penalties if caught doing so, and in the case of murder a major effort is made to find the offender, such that in practice the punishment as per the law is a very strong deterrent.

Likewise being sacked is a very strong deterrent to speaking out and one which would stop 95%+ of people from doing so.

Journalists having their homes raided by the AFP is likewise a form of deterrent to publishing their views. Doesn't physically stop them but it's a very strong deterrent to doing it.

Likewise sending someone to prison for blowing the whistle on the actions of a government department also doesn't stop anyone from doing so. Being locked up will deter 99%+ of people from doing it however.

And so on. Seems to be a pattern forming here and all of those actions are a clamp on freedom of speech in practice.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> oh please old man, do I need to compile a chart showing your contribution to this thread against every other poster.
> 
> Anyone with the nic prefixed with Sir, I Satan, the believer in the supernatural and all things that cannot be proven, places the following upon SirRumple, his/hers family and associated family and friend the following:
> "I Satan curse you, your children, family and friends to ill health and sickness for as long as the curse holder(Satan) wishes (eternity) For every time you or your loved ones fall sick, are in illness or die, it was the result of your ignorance SirRumple that this situation resulted, due to your comments and beliefs, Satan places this curse on you.
> Be warned, that Satan has placed this curse on only three people in 20 years, 2 of those people died with 14 days and the third lives with great health, but their loved ones have not, his wife died within weeks and both his children were in a horrible car accident, that is the power of the supernatural and of belief"




You should be sacked.

You would be if you played rugby.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> When employed in a 'representative' capacity of any brand, it standard measure to ensure that the views you make public are not in conflict with your employers 'brand' image. When you agree to receiving a pay cheque in this capacity, it represents the compensation you receive for agreeing to the contract terms, which may include rules and expectations for publicly made comments/appearances/opinions etc.
> 
> l



Therein is where the issue lies, R.A isn't a LGBT organisation, it is a sporting code that recognises and respects the rights and equality of that community.
That doesn't mean the rugby code is tarnished, because someone who plays rugby, says something that offends the LGBT community as the two are not directly connected.
Therefore to terminate someone on those grounds, will be a long bow to draw. IMO
If he had said all gay rugby players will go to hell, then he is making the connection, he didn't make that connection. 
He said something in a general sense, from a writing in a religious book, R.A tried to make that connection and it is a very thin connection.
Deep manure. IMO 
I could be wrong, but sacking someone shouldn't be taken lightly, which I think R.A did.


----------



## satanoperca (27 June 2019)

Sorry, Sptrawler, while I have respected your contribution to this forum, you are no different, so I as Satan, place the same curse on you and your family as I have placed on Sir


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Sorry, Sptrawler, while I have respected your contribution to this forum, you are no different, so I as Satan, place the same curse on you and your family as I have placed on Sir



Oh well I guess I will have to get my house in order, thanks mate and what about the two cruises I've booked later in the year.


----------



## Macquack (27 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> IMO
> I hope he kicks their butts, all over the court system, it's about time someone stood up to the bullies.



I hope RA kicks Folau's butt all the way to French Rugby. He breached his contract and his cries of freedom of religion is a crock of sh*t. One man's free speech is another man's hate speech.


----------



## sptrawler (27 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> I hope RA kicks Folau's butt all the way to French Rugby. He breached his contract and his cries of freedom of religion is a crock of sh*t. One man's free speech is another man's hate speech.



Yep, grab the rope and the pitchforks.


----------



## satanoperca (27 June 2019)

You might get through the first cruise, but the second, lost at sea it might be


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> "I Satan curse you,



Wait.... I thought your handle was named after a fish?


----------



## SirRumpole (27 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Satan places this curse on you.




Sounds like he did it to you some time ago.


----------



## satanoperca (27 June 2019)

that is for you and others to interpret.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

Is anyone NOT getting a laugh out of the last two pages?

Today the War begins. So Folau seeks 5 mil in lost salary and 5 mil in lost sponsorship. So take Folau's salary over 10 years and double it possibly, bit less maybe.

Donations page was a disgrace. Will someone please think of the children.


----------



## Logique (28 June 2019)

Issie just wants an apology, and an admission that Rugby Australia got this wrong.

If this ends up as a lawyers picnic, it will be down to Rugby Australia's intransigence.

Behave like a leader [RA CEO] Raelene Castle, that's why you're paid the big money. You weren't hired to be a social justice warrior.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

Logique said:


> Issie just wants an apology, and an admission that Rugby Australia got this wrong.
> .




And 10 million dollars. 

London to a brick Alan Joyce put pressure on RA or Castle felt pressured. Listening to Joyce before all this I developed a distrust of him.


----------



## Logique (28 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> And 10 million dollars.
> London to a brick Alan Joyce put pressure on RA or Castle felt pressured. Listening to Joyce before all this I developed a distrust of him.



We should tread with caution DK, wouldn't want to be cast into hellfire and eternal damnation, along with SirR in posts above. Just a bit of levity


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Is anyone NOT getting a laugh out of the last two pages?
> 
> Today the War begins. So Folau seeks 5 mil in lost salary and 5 mil in lost sponsorship. So take Folau's salary over 10 years and double it possibly, bit less maybe.
> 
> Donations page was a disgrace. Will someone please think of the children.



The donations page isn't a disgrace, untill it is miss spent, the donations page has put a huge psychological pressure on R.A.
If Folau had to self fund a defence, the likely hood that he would accept a settlement, would be much greater. 
Knowing that he can take it to the high court makes R.A's stance become much more onerous.
I assume the pressure was put on 'go fund me', to make Folau capitulate, which if so is just bully tactics.
If R.A capitulate and pay Folao out, I would suspect the money will be not called upon and the donations returned.
Just my opinion


----------



## rederob (28 June 2019)

Let's just quote from the Bible to show why *religious freedoms* make quoting from it can be disrespectful and inappropriate:

 Timothy 2:12 - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
Deuteronomy 20:16 - "However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes."
Psalm 137 - "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
Ephesians 5:22 - "Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They must surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Anyone can quote from the Bible to justify the most obnoxious and vile things.  But most people are smarter than that.
Folau is not smart, and has not worked out we are in the 21st century.


----------



## Logique (28 June 2019)

"_‘Shut up’ in the Name of ‘Tolerance’"_
27th June 2019 - by Mark Powell, Quadrant Online
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/06/shut-up-in-the-name-of-tolerance/
_"...suggesting a list of ten people and corporations—who have pitilessly joined in on the “pack-attack” against Folau:...."_


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Let's just quote from the Bible to show why *religious freedoms* make quoting from it can be disrespectful and inappropriate:
> 
> Timothy 2:12 - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
> Deuteronomy 20:16 - "However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes."
> ...



Well then the bible should be banned or edited, currently it isn't and underpins a lot of our social structure.
But it isn't against the law to quote from it, or priests would be getting sued every weekend.
It will be interesting to watch R.A, rather than listening to left wing bush lawyers.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The donations page isn't a disgrace, untill it is miss spent, the donations page has put a huge psychological pressure on R.A.
> If Folau had to self fund a defence, the likely hood that he would accept a settlement, would be much greater.
> Knowing that he can take it to the high court makes R.A's stance become much more onerous.
> I assume the pressure was put on 'go fund me', to make Folau capitulate, which if so is just bully tactics.
> ...




And how much are Alan Joyce and all the other Sporting codes chipping in behind closed doors to help RA, knowing it's such a test case.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> And how much are Alan Joyce and all the other Sporting codes chipping in behind closed doors to help RA, knowing it's such a test case.



I don't know, I'm just glad Folao is standing his ground, it is nothing more than left wing bullying in the public arena. IMO
R.A wanted to big note itself, I think they have shot their feet off, but it's only my guess.
It is quite funny R.A taking the high moral ground, when you hear about the end of year antics, rugby clubs get up to.lol
I think they have picked the wrong wagon, to tie up to. just my opinion


----------



## moXJO (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Let's just quote from the Bible to show why *religious freedoms* make quoting from it can be disrespectful and inappropriate:
> 
> Timothy 2:12 - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
> Deuteronomy 20:16 - "However, in the cities of the nations that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes."
> ...




So you want the law to change to fit your position?

I can quote from the "woke society" a lot worse then that. 
Maybe we should make prosecution of discrimination free and really send society down the toilet.

This is the worst that "bubble wrap society" has so far come up with.
I don't care if people get outraged, thats their right. Legislation under mob outrage however, thats something I don't agree with.


----------



## rederob (28 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> So you want the law to change to fit your position?



RA have a  position, and required a player under contract to abide by a respectful code of conduct. 
Nobody is suggesting any laws be changed.  Except Folau believes he has a right to say whatever he likes, if that is what he believes.  Presently there *ARE *laws that preclude that conduct.
And I dare say most people are more respectful of their work colleagues than Folau has been.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Nobody is suggesting any laws be changed




The test will be whether a code of conduct in an employment contract can override basic rights like freedom of expression.

If they can there is something wrong about Contract Law that needs to be fixed.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The test will be whether a code of conduct in an employment contract can override basic rights like freedom of expression.
> 
> If they can there is something wrong about Contract Law that needs to be fixed.



As Rob has pointed out the bible is littered with comments, that could constitute a code breach and end up as this has, so in reality R.A would be better served putting in a clause that no religious person can play. But wouldn't that be discrimination?


----------



## rederob (28 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The test will be whether a code of conduct in an employment contract can override basic rights like freedom of expression.
> If they can there is something wrong about Contract Law that needs to be fixed.



They already do, and that is precisely the point. 
It is absolutely unlawful for employers and employees to vilify others on specific grounds or to discriminate on the grounds of sex or race.  A principle of the Sex Discrimination Act is that it seeks to create recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women.


----------



## moXJO (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> RA have a  position, and required a player under contract to abide by a respectful code of conduct.
> Nobody is suggesting any laws be changed.  Except Folau believes he has a right to say whatever he likes, if that is what he believes.  Presently there *ARE *laws that preclude that conduct.
> And I dare say most people are more respectful of their work colleagues than Folau has been.



Once again, interpretation of the quote.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> They already do, and that is precisely the point.
> It is absolutely unlawful for employers and employees to vilify others on specific grounds or to discriminate on the grounds of sex or race.  A principle of the Sex Discrimination Act is that it seeks to create recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the equality of men and women.




It comes down to what discrimination means.

It* should *mean the denial of service based on certain grounds, not mere criticism.

Everyone can get criticised but apparently only minorities get protection from it.


----------



## rederob (28 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Once again, interpretation of the quote.



Courts can also use evidence.  In that regard there is already an abundance, so RA would not have a problem on that count.


SirRumpole said:


> It comes don to what discrimination means.
> It* should *mean the denial of service based on certain grounds, not mere criticism.
> Everyone can get criticised but apparently only minorities get protection from it.



I am pretty sure the courts are clued up on what "discrimination" means.  Treating one person less favourably than another is not that hard to work out.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

The Fair Work Commission is for whimps, this is where the real action is.

I want Mo in my corner for my next legal battle.

Rob, do you know the difference between the Old and New Testaments and their significance to Christianity? Obviously not I assume. I hope that post of yours wasn't a "rope a dope" coz it worked - it drew me in.

And we're off and racing again 

*Exit stage left*


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I am pretty sure the courts are clued up on what "discrimination" means. Treating one person less favourably than another is not that hard to work out.




So lets say an employer who is a member of the Liberal Party sacks an employee for critisising the Liberal Party on social media.

Fair ?


----------



## rederob (28 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So lets say an employer who is a member of the Liberal Party sacks an employee for critisising the Liberal Party on social media.  Fair ?



Unless the nature of the employee's contract conditions are known we cannot tell.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Unless the nature of the employee's contract conditions are known we cannot tell.




_"The employee must not make inappropriate posts on social media to disparage or show favoritism for any political party which may harm the interests of the business."_

Fair ?


----------



## rederob (28 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> _"The employee must not make inappropriate posts on social media to disparage or show favoritism for any political party which may harm the interests of the business."_



Employers have a legal right to protect their brand from damage by employees.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Employers have a legal right to protect their brand from damage by employees.



In an appropriate manner, one feels sacking, may have been somewhat excessive and possibly vindictive.
Which therefore becomes unfair dismissal.
I wonder if all this will have any effect on R.A,s CEO,s career? That is if we are talking about protecting the brands image.lol


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

Off to the Federal Court

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/israel-folau-wants-rugby-australia-to-apologise/11259972


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Employers have a legal right to protect their brand from damage by employees.




In whose opinion is damage done and how is it quantified ?


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Off to the Federal Court
> 
> https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/israel-folau-wants-rugby-australia-to-apologise/11259972



That's good at least now a line an be drawn, one way or another, it is obvious that is required.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That's good at least now a line an be drawn, one way or another, it is obvious that is required.




We know Folau has 2 million at least, probably more. R.A. would probably have a few donors. Should be a ding dong battle.
Anyone going lol?


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

The lawyers will be chucking a party over this one.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> We know Folau has 2 million at least, probably more. R.A. would probably have a few donors. Should be a ding dong battle.
> Anyone going lol?




I hope it's televised.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (28 June 2019)

I wish this was televised!


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> I wish this was televised!




So do I. Might get some payments at least until Joe sacks me.


----------



## Macquack (28 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So do I. Might get some payments at least until Joe sacks me.



If this test case goes the way you are suggesting, Joe will never be able to sack anyone ever because of their right to free speech.

Remember Calliope, he was sent packing from ASF because of his unwanted comments. He may have to be reinstated and compensated for his time in exile.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> If this test case goes the way you are suggesting, Joe will never be able to sack anyone ever because of their right to free speech.
> 
> Remember Calliope, he was sent packing from ASF because of his unwanted comments. He may have to be reinstated and compensated for his time in exile.




Well, Joe is not paying us a salary, and we didn't sign a contract so I guess that's a different issue.


----------



## Macquack (28 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, Joe is not paying us a salary, and we didn't sign a contract so I guess that's a different issue.



That reminds me, I recall Joe initially paid the original members of ASF a token amount of money to get them to sign up. Is that not "consideration", one key component of a contract? Also, you don't have to have a "signed" contract to have a contract.


----------



## Joe Blow (28 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> That reminds me, I recall Joe initially paid the original members of ASF a token amount of money to get them to sign up. Is that not "consideration", one key component of a contract?




For the record, I never actually paid out any money. I put the offer out there back in the beginning but nobody took me up on it.

The only time people get "sacked" is when they are more trouble than they're worth. And that takes some doing. All I ask is that people don't cause trouble. Those who don't cause trouble will never hear from me. I don't want to have to pull anyone up. I do it reluctantly and when my hand is forced. 

Be nice. That's the secret. Be like @Smurf1976. If everyone was like Smurf, my job would be a walk in the park.


----------



## Macquack (28 June 2019)

Joe Blow said:


> The only time people get "sacked" is when they are more trouble than they're worth. And that takes some doing. All I ask is that people don't cause trouble.



Folau was causing Rugby Australia "more trouble than he was worth", so they sacked him.

Using that analogy, Joe do you agree with Rugby Australia's actions?


----------



## Joe Blow (28 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau was causing Rugby Australia "more trouble than he was worth", so they sacked him.
> 
> Using that analogy, Joe do you agree with Rugby Australia's actions?




I don't like to get drawn into these type of debates, but I'll say this. I believe in free speech. But I also believe in contracts because they are necessary. I think Folau has the right to say whatever he wants to. Rugby Australia believes his "speech" was in violation of the contract he signed. Folau believes it wasn't. So it's now a contract dispute.

I think Rugby Australia is trying to protect its brand. And as a sporting organisation they are particularly vulnerable to political correctness. So I think it's a bit of both. Brand protection and yielding to political correctness.

Would I have sacked him? Probably not. Back before the internet we would have called him a Bible basher. He wouldn't have been taken seriously. But these days, for some reason, he is. As Bob Dylan said, the times, they are a changin'.


----------



## sptrawler (28 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Folau was causing Rugby Australia "more trouble than he was worth", so they sacked him.
> 
> Using that analogy, Joe do you agree with Rugby Australia's actions?



That may be very true, he might be disruptive in the team, with his strong views, whether the issue they sacked him for is sufficient is the question.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 June 2019)

Joe Blow said:


> But these days, for some reason, he is.




The reason, imo is the rise of the loony left and the politically correct brigade causing a few layers of skin to be peeled off some groups.

Believe me, some groups have been treated terribly by a small section of society and their rights need to be protected, but not to the extent that they are immune from all criticism or scrutiny.

A case that comes to mind is of a Labor candidate in the last election who criticised the actions of the Israeli government in the Gaza strip, and overnight she became an anti-Semite and had to resign. 

She apparently had insulted all the Jews in the country who had been here for 50 years and had nothing to do with the Israeli government. No one seemed to ask the question whether what she said was true or not, she was shouted down by a mob intent on defending anything the Israeli government does, right or not.

That's where we have got to in this country, reason has been replaced by emotional knee jerk responses.


----------



## bellenuit (28 June 2019)

My first comment on this issue.....

If Folau had prefixed his comment with "The Bible says.....", then I think RA would have no case against him (although from what I have read, the Bible does not say "go to Hell", but "will not enter  the kingdom of Heaven"). I can't see how saying something true can be a cause for dismissal (unless it pertains to company secrets or something of that nature). If he then followed it up with "and I believe the Bible is right", then we would be back where we are now.

I am really glad this has gone to the High Court as I am really interested in how this turns out. I believe in free speech, but companies also have the right to demand employees act within certain boundaries, in and outside the work environment. That doesn't prevent free speech as the employee always has the option to resign. But of concern to me would be what boundaries should a company be allowed to set. 

I have not taken a position on this case as I can see both points of view. But I do believe RA over reacted and probably have scored an own goal when it comes to brand damage.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 June 2019)

bellenuit said:


> But of concern to me would be what boundaries should a company be allowed to set



That’s what it largely comes down to.

For example I can see as reasonable a requirement that employees not comment publicly on a company’s finances but it would in my view be going way too far to ban employees from being a member of this forum and discussing any other listed company.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (29 June 2019)

Prior to all this Folau was the number one drawcard for the Wobblies. The ONLY reason a lot of people would tune in to watch them play was to see Folau's dominance and athletism.

To say it was just a damage of the brand thing is strange. Perhaps the insulting of Drunks hurt them more.


----------



## Logique (29 June 2019)

Indeed, who is standing up for the Drunks and Fornicators!

As for the Issie case, many predicted this was coming during the same sex marriage debate.

If we thought it might be a cake baker or wedding planner, a football player is probably a desirable target for them.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (29 June 2019)

bellenuit said:


> (although from what I have read, the Bible does not say "go to Hell", but "will not enter  the kingdom of Heaven"). I




Sort of. The Book of Revelations makes mention of what happens to those "bad guys"; "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Revelations 21.8.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> For example I can see as reasonable a requirement that employees not comment publicly on a company’s finances but it would in my view be going way too far to ban employees from being a member of this forum and discussing any other listed company.



Nothing prevents people from saying things which do not break laws or breach contracts.
It is a nonsense to say or think that "free speech" means you have open slather.


----------



## IFocus (29 June 2019)

bellenuit said:


> My first comment on this issue.....
> 
> If Folau had prefixed his comment with "The Bible says.....", then I think RA would have no case against him (although from what I have read, the Bible does not say "go to Hell", but "will not enter  the kingdom of Heaven"). I can't see how saying something true can be a cause for dismissal (unless it pertains to company secrets or something of that nature). If he then followed it up with "and I believe the Bible is right", then we would be back where we are now.




Have heard this opinion a few times as Folau didn't quote the bible but posted as a Meme.

I think Joes dissection is pretty close.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

I seem to recall that players who got drunk off duty or involved in fights thereby bringing the game into disrepute got a couple of weeks off or a fine.

That the ARU got it's knickers in a twist regarding Folau shows just how they have been got at by the nanny Stateists.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I seem to recall that players who got drunk off duty or involved in fights thereby bringing the game into disrepute got a couple of weeks off or a fine.
> 
> That the ARU got it's knickers in a twist regarding Folau shows just how they have been got at by the nanny Stateists.




I know Wayne Bennett occassionly tells his Players (or used to) to have a night on the lunatic soup. One of the games greatest ever Coaches.

In the old days a bulking routine would consist of a Beer or two with Meals.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> That the ARU got it's knickers in a twist regarding Folau shows just how they have been got at by the nanny Stateists.



Given that sponsors of sport are distancing themselves from the Folau's it suggests they understand the commercial implications of such commentary.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that sponsors of sport are distancing themselves from the Folau's it suggests they understand the commercial implications of such commentary.




The Folau's may suffer personal sponsorship loss, that's their problem, it's another matter if the ARU sack him for "perceived" damage where none actually exists.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that sponsors of sport are distancing themselves from the Folau's it suggests they understand the commercial implications of such commentary.




More drunks, fornicators, liars and thieves than homosexuals. That's one massive market segment to lose.
Particularly as VB, Tooheys and XXXX are big sponsors of Sport .,.. er wait. Not anymore.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (29 June 2019)

You reckon Alan Joyce isn't sweating bullets. Not only are the homosexuals going to Hell but so are the Liars and Thieves


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Nothing prevents people from saying things which do not break laws or breach contracts.
> It is a nonsense to say or think that "free speech" means you have open slather.



The issue is what is reasonable to be in a contract in the first place.

For example if political party x winning the next election would reduce your business profits then should you be allowed to prohibit your employees posting anything online which is in any way supportive of that party?

Or if your business serves a mostly conservative demographic then should you be able to direct one of your employees who happens to be gay that whilst you personally have no problem with this, it’s a bad look for the business so they mustn’t make it known publicly. Is that reasonable?

My own view is firmly that no such restrictions should be permitted.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The Folau's may suffer personal sponsorship loss, that's their problem, it's another matter if the ARU sack him for "perceived" damage where none actually exists.



That is my opinion also Rumpy, if R.A was an organisation that specifically employed gays then it may be another matter, but it doesn't it isn't a prerequisite.
The other thing is if R.A gets away with sacking him, for such a general religious statement, against a group that they are not in anyway directly connected to. Will it therefore be possible for gays to individually sue a religious person for quoting the bible, on the grounds of defamation?
It is certainly a test case that requires running and the Muppets that think it will only cost $100k or so, are dreaming.IMO


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue is what is reasonable to be in a contract in the first place.



What RA had in its Code of Conduct was lawful.  It's Code was part of the contract.
I do not find your examples particularly meaningful.


Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> More drunks, fornicators, liars and thieves than homosexuals. That's one massive market segment to lose.



Except the sponsors are not suggesting these people are sinners or will go to hell, and nor is RA.  I think you have it back to front.


SirRumpole said:


> The Folau's may suffer personal sponsorship loss, that's their problem, it's another matter if the ARU sack him for "perceived" damage where none actually exists.



He was not sacked for what you claim.  
The fact that Folau was dumped by ASICS clearly shows that businesses are damaged by brand ambassadors who disrespect their market.  These are "real" actions and *not *perceptions.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The other thing is if R.A gets away with sacking him, for such a general religious statement, against a group that they are not in anyway directly connected to. Will it therefore be possible for gays to individually sue a religious person for quoting the bible, on the grounds of defamation?



Just remember that RA does not care what religion Folau follows, so the rest of your commentary is a non sequitur.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (29 June 2019)

@rederob I was making the comparison that the drunk, fornicator, athiest etc market is bigger in Football than would be the homosexual market. So screaming homophobia  doesn't add up, they shoulda screamed drunkophobia etc.

Secondly, Rugby Union is generally played in Private Schools too. Public Schools play Rugby League. Private Schools are generally christian schools so R.A. have shot themselves massively.
Alan Joyce has to have interfered imo.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> The fact that Folau was dumped by ASICS clearly shows that businesses are damaged by brand ambassadors who disrespect their market. These are "real" actions and *not *perceptions.




Businesses may "think" they are being damaged but how could they actually prove that ?

Look , the fact is that if businesses are allowed to sack people for what they say then free speech is dead. "Free" means free from retaliation from your employer and applies to religious, political, social or any other form of speech. There are laws to protect people from harrassment but no one has charged Folau with breaking any laws so he has a right to say what he did and no employment contract should be able to override that.

And furthermore robbie, if you support RA's right to sack Folau you must also support Christian churches rights to sack atheists, gays and other people that the churches don't like.

Do you ?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> you must also support Christian churches rights to sack atheists, gays and other people that the churches don't like.




And other religions who would do the same thing.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Businesses may "think" they are being damaged but how could they actually prove that ?
> 
> Look , the fact is that if businesses are allowed to sack people for what they say then free speech is dead. "Free" means free from retaliation from your employer and applies to religious, political, social or any other form of speech. There are laws to protect people from harrassment but no one has charged Folau with breaking any laws so he has a right to say what he did and no employment contract should be able to override that.
> 
> ...



Your points are nonsense and continue to ignore realities.
Businesses can quantify things which do damage, and they can even insure against many things.
Businesses can sack people who breach their employment contracts.
You have some ideas which have no foundation in law, but repeat them nevertheless.
You still think freedom of speech means you can say anything, but that reflects ignorance of laws that exist to offer protections.
You simply cannot work this out.


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

RA handling of the matter is what caused the damage. 

We then have lobby groups like 'sleeping giants' and 'change.org' directly influencing outcomes.

RA can have clauses in their contract. That does not mean they are always legally allowed depending on the situation.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Your points are nonsense and continue to ignore realities.
> Businesses can quantify things which do damage, and they can even insure against many things.
> Businesses can sack people who breach their employment contracts.
> You have some ideas which have no foundation in law, but keep repeat then nevertheless.
> ...




Those protection laws are in the Sex Discrimination Act.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/employers/sex-discrimination

Folau has not been charged with breaking those laws.

Please answer the question I posted before:

Do you support churches being able to sack atheists, gays and other people they don't like ?


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you support churches being able to sack atheists, gays and other people they don't like ?



You really have no idea about what laws allow, do you!


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

In this case it was Folau believing he was preaching Gods word to his followers. RA then got involved after prompting from a gay ceo.

Folau  gained no benefit from posting what he did except to spread a religious message.

RA risked putting the large amounts of religious people that both play and watch the game offside. There is a rift in the camp between the Pacific islanders and the whites. They single-handedly stuffed up and turned it into a worldwide spectacle of religion vs rugby.

Netball Australia and NZ handled it in a sensible manner with little repercussions.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You really have no idea about what laws allow, do you!




And you really have no idea how to answer my question !

I think I have proved my point.

QED.


----------



## satanoperca (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> You really have no idea about what laws allow, do you!




I am fully in agreement with Rederob, who has made constructive discussion on this subject.

I think Israel has done more damage to his faith than good, note, that 60% of population do not identify as Christian, so he has marginalized his faith more, with more and more people analyzing all parts of the bible that modern day society would condemn.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> And you really have no idea how to answer my question !



More rubbish - you cannot sack people because you do not *like *them.
You can sack them because they have breached the conditions of their employment, and this is a point I keep making and which you cannot grasp.


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> More rubbish - you cannot sack people because you do not *like *them.
> You can sack them because they have breached the conditions of their employment, and this is a point I keep making and which you cannot grasp.



Not if there are laws in place. Contract is not above laws.


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> I am fully in agreement with Rederob, who has made constructive discussion on this subject.
> 
> I think Israel has done more damage to his faith than good, note, that 60% of population do not identify as Christian, so he has marginalized his faith more, with more and more people analyzing all parts of the bible that modern day society would condemn.



How many identify as religious, this isn't just a "Christian" thing. And some countriesthat  rugby were trying to grow the brand in are very religious.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I do not find your examples particularly meaningful.



In what way?

There will be exceptions of course as with anything but of all areas that business would rationally want to influence, who governs the country is the biggest and most obvious one with unions and environmental regulations being more specific examples of things most businesses would rather have less of.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> I think Israel has done more damage to his faith than good, note, that 60% of population do not identify as Christian, so he has marginalized his faith more, with more and more people analyzing all parts of the bible that modern day society would condemn.




I don't believe that is true. IME,  it has drawn latent Christians out into defending their faith, even if they don't agree with IF. 

I see people professing their Christianity more than ever,  even people I never thought were Christians. (with zero prompting from me BTW)


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> I don't believe that is true. IME,  it has drawn latent Christians out into defending their faith, even if they don't agree with IF.
> 
> I see people professing their Christianity more than ever,  even people I never thought were Christians. (with zero prompting from me BTW)



This is what I am seeing.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> More rubbish - you cannot sack people because you do not *like *them.




The principle is the same.

If a person was employed by the Catholic church, and out of working hours made a comment on social media pro-abortion, they could be sacked by the church for "damaging the brand" of their employer.

So , would you agree with that the church has a *right* to sack them ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> How many identify as religious



Being an atheist is still exercising freedom of religion by choosing “none”.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> In what way?



I could not see how what they said related to their contracts of employment.  In other words, what was the lawful action exercised by their employers.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The principle is the same.



I realise that is what *YOU *believe.
Unfortunately there is *no *legal leg that props up your ideas.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I realise that is what *YOU *believe.
> Unfortunately there is *no *legal leg that props up your ideas.




You keep dodging the essential question so I'll leave it there and just realise that you apply principles only to people you agree with. Unfortunately for your arguments , that means double standards and hypocrisy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> I could not see how what they said related to their contracts of employment.  In other words, what was the lawful action exercised by their employers.



My point is that Folau is a test case and if we’re going down the track which says employers can gag their employees so long as it’s in a contract then rationally we’re going to soon have rather a lot of such contracts prohibiting comments about anything even remotely at odds with maximising profit.


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> My point is that Folau is a test case and if we’re going down the track which says employers can gag their employees so long as it’s in a contract then rationally we’re going to soon have rather a lot of such contracts prohibiting comments about anything even remotely at odds with maximising profit.



Folau is testing the waters - not employers.
Folau is trying to say he did not breach his contract because he has religious rights.
I agree that Folau has religious rights, and he should express them in a manner which is appropriate.  We do not go about condoning slavery or stoning people to death because it's in some religious script, so when you do there are adverse reactions.  It's not appropriate!
So when you are effectively a brand ambassador, and your employment depends on maintaining the brand, it is reasonable for employers to protect their interests.
The points I raised very early on related to the fact that it was the inappropriate nature of what was posted that got him into trouble, and it need not have been religious.  That would be a point that RA will bring out should the matter proceed.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> So when you are effectively a brand ambassador, and your employment depends on maintaining the brand, it is reasonable for employers to protect their interests.




Why shouldn't this apply to churches as well ?


----------



## rederob (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Why shouldn't this apply to churches as well ?



Who are you suggesting is their brand ambassador?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Who are you suggesting is their brand ambassador?




Their brand is whatever they want it to be just like the ARU.

They are the employer, they write the rules.


----------



## wayneL (29 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Who are you suggesting is their brand ambassador?



Hang on...  If you are suggestion Issy was a "brand embassador", was that either explicitly stated or even just implied in the contract?

That may be a very important point.


----------



## Macquack (29 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Being an atheist is still exercising freedom of religion by choosing “none”.



Difference is, us athiests don't carry so much bloody baggage.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Their brand is whatever they want it to be just like the ARU.
> 
> They are the employer, they write the rules.



A garbo wearing a shirt with the council logo on it, is an ambassador for the Council, if they wish to use it as an excuse to sack him.


----------



## Macquack (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> A garbo wearing a shirt with the council logo on it, is an ambassador for the Council, if they wish to use it as an excuse to sack him.



They still (at least) need an excuse to sack him, which you have overlooked.


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

There are cases where union members went on strike and were sacked over it due to contract stipulations. 
But because this is against workplace laws it was deemed unlawful termination. That was not employees "testing the law". Business did not follow the law. 

This isn't Folau testing the law, anymore than it is RA testing the law. Its more a clarification.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> They still (at least) need an excuse to sack him, which you have overlooked.



He says on his facebook page that gay's will go to hell, unless they repent, and the council has the same stance on gays as R.A and similar general conditions of employment.
Using a council vehicle to drop off the mail while at work, it isn't difficult to find a reason, it is just getting it to stick that is the issue.
That is why this needs to be tested, otherwise it just opens the door to sack who the hell you like, just write something into the company holistic statement that covers any sort of misdemeanor.


----------



## Macquack (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> He says on his facebook page that gay's will go to hell, unless they repent, and the council has the same stance on gays as R.A and similar general conditions of employment.
> Using a council vehicle to drop off the mail while at work, it isn't difficult to find a reason, it is just getting it to stick that is the issue.
> That is why this needs to be tested, otherwise it just opens the door to sack who the hell you like, just write something into the company holistic statement that covers any sort of misdemeanor.



 You have lost me. You just said a council worker may be sacked for wearing a shirt with a council logo on It???


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> You have lost me. You just said a council worker may be sacked for wearing a shirt with a council logo on It???



And saying something in public, that transgresses their stated policy, on a similar matter. Or any misdemeanor, that they wish to say, contravenes their public image.
Actually, it is the very reason unfair dismissal was brought in, as employers were sacking people with inadequate grounds, but more as a personal vendetta to get rid of people they considered troublesome.
I could try to write slower, but I don't think it will help.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

Actually the last line in the last post, is exactly why people were being sacked, it was seen as being insubordinate, rather than frustrated.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

This article actually highlights the problem from another perspective.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/let...ture-warriors-codswallop-20190628-p5227g.html

In the text, which is well thought out, it brings up the other side IMO.

_In any case, it simply isn’t true that Folau’s religious freedoms have been fundamentally encroached. Folau can still say what he likes about homosexuals and sinners. It’s just that saying that may come with consequences. That’s not free speech being unjustly restrained. That’s Folau choosing his religious conviction over his contractual obligations. A choice he is free to make. It’s hard to see how Folau is a victim_.

Does that example, then cover the issue of 'whistle blowers'?

It certainly is going to be a very interesting case.
Obviously, if you say something that isn't in line with your employers stance, it is grounds for dismissal.


----------



## Macquack (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I could try to write slower, but I don't think it will help.



You could also be a bit clearer so I don't have to guess what you were saying.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> You could also be a bit clearer so I don't have to guess what you were saying.



That's the problem, with thinking, we are all on the same page.
My apologies.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It’s just that saying that may come with consequences. That’s not free speech being unjustly restrained. That’s Folau choosing his religious conviction over his contractual obligations. A choice he is free to make.




No I don't think so.

"Free" speech means free of consequences in terms of your contract. Of course people will disagree with him as they are free to do, but they are not causing him any damage like taking away his living would do.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> No I don't think so.
> 
> "Free" speech means free of consequences in terms of your contract. Of course people will disagree with him as they are free to do, but they are not causing him any damage like taking away his living would do.



It nothing short of bullying IMO, "those with most to loose, shut up", or suffer the consequences.

I think you have miss quoted me there Rumpy, I was using the quote as an example, to the point I was making.

It wasn't a point I agreed with, it just highlighted, the same justification could be used to hammer whistle blowers.

They are in breach of their contracts, when they whistle blow, but they are encouraged to do it.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It nothing short of bullying IMO, "those with most to loose, shut up", or suffer the consequences.
> 
> I think you have miss quoted me there Rumpy, I was using the quote as an example, to the point I was making.
> It wasn't a point I agreed with.




Fair enough sp, sorry about that.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

I think it is an important issue Rumpy, if it is o.k to ruin Folau's rugby future on the grounds, it degraded R.A image and justify it by contract.

Why do people have a problem, with defence whistle blowers, being sent to trail for treason, as it was part of their contract?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think it is an important issue Rumpy, if it is o.k to ruin Folau's rugby future on the grounds, it degraded R.A image and justify it by contract.
> 
> Why do people have a problem, with defence whistle blowers, being sent to trail for treason, as it was part of their contract?




I've seen one person in particular here that can't sustain his argument because he doesn't apply it consistently. It's ok to sack people for saying things that he disagrees with , but not for saying things that he agrees with. The same principle has to apply for all.

I think it's interesting that Folau hasn't been sued for breach of contract because I think RA realises that path would fail, it's just a lot easier to sack him. Whatever, I think this court case will have ramifications in every business that chooses to have a code of conduct that interferes with free speech. It's going to get very messy I think.

Whistleblowers may be different if they revealed information about their job, but they should be subject to a public interest test that protects them if what they disclose is in the public interest in order to expose corruption etc.

In Folau's case what he said was not related in any way to his ability to do what he was contracted to do which was play football, so his employer had no right to take any action, imo.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I've seen one person in particular here that can't sustain his argument because he doesn't apply it consistently. It's ok to sack people for saying things that he disagrees with , but not for saying things that he agrees with. The same principle has to apply for all.
> 
> I think it's interesting that Folau hasn't been sued for breach of contract because I think RA realises that path would fail, it's just a lot easier to sack him. Whatever, I think this court case will have ramifications in every business that chooses to have a code of conduct that interferes with free speech. It's going to get very messy I think.
> 
> ...



I agree completely, I just get fed up with people, that want to change the rules to suit there own ends.
It also galls me, when someone wants to stand up for what they believe in and the opposition want to put them at a financial handicap, to defend their position.
It is really un Australian, if R.A wants to make this a moral issue, Folau should have just as much money behind him to defend his stand as R.A has to defend theirs.
At the end of the day R.A loses some members money, Folau loses his career.


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2019)

Union strikes can cause a lot of damage to a company. But employees are protected by workplace laws. And it has been tested vs illegal contracts.
You can argue either way till you are blue in the face.

I could  go on and on,  but its all up to the courts and how well the lawyers argue the case. I'm not convinced either side has a clear winner.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It's ok to sack people for saying things that he disagrees with , but not for saying things that he agrees with. The same principle has to apply for all



That’s what a lot of it comes down to.

In the back of their mind I think many have the thought that if he’d posted the exact opposite view, saying that religion is nonsense and so on, then they plausibly wouldn’t have sacked him for doing so even though many would deem that offensive.

That is, that the real issue is that they don’t agree with his view not simply the fact that he’s posted controversial ideas online.


----------



## sptrawler (29 June 2019)

That is the exact point I was trying to make with the 'whistle blower'.
If the 'whistle blower' breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, everyone is up in arms to protect his rights.
If the rugby player breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, he deserves everything he gets.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> In Folau's case what he said was not related in any way to his ability to do what he was contracted to do which was play football, so his employer had no right to take any action, imo.




It is perhaps worth noting that Rugby Australia are themselves a very long way away from their own reason for being if they’ve somehow ended up in the business of trying to influence religious or political views.

Using a different example, if my car breaks down and I call roadside assistance then I expect that someone will turn up and either fix the car or arrange for it to be towed. I don’t expect them to persuade me who to vote for or recommend what I should eat.

Should whoever turns up be wearing a cross around their neck or have a rainbow flag tattooed on their arm then it won’t bother me either way and I’ll consider that to be a purely personal expression and not one which represents some corporate view of the RAA, NRMA or whoever operates in the relevant state.

Governments make laws and people, not businesses, elect the members of that government.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> In the back of their mind I think many have the thought that if he’d posted the exact opposite view, saying that religion is nonsense and so on, then they plausibly wouldn’t have sacked him for doing so even though many would deem that offensive.




But religions are nonsense, where as what what he said is just bunk.

Every single person out there thinks religions are nonsense.

even the pope believes that 99.999% of religions are nonsense, except for his one of course.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That is the exact point I was trying to make with the 'whistle blower'.
> If the 'whistle blower' breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, everyone is up in arms to protect his rights.
> If the rugby player breaks his contract, by saying something he believes in, he deserves everything he gets.




Only if what the whistle blower says is true.


----------



## bellenuit (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> even the pope believes that 99.999% of religions are nonsense, except for his one of course.




Not quite true. He will never come out and say that any of the other mainstream religions are nonsense, because the basis of any argument he uses would very likely be applicable to claims Christianity is also nonsense, so better to keep his mouth shut.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Not quite true. He will never come out and say that any of the other mainstream religions are nonsense, because the basis of any argument he uses would very likely be applicable to claims Christianity is also nonsense, so better to keep his mouth shut.




I didn’t say that he would make a statement, I said that he believes it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> But religions are nonsense, where as what what he said is just bunk.
> 
> Every single person out there thinks religions are nonsense.




It’s not impossible but I have serious doubts that everyone who goes to church later this morning thinks that it’s all a load of nonsense.

An issue here is most failing to acknowledge that what society considers to be normal and acceptable changes over time.

Compare now with 1979, roughly half a human lifetime ago. It would be easier to list the attitudes which haven’t changed than those which have since the world is a radically different place.

Likewise 1979 versus 1939 very different. Go back another 40 years, late 1800’s, and mountains were widely considered to be ugly apparently and something that humans would ideally remove.

Likewise in 2059 it’s likely that most of what’s considered normal and perfectly reasonable today will be unheard of by then and therein lies the problem with the notion that dissenting views ought to be silenced. 

Dissent is how we got from 1979 to 2019 and it’s how we’ll get to to 2059 in terms of societal attitudes. Silence it and we’re going nowhere.

Everything is temporary.


----------



## Macquack (30 June 2019)

Israel Folau is referenced in this comedy sketch.


----------



## rederob (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It is perhaps worth noting that Rugby Australia are themselves a very long way away from their own reason for being if they’ve somehow ended up in the business of trying to influence religious or political views.



Maybe you should consider what RA actually consider are at issue here, as so many posters here are just making up what they want to believe.


Smurf1976 said:


> That is, that the real issue is that they don’t agree with his view not simply the fact that he’s posted controversial ideas online.



If you think that then you, and those others who continue to make similar claims here, have simply not followed the actual case.
RA commissioned an *independent panel of experts* to consider what Folau had done, so your claim that RA did not "_agree with his view not simply the fact that he’s posted controversial ideas online_" is *false*.


Smurf1976 said:


> An issue here is most failing to acknowledge that what society considers to be normal and acceptable changes over time.



Rather, the issue most posting here continue to ignore is which actions are lawful and which are not.  Rumpy is the principal offender on this front.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> But religions are nonsense, where as what what he said is just bunk.
> 
> Every single person out there thinks religions are nonsense.




In that case, his remarks are nonsense,  have no effect on anyone, can't offend anyone  and can be laughed off, so why all the fuss ?


----------



## Macquack (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, his remarks are nonsense,  have no effect on anyone, can't offend anyone  and can be laughed off, so why all the fuss ?



Just so I have your position clear, SirRumpole. If Rugby Australia did not sack Folau, let his contract expire and then said will we never employ Folau ever again. Would you think that is fair enough, or would you still be crying "free speech"?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Just so I have your position clear, SirRumpole. If Rugby Australia did not sack Folau, let his contract expire and then said will we never employ Folau ever again. Would you think that is fair enough, or would you still be crying "free speech"?




If RA was a listed company and I was a shareholder, I'd be questioning their disposal of a major asset as long as he was still performing his job.

If RA could justify their stand on the basis that he just wasn't performing on the field anymore, I would say "fair enough", if his non retention was on the basis of his views then the principle still applies. He should be retained or not purely on the basis of how well he performs his job.


----------



## Macquack (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If RA was a listed company and I was a shareholder, I'd be questioning their disposal of a major asset as long as he was still performing his job.



Interestingly, the chairman of RA thinks Folau is a liability, not an asset.

 Rugby Australia’s chairman Cameron Clyne has slammed Israel Folau and claimed the game would have no sponsors — and more litigation — if it failed to act.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...u/news-story/7166dd22ec79856921b2e3d5d004ea30


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> In that case, his remarks are nonsense,  have no effect on anyone, can't offend anyone  and can be laughed off, so why all the fuss ?




 the only fuss is coming from him having a cry about it, if he wasn’t having a cry about it, there would be no fuss.

Everyone would just be like “oh, i didn’t realize Israel was such a dick, oh well, bye bye”


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Interestingly, the chairman of RA thinks Folau is a liability, not an asset.
> 
> Rugby Australia’s chairman Cameron Clyne has slammed Israel Folau and claimed the game would have no sponsors — and more litigation — if it failed to act.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...u/news-story/7166dd22ec79856921b2e3d5d004ea30




So maybe Folau can put it to them as to how much it's worth to RA to get rid of him.

$2 million, $10 million ...?


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> There the only fuss is coming from him having a cry about it, if he wasn’t having a cry about it, there would be no fuss.
> 
> Everyone would just be like “oh, i didn’t realize Israel was such a dick, oh well, bye bye”




He stood to lose a large amount of money.

Wouldn't you complain if it happened to you ?


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It’s not impossible but I have serious doubts that everyone who goes to church later this morning thinks that it’s all a load of nonsense.




It’s a simple fact that if they believe their religion is true, then they must believe the other 99.99% of religions are nonsense.

That’s my point, everyone out there either thinks that 100% of religions are nonsense or 99.99% of religions are nonsense.

Either way, the belief that most religions in general are nonsense is a very common belief.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> He stood to lose a large amount of money.
> 
> Wouldn't you complain if it happened to you ?




So it’s about money, and not free speech or religion?

I would avoid action that threatened my gravy train, and if I did anything that rocked the boat, I would apologize, and do my best to reverse it.

However, if I felt that strongly about something, and my employer was hard core against it, I would not want to work for them anymore.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> So it’s about money, and not free speech or religion?




If Folau was not employed by RA , RA could complain all they liked about what he said and it would not affect him, the point is that RA can take action which damaged him financially.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I didn’t say that he would make a statement, I said that he believes it.




If he didn't state it how can you say he believes it.

The Pope regularly comes out and calls for peace and unity on "all people of all faiths and religions etc etc".


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (30 June 2019)

Macquack said:


> Interestingly, the chairman of RA thinks Folau is a liability, not an asset.
> 
> Rugby Australia’s chairman Cameron Clyne has slammed Israel Folau and claimed the game would have no sponsors — and more litigation — if it failed to act.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/sport...u/news-story/7166dd22ec79856921b2e3d5d004ea30




That's just Corporate B.S. and PR. Folau was by far the number one drawcard in a Team underperforming.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> the point is that RA can take action which damaged him financially.




So what? His actions can also damage them.

But we can all take actions that damage people financially when we realize they are dicks.

If you own a restaurant, and one day decide to put up a sign that says the things Israel said, you will probably find you will suddenly lose a lot of business, customers that used to be willing to do business with you will abandon you.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> If he didn't state it how can you say he believes it.
> 
> The Pope regularly comes out and calls for peace and unity on "all people of all faiths and religions etc etc".




Because religions all believe different things, and they can’t all be right.

 So he either thinks that his own religion is true and correct, which would make the rest of the religions nonsense,  or that some other religion is the correct one which makes his one nonsense.

You can still call for peace and unity while believing the other side believes nonsense.

I want peace and unity between all religions, but that doesn’t mean I think they are true.


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Because religions all believe different things, and they can’t all be right.
> 
> So he either thinks that his own religion is true and correct, which would make the rest of the religions nonsense,  or that some other religion is the correct one which makes his one nonsense.
> 
> ...



Its all irrelevant. 
All that matters is the law. Was it or wasn't it unlawful termination.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> So what? His actions can also damage them.
> 
> But we can all take actions that damage people financially when we realize they are dicks.
> 
> If you own a restaurant, and one day decide to put up a sign that says the things Israel said, you will probably find you will suddenly lose a lot of business, customers that used to be willing to do business with you will abandon you.




So religions(employers) should be allowed to write into an employment contract that "ye shall not use social media to say that gays will not got to hell", and be able to sack them if they find out that the employee does that ?


----------



## Logique (30 June 2019)

The employment contracts that should be under review are:

- the Rugby Australia CEO - whether it's $ 6 figures or 7 that RA spends in the courts - that would buy a lot of footballs, boots and jerseys for young kids

- the Qantas CEO - there are other airlines we can use (with the $ saved from not going to rugby matches)

- the ANZ Bank CEO - there are other banks to host our savings (from not going to rugby matches)


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2019)

Qantas sacked about 5000 people. I thought this was funny given the current circumstances:

*SACKED QANTAS EMPLOYEE WINS $33K DESPITE STEALING FROM EMPLOYER*


In yet another unfair dismissal decision that has left employers scratching their heads, the Fair Work Commission has awarded a former Qantas flight attendant $33,000 in unfair dismissal remedy, despite finding he stole alcohol from his employer and broke their trust.

*Background:*

The Applicant had been a Qantas Flight Attendant for 28 years when he was dismissed from his role after a small amount of alcohol, the property of his employer, was found on him during a random search of the crew.

After being terminated for breaching Qantas’ company policy, the flight attendant brought an unfair dismissal application against his former employer arguing that the dismissal was disproportionate to the offence and in the circumstances was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Qantas argued that the relationship of trust had been broken and could not be repaired. It also alleged that the Applicant did not make ‘full disclosure’ during the investigation process.

The Applicant had received five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice of termination, and was seeking reinstatement and/or compensation. The fact that alcohol was found on the Applicant was not being contested.

*Was the dismissal harsh?*

In ruling on whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable (s.387 of the FW Act) Deputy President Lawrence took into account the following evidence and arguments provided by the Applicant:


That the process of the crew search may have been unfair to him in allowing other crew members time to dispose of any property they might have stolen;
That he responded in good faith through the investigation process, despite Qantas’ claims that he was not being truthful;
That he admitted to removing a can of beer from the flight, but that other alcohol found on him, including a bottle of vodka and a bottle of gin, were in his pocket inadvertently; and
That he was being treated differently to other flight attendants who were found to have also stolen property but were not dismissed.
Lawrence DP also considered personal circumstances of the former employee including his 28 years of ‘unblemished’ service to Qantas, his age of 50, a recent car accident involving him and his daughter, and recent surgery that necessitated four months off work.

*Qantas’ case for dismissal:*

Lawrence DP noted the following facts relating to Qantas’ case for dismissing the employee:


The employer carried out an extensive investigation process and allowed the Applicant ample time to respond;
He was dismissed due to a clear breach of Qantas’s Standards of Conduct Policy;
That it took into consideration his age and length of service, but that ultimately the dismissal was warranted due to it being essential that Qantas’s policies for conduct are upheld.
*Decision of Lawrence DP:*

In making his decision, Deputy President Lawrence first reviewed a number of recent case law where it was established that “_the consideration of whether there was a valid reason for termination is a separation issue from the determination of whether a termination was harsh, unjust of unreasonable.”_

He ‘respectfully adopted’ this position and concluded that:

_“The Applicant was dismissed because he stole Qantas property and because he gave a false explanation, which he subsequently changed during the investigation. It was a small quantity of alcohol but Qantas has strict policies about theft of such company property. This is entirely understandable.”_

Lawrence DP was also satisfied that the Applicant was notified of the reason for his dismissal well before the decision was made, and that he had an opportunity to respond.

However, despite the above, after considering the personal circumstances of the Applicant Lawrence DP ultimately came to the view that the dismissal was harsh.

The Deputy President said it would have been appropriate for Qantas to implement a lesser penalty than dismissal.

He then turned to the appropriate remedy, and said that he did not think reinstatement is appropriate in this case.

_“I accept Qantas’s argument that the relationship of trust has broken down and cannot be repaired. It is important that flight attendants are able to be trusted with Qantas property. The fact that the Applicant changed his story is a crucial factor here. Reinstatement may be seen to condone theft in some way.”_

After taking into account the Applicant’s earning capacity, Lawrence DP ordered Qantas to pay the former flight attendant $33,731, the equivalent of 26 weeks’ pay.

*Implications for employers*

This case is unfortunately yet another unfair dismissal decision from the Fair Work Commission that demonstrates the tribunal will award compensation to sacked employees, even where it finds there was a valid reason for termination and that the employee conducted a thorough and ‘fair’ investigation process.

On the specific details on this case, AMMA fundamentally disagrees with the notion that an employer could be penalised for dismissing an employee where it is established by the Commission that:


The employee did in fact steal property from his employer;
That this behaviour was a clear breach of company policies and that this provides a clear and valid reason for termination;
That reinstating the employee may be seen as condoning theft in the workplace; and
That the relationship of trust was clearly broken between the employer and the employee.
AMMA’s position is also that personal circumstances of the employee, such as his age, a recent car crash or surgery, should not be considered relevant factors when there was found to be a valid reason for termination.

These are the types of decisions that are driving AMMA’s advocacy for a separate appeals jurisdiction to be established within Australia’s workplace relations system.

With many of these extraordinary unfair dismissal rulings being appealed, AMMA’s position is that a separate appeals tribunal would send clearer signals about the law to both employers and employees; ensure greater consistency in decisions such as unfair dismissal remedies; and ultimately result in fewer matters being appealed to the courts.

For more information about AMMA’s workplace relations reforms, click here.

To read this case in full, click here: David Dawson v Qantas Airways Limited.

This was eventually overturned.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So religions(employers) should be allowed to write into an employment contract that "ye shall not use social media to say that gays will not got to hell", and be able to sack them if they find out that the employee does that ?




I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.




Well, it may not be millions.

If an employer is the only one in town people may have no choice but to sign.

As with Folau, RA is a monopoly employer, he has no choice.

What about the case of religious organisations, I bet if they sacked someone for saying that they were an atheist you would saying the church had no right to sack them, even if it was in the contract that employees should not "damage the image" of the church.


----------



## sptrawler (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.



Most companies would jump at that option, a clause that says we can terminate employment, when we see fit.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> If you own a restaurant, and one day decide to put up a sign that says the things Israel said, you will probably find you will suddenly lose a lot of business, customers that used to be willing to do business with you will abandon you.



If I owned a restaurant then no way would I be promoting any political or religious cause. Doing so is a “can’t win” approach - it’ll attract few if any new customers but will lose at least some of those on the other side.

The question though is whether or not I have the right to sack the chef for expressing political or religious views or circulating propaganda in a private capacity, in their own time and in no way involving my restaurant?


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.



And for the guys on $60k or less with little choice?  
16-18yo with little experience?
Business should not be able to solely write,  or trump workplace laws.


----------



## rederob (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The question though is whether or not I have the right to sack the chef for expressing political or religious views or circulating propaganda in a private capacity, in their own time and in no way involving my restaurant?



How can that be a question?
You need to rely on applicable laws and none are evident.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> How can that be a question?
> You need to rely on applicable laws and none are evident.




Question is fairness. What should the Laws, the FW act protect, in the name of fairness.

Rob, if it were a Muslim quoting the Quran would you be so adamant?


----------



## rederob (30 June 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Question is fairness. What should the Laws, the FW act protect, in the name of fairness.
> Rob, if it were a Muslim quoting the Quran would you be so adamant?



The law is the law is the law.  Governments can and do change them.
The FWA covers "fairness"  - as in *unfair* dismissal.  It also covers "lawfulness" - as in *unlawful *termination.
Most of us have a pretty good idea of things which are lawful or not.
Same for saying things which are respectful, and even more certainly things which others will find offensive.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Same for saying things which are respectful, and even more certainly things which others will find offensive.




People can be offended by anything they want to be offended by, even the truth.

A lot of religious people might be offended by pornography or brothels, but they continue to exist.

Would you consider blashphemy should be a crime ? People could be offended by it.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If I owned a restaurant then no way would I be promoting any political or religious cause. Doing so is a “can’t win” approach - it’ll attract few if any new customers but will lose at least some of those on the other side.
> 
> The question though is whether or not I have the right to sack the chef for expressing political or religious views or circulating propaganda in a private capacity, in their own time and in no way involving my restaurant?




If your restaurant business model was based around hiring celebrity chefs, and you had Gordon Ramsey on the bill board every Friday night, if he become on nose to the public and started doing things that might damage your restaurant you would probably dump him and put Jamie Oliver on the bill board.

I think you would be right to fire the chef in that case, because it’s not a faceless chef in the back, your image and he image of the chef outside the kitchen become entangled.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> People can be offended by anything they want to be offended by, even the truth.
> 
> A lot of religious people might be offended by pornography or brothels, but they continue to exist.
> 
> Would you consider blashphemy should be a crime ? People could be offended by it.




It’s ok to be offended, offense itself is not a crime.

But if a church group signed a contract with the local sizzler for meals every Sunday after church, and then the sizzler rebranded as a strip joint / brothel, the church group would be within its rights to say “that’s not what we signed up for” and end the contract.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Most companies would jump at that option, a clause that says we can terminate employment, when we see fit.




And the market will decide whether that clause stays. 

If Israel didn’t want the clause, he could find another group to sell his services to, as you know he hasn’t been shy about shopping around for different contracts.


----------



## Value Collector (30 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> And for the guys on $60k or less with little choice?
> 16-18yo with little experience?
> Business should not be able to solely write,  or trump workplace laws.




I agree, but the more extraordinary your income becomes, the more you should expect to have a lot of unusual terms and conditions that are designed to protect the person taking the punt and paying you those millions, and the more you can expect the “job” to encroach on some of your personal life.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I agree, but the more extraordinary your income becomes, the more you should expect to have a lot of unusual terms and conditions that are designed to protect the person taking the punt and paying you those millions, and the more you can expect the “job” to encroach on some of your personal life.




Rights are not determined by your income, you either have them or you don't.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> How can that be a question?
> You need to rely on applicable laws and none are evident.



Pretty much anything that anyone ever stood up against was not illegal at the time.

Everything from wars and the White Australia Policy to dams and coal mines. All fully legal at the time, in many cases being the actions of government itself, and geneally with mainstream support but rarely were those with a dissenting view actually silenced.

The mainstream media still reported the news and gave dissenting views a fair run despite relying on advertising $ from the other side and those aligned with it. And those advertisers didn’t walk away just because their advertising $ didn’t buy editorial influence and nor did they expect it to.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

Value Collector said:


> But if a church group signed a contract with the local sizzler for meals every Sunday after church, and then the sizzler rebranded as a strip joint / brothel, the church group would be within its rights to say “that’s not what we signed up for” and end the contract.




That would depend on the contract. The sizzler's job was to supply meals, not act as a "brand representative".


----------



## IFocus (30 June 2019)

Good to see you boys are not letting go...........


----------



## rederob (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Pretty much anything that anyone ever stood up against was not illegal at the time.



I have no idea what that response addressed .
If people breach the conditions of their employment there are consequences.  
What is so hard?


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (30 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Good to see you boys are not letting go...........




"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning". Winston Churchill.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> If people breach the conditions of their employment there are consequences.
> What is so hard?




Don't you believe in inherent human rights ?

*Interdependent and indivisible *

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and * freedom of expression*; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education , or collective rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.  

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx

Anything that diminishes these rights (like a contract) is therefore acting contrary to the individual's rights and should not be allowed to have that effect.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> The law is the law is the law.  Governments can and do change them.



In the context of social issues the primary instigator of change is those who are not part of government and who challenge accepted wisdom and current laws.

Without the ability to express dissenting views in a peaceful manner the gay rights and environmental movements, among others, would never have gotten anywhere. 

Without past generations freely expressing dissent the world today would look very much the way it did in 1950 so far as society’s attitudes are concerned.

Therein lies the great irony in all this. It’s those on the progressive side who have the most to lose given that business is in most cases either neutral or on the conservative side politically.

I do not agree with Folau but there’s far fewer consequences to someone preaching religion, who can simply be ignored, than there are to the silencing of dissent.

Journalists, whistle blowers and so on are in the same category. Silencing those with unpleasant information or views brings far more danger than allowing them to say it.


----------



## rederob (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> In the context of social issues the primary instigator of change is those who are not part of government and who challenge accepted wisdom and current laws.



This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate *BEFORE *entering into into a fresh 4 year term.
This is a case where the employee had an opportunity to not sign, knowing full well the damage he did with respect to a similar instance over a year ago.
This is a person who has no respect for so many in the community and now thinks *he *deserves an apology.
The sporting community will be the better off without him.


----------



## sptrawler (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate *BEFORE *entering into into a fresh 4 year term.
> This is a case where the employee had an opportunity to not sign, knowing full well the damage he did with respect to a similar instance over a year ago.
> This is a person who has no respect for so many in the community and now thinks *he *deserves an apology.
> The sporting community will be the better off without him.



You may be spot on with your take on it Rob, IMO all that is in question is the severity of the punishment, relative to the indiscretion.
The precedent being set, is an extremely strong one.
They would have been much better served, just quietly dropping him from the team, then at a later date pay out his contract as his services are no longer required. Trying to make a public spectacle of the issue, is crazy, detrimental to the sport and showed a lack of judgement. IMO


----------



## satanoperca (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate *BEFORE *entering into into a fresh 4 year term.
> This is a case where the employee had an opportunity to not sign, knowing full well the damage he did with respect to a similar instance over a year ago.
> This is a person who has no respect for so many in the community and now thinks *he *deserves an apology.
> The sporting community will be the better off without him.




Thank-you Rederob, for saying it how it is, perfect summary of the situation.


----------



## satanoperca (30 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> You may be spot on with your take on it Rob, IMO all that is in question is the severity of the punishment, relative to the indiscretion.
> The precedent being set, is an extremely strong one.
> They would have been much better served, just quietly dropping him from the team, then at a later date pay out his contract as his services are no longer required. Trying to make a public spectacle of the issue, is crazy, detrimental to the sport and showed a lack of judgement. IMO




How is the punishment meant to be ministered?  You can play 1 out of 5 games but we will pay your for all 5?
There has been no precedent set until it has gone to court.

I hardly think that the RA was trying to make a public spectacle of the issue, as by your own words, it would be detrimental (have negative consequences, effect the bottom line).

With being a RA advocate, but reading their code of conduct, hardly think they made the decision without judgement.

After all the discussion on this thread, I have come to the conclusion, those with the largest voices, are those that have always been employees and have never been an employer and who risked their capital to succeed.

I find this funny as it is a share/investment forum, so I ask people this, if you had invested in the RA, would you have approved in this guys actions if it meant your ROI was diminished?


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate *BEFORE *entering into into a fresh 4 year term



That is certainly true, there’s no denying that, but the point I and others are raising is whether or not such a restriction is reasonable in the first place whether or not it is adhered to?

If I own a business then should the law allow me to prohibit employees from publicly expressing any view which, for random example:

*Condones or acknowledges the validity of any religion

*Supports any union, it’s activities, policies or associates

*Opposes any form of natural resource development anywhere in Australia

*Supports any political party or candidate who proposes to increase business taxation

*Is a comment on any matter about which significant community or political debate is occurring or may occur in the future

*Or which is otherwise deemed unacceptable

Now would that be reasonable?

In my view firmly “no” but in that case it’s then a question of what is reasonable and what is not? Where is the line drawn?

Whether or not it involves or affects the business would seem the most reasonable criteria in my opinion.

If I run a hypothetical restaurant in Adelaide and you want to oppose the Adani coal mine in Queensland then it seems very unreasonable that I’d be able to prevent you from doing so.


----------



## sptrawler (30 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> I find this funny as it is a share/investment forum, so I ask people this, if you had invested in the RA, would you have approved in this guys actions if it meant your ROI was diminished?



I have never watched rugby, nor Folau, but if I had money invested in R.A, i would definitely be asking management why they handled it the way they did.
If he is as good a player as has been said, I would be asking why he couldn't have been convinced to tone it down.
If his comments hadn't caused any player backlash, why not fine him for the incident and have him still play.
If players had refused to play with him due to his beliefs, then he would have to be dropped from the team.
To publicly sack him, for no other reason than the posting, I would be saying "you did what".

I'll put it another way, what if he was the lead scientist for CSL, the best they have and they sacked him for that post?
I'm sure the CSL shareholders, would be wondering WTF.


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2019)

satanoperca said:


> How is the punishment meant to be ministered?  You can play 1 out of 5 games but we will pay your for all 5?
> There has been no precedent set until it has gone to court.
> 
> I hardly think that the RA was trying to make a public spectacle of the issue, as by your own words, it would be detrimental (have negative consequences, effect the bottom line).
> ...



I was an employer. And you follow the law with your contracts. 

This case can go either way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> I was an employer. And you follow the law with your contracts.



There’s really two issues there:

1. Was the contract legal? 

2. Regardless of whether or not the contract was legal, should it have been legal?


----------



## moXJO (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> There’s really two issues there:
> 
> 1. Was the contract legal?
> 
> 2. Regardless of whether or not the contract was legal, should it have been legal?



For now we need the first question answered imo. After that we need a broader discussion on rights.


----------



## rederob (30 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is certainly true, there’s no denying that, but the point I and others are raising is whether or not such a restriction is reasonable in the first place whether or not it is adhered to?
> 
> If I own a business then should the law allow me to prohibit employees from publicly expressing any view which, for random example:
> 
> ...



The action of RA was lawful and matters need to be judged on the particular circumstances rather than irrelevant hypotheticals.
Read my link to RA’s comments and it’s not hard to figure it out.


----------



## satanoperca (30 June 2019)

Let me guess, the RA made some knee jerk reaction based on nothing but politic opinion after signing a person to a multi million dollar contract, whom had in the past pissed off management.

They reacted without legal consultation or consideration to the ramifications their actions might present.

HARDLY SO.

They asked and contracted with an individual to do 2 things :
1. Play a sport to the best of their abilities
2. Not be a f--kwhit and cause damage to their brand and business.

Well, said person was capable of meeting the first requirement, however the second on he failed on.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, religion, the lefts or the rights

It has to do with, don't be a f--kwhit if you signed a contract that you agreed you wouldn't be.

The only thing this guy did wrong, was when he said, those that are XXXXX plus being a f--kwhit will go to hell, he didn't realise that he will need to repent for being a f---kwhit, or hell is where he will end.

How hard is this for everyone to comprehend.


----------



## sptrawler (30 June 2019)

rederob said:


> The action of RA was lawful and matters need to be judged on the particular circumstances rather than irrelevant hypotheticals.
> Read my link to RA’s comments and it’s not hard to figure it out.



From what you said, he had been previously warned for exactly the same thing, I wasn't aware of that, but as has been said whether it is still sufficient grounds for sacking is what will be tested. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> The action of RA was lawful and matters need to be judged on the particular circumstances rather than irrelevant hypotheticals.



The courts will decide whether or not the actions of RA were legal or not.

That something is legal does not however preclude someone from objecting to it on whatever grounds.

For a current example, well the Adani coal mine in Queensland is legal and should we end up in a war with Iran that will most definitely be an action of government itself.

Should employers in unrelated industries be able to prohibit their employees from publicly opposing the mine and, if it eventuates, war?

That’s where the free speech arguments come in.

All that said, well personally if I were in his position then I’d keep my mouth firmly shut.

That is of course placing personal profit ahead of moral conscience and has many relevant examples in the modern world.

Should a vegan invest in the meat industry if it’s the best way they can make a profit?

Should you or I be willing to invest in coal, uranium, tobacco etc if that’s where the money is? 

What about prostitution? A legal brothel in the right location would be fairly profitable I’d expect.

What’s legal and what someone finds morally acceptable are often not the same and whilst I agree that most will put profits ahead of principle not everyone agrees with that approach.


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> How hard is this for everyone to comprehend.



You can't sign away your rights as per law. Its that simple. Go write a prenuptial all in your favor and see how it holds up in court. Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

The issue is did RA break 772. Thats what they are going to court for. RA can say whatever they want, they don't make the laws. They have to prove it wasn't infringing on his religious rights as per law. 

It feels like a bloody endless circle.

Rob is arguing RA's most likely defence. 
I'm arguing Folau's.
Either could hold up.


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> The action of RA was lawful



Thats currently not true. They have possibly broken workplace laws.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> The action of RA was lawful




Come on Rob, not even Lawyers are brave enough to declare that, that's why it's such a test case.
Statute Law overrides Common Law. If the Fair Work Act gives Folau protection it's game over.

Although I suspect it's more likely than not RA will win.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The courts will decide whether or not the actions of RA were legal or not.



Folau had the opportunity to take his termination through a separate legal pathway but, instead, chose the FWA to make a claim that RA used his religion as a basis for termination.
I posted very early in the thread about the difference between illegal and unlawful - too many people confuse the ideas.  RA had a legal basis for its actions, but Folau thinks his right to freedom of expression is more important.  That is what will be challenged and, should the matter not be settled beforehand, provide guidance on similar cases in future.
Should the matter proceed, there is no guarantee that the courts will determine on freedom of expression per se, as it is possible they will confine their decision to the nature of actions that allow employers to make reasonable assessments of employee acts that may lead to a breach of contract.  Courts are very good at splitting hairs when they see fit.


moXJO said:


> Thats currently not true. They have possibly broken workplace laws.



I get why you say that, but the corollary is that when you are booked for speeding and you take it to court, until the court decides you can claim you have *not *broken the law.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

moXJO said:


> They have to prove it wasn't infringing on his religious rights as per law.



And RA do it by showing that *any *contracted player - eg those with or without religion - who posted similar material would face face a similar outcome.  I know we are going in circles here, but the links of the chain of evidence cannot be broken, else the case is flawed.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> but Folau thinks his right to freedom of expression is more important.




It is.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> And RA do it by showing that *any *contracted player - eg those with or without religion - who posted similar material would face face a similar outcome.



If he was a popular player, you may have found the rest of the team would have done exactly that, then it would be an interesting situation for R.A


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> And RA do it by showing that *any *contracted player - eg those with or without religion - who posted similar material would face face a similar outcome.  I know we are going in circles here, but the links of the chain of evidence cannot be broken, else the case is flawed.



In the same instance,  Folau has remained consistent in his faith.  If he wasn't religious he wouldn't have a case.  

I completely understand the position you are putting forward. On this one I would rather RA lose.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> And RA do it by showing that *any *contracted player - eg those with or without religion - who posted similar material would face face a similar outcome. I know we are going in circles here, but the links of the chain of evidence cannot be broken, else the case is flawed.




Folau should not get special status because of religion.

The same safeguards against unfair dismissal should apply to people wanting to state a political opinion, social opinion or any other sort of opinion as long as doing so does not interfere with them doing their job.

There are wider implications in this case. 

If RA win then any employer would be able to write conditions into a contract denying people's rights to free speech on any subject that the employer deems is bad for business. That's too much power to the employer.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Folau should not get special status because of religion.



That is the entirety of his claim.  Outside of that he has no scope press forward.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> That is the entirety of his claim.  Outside of that he has no scope press forward.




I'd say he has several  avenues of argument open to him.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

moXJO said:


> If he wasn't religious he wouldn't have a case.



If all he said was lifted entirely from the Bible then there would not be an issue.
*Warning *that so many categories of people would go to Hell is disparaging and disrespectful.  But that does not require the instigator to be religious, and nor does a direct quote from Bible.


SirRumpole said:


> I'd say he has several arguments open to him.



Which are based on what laws?


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Which are based on what laws?




The UN Declaration of Human Rights involving Freedom of Expression for one.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The UN Declaration of Human Rights involving Freedom of Expression for one.



Not a law.
Next.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Not a law.
> Next.




It's a Treaty that the Australian Government has signed which makes them duty bound to uphold.

Next.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a Treaty that the Australian Government has signed which makes them duty bound to uphold.



It's not a law and that's the end of it.
Government's flout treaties at their will.


----------



## basilio (1 July 2019)

Gillian Triggs has offered  a very good analysis on the Israel Falou case. And yes it is complicated.

* Are you for Israel Folau or against? We love a simple answer but this is not a binary case *
Gillian Triggs
The legal question is whether a private employment contract can restrict or oust a fundamental human right

 @GillianTriggs 
Mon 1 Jul 2019 02.41 BST   Last modified on Mon 1 Jul 2019 02.42 BST


 
Shares
0





It has been a divisive national conversation but the penalty must fit the crime. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAP
Are you for Israel Folau or against? What a pity that Folau’s dismissal by Rugby Australia should be reduced to an ideological and binary debate. Of course, we love a simple answer. Twitter views are various: the Folau case is exclusively a matter of contract law; Folau has the rights to freedom of speech and religious expression; the law should protect against harmful homophobic abuse.

I suggest the Folau case is about all of these ideas.

It is ironic the Folau case has exposed the gaps in Australia’s protections for fundamental freedoms just as the government is about to introduce a new bill to increase protections for religious freedoms.

When considering the need for additional religious protections, it might help if we review the existing legal principles that underpin our freedoms to inform an increasingly complex and divisive national discussion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/c...a-simple-answer-but-this-is-not-a-binary-case


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> It's not a law and that's the end of it.
> Government's flout treaties at their will.




Governments may, the courts less so.

I presume you are saying that all laws are good robbie ?

Or only the ones that you agree with ?


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Governments may, the courts less so.



Governments make the laws.  
You keep making up what you want to believe.
Maybe do a bit more research before you post what you do.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Pretty much anything that anyone ever stood up against was not illegal at the time.
> 
> Everything from wars and the White Australia Policy to dams and coal mines. All fully legal at the time, in many cases being the actions of government itself, and geneally with mainstream support but rarely were those with a dissenting view actually silenced.
> 
> The mainstream media still reported the news and gave dissenting views a fair run despite relying on advertising $ from the other side and those aligned with it. And those advertisers didn’t walk away just because their advertising $ didn’t buy editorial influence and nor did they expect it to.




If you want to be an activist for a cause, no one with stop you, it’s your legal right.

However, if you have signed a contract and accepted millions of dollars promising a third party that you will not “rock the boat” and be involved in that sort of stuff for a set duration, then you  might find that third party dissolving the contract and refusing to pay you.

None of this is about his right to protest, it’s 100% about whether be broke the promise he made when he signed his contract and accepted the payments.

So again, this isn’t about his right to protest, no one is suggesting he doesn’t have that right, it’s about whether he promised not to do those things.

He can protest to his hearts content, no one is stopping him.


----------



## wayneL (1 July 2019)

I was just with a client who happens to be a contract lawyer. She argues that there is sufficient ambiguity in both the contract terms, and in Issy's statement too keep lawyers arguing over *interpretations and *definitions for quite some time.

Reckons she would make an absolute mint arguing for either case, while also having utter disdain for both arguments,  LOL.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> So again, this isn’t about his right to protest, no one is suggesting he doesn’t have that right, it’s about whether he promised not to do those things.



In the context of the courts it'll come down to whether the conditions in the contract are valid.

Any contract must comply with all relevant laws as set by government (federal, state, local) as well as those of any other body with the power to impose regulations.

In the broader debate there's the question of, regardless of whether it is actually legal or not, should it be legal? That is the moral "free speech" argument.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Governments make the laws.
> You keep making up what you want to believe.
> Maybe do a bit more research before you post what you do.




Don't make me laugh robbie, you are the one who is clueless.

Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> I was just with a client who happens to be a contract lawyer. She argues that there is sufficient ambiguity in both the contract terms, and in Issy's statement too keep lawyers arguing over *interpretations and *definitions for quite some time.
> 
> Reckons she would make an absolute mint arguing for either case, while also having utter disdain for both arguments,  LOL.



Which will be the very reason, that the R.A camp pushed so hard, for Folau to have to fund himself.
This will go and on, and cost $millions.IMO
R.A has deep pockets, but if the church gets involved, they also have deep pockets.
It would be so much better IMO, if R.A had chosen a different path, there will be no winners.


----------



## wayneL (1 July 2019)




----------



## wayneL (1 July 2019)




----------



## moXJO (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> If all he said was lifted entirely from the Bible then there would not be an issue.
> *Warning *that so many categories of people would go to Hell is disparaging and disrespectful.  But that does not require the instigator to be religious, and nor does a direct quote from Bible.
> Which are based on what laws?



Preaching which is under 772 religion. He is practicing his faith. Thats covered. Thats also the argument. Unlawful termination is what we are looking at.

Its a summarized quote from someone with a long verifiable religious history. AR wants to show otherwise.


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> I was just with a client who happens to be a contract lawyer. She argues that there is sufficient ambiguity in both the contract terms, and in Issy's statement too keep lawyers arguing over *interpretations and *definitions for quite some time.
> 
> Reckons she would make an absolute mint arguing for either case, while also having utter disdain for both arguments,  LOL.



This is the truth right here. It's easy to argue either way.


----------



## moXJO (1 July 2019)

Heres a couple more:

"As far as legal strategies go, Clyne’s comments appear to have given Folau a new legal avenue. It will be up to Folau’s legal team, led by Stuart Wood QC, to determine whether Clyne has just exposed a new legal claim of inducement to breach a contract by RA’s sponsors. The claim goes like this: if RA breached its contract with Folau by sacking him, then sponsors induced that breach of contract by pressuring RA over the debacle. Inducing a breach of contract is an economic tort at common law.

And there is more. Sydney barrister Jeff Phillips SC, a senior silk who specialises in employment law, told The Australian yesterday that, having read Clyne’s comments, there is a real possibility of yet another new legal avenue for Folau’s team. In addition to a common law claim of interference with contractual relations, Phillip says there may also be a breach of Australian competition laws."

Anyone who thinks RA hasn't completely mishandled this has rocks in their head. From the get go it's been a mess.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.



Absolutely *WRONG*.
You really are clueless.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

@rederob do you even realise that Statute Law overrides Common Law.

The Fair Work Act overrides Contract Law if it is applicable here.

Back to @moXJO as to whether the Fair Work Act covers Folau.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't make me laugh robbie, you are the one who is clueless.
> 
> Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.




Correct.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

Sir Rumpole said:
			
		

> Don't make me laugh robbie, you are the one who is clueless.
> 
> Yes governments make laws but the High Court can over turn them, for various reasons.







rederob said:


> Absolutely *WRONG*.
> You really are clueless.




I might have had some respect for you before that last statement, but it's all gone now.

Try this for a start.

https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wi...-overturns-excessive-anti-protest-legislation

Now go away and stop talking about things you know nothing about.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Governments make the laws.
> You keep making up what you want to believe.
> Maybe do a bit more research before you post what you do.




Do you know what the Separation of Powers is?


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

moXJO said:


> Preaching which is under 772 religion. He is practicing his faith. Thats covered. Thats also the argument. Unlawful termination is what we are looking at.
> 
> Its a summarized quote from someone with a long verifiable religious history. AR wants to show otherwise.




And this will override Contract Law if it is correct @rederob


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> Do you know what the Separation of Powers is?



Given that the legislature - ie. government - makes the *laws* and the judiciary *interprets *the laws, what is your point?


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Given that the legislature - ie. government - makes the *laws* and the judiciary *interprets *the laws, what is your point?




As Rumpy said, the High Court (the Judiciary) can overrule the Legislature (Government) in certain situations eg unconstitutional etc.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> And this will override Contract Law if it is correct @rederob



You will not find anything close to what Folau posted in the Bible.
Come up with something new.
I am not posting here again unless there is something interesting.


----------



## rederob (1 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> As Rumpy said, the High Court (the Judiciary) can overrule the Legislature (Government) in certain situations eg unconstitutional etc.



I hope you realise you just made the same point I did.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> I hope you realise you just made the same point I did.




When Rumpy stated it you disagreed.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> You will not find anything close to what Folau posted in the Bible.
> Come up with something new.
> I am not posting here again unless there is something interesting.




Yes he was. The Meme was a summary of the Bibical quote he wrote under the Meme.

What's going on Rob? Do you need a hug?

Manhug for @rederob


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> When Rumpy stated it you disagreed.




I was clueless according to him.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (1 July 2019)

@rederob just needs a hug everyone!


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

Dark Knight 2.0 said:


> @rederob just needs a hug everyone!




Huuuuuuuuggggggggg !!!!!!


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2019)

rederob said:


> You will not find anything close to what Folau posted in the Bible.
> Come up with something new.
> I am not posting here again unless there is something interesting.




If you are interested, the Bible verse is Corinthians 6: 9-10


----------



## SirRumpole (1 July 2019)

Value Collector said:


> If you are interested, the Bible verse is Corinthians 6: 9-10




I believe Folau made a direct quote from that passage. There are various translations of it though.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfun...ring-the-confusion-about-1-corinthians-69-10/


----------



## Macquack (2 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> What’s legal and what someone finds morally acceptable are often not the same and whilst I agree that most will put *profits ahead of principle *not everyone agrees with that approach.




"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”  *Matthew* *19:23-26*

Looks like Izzy is heading to hell with all the other drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornication,  theives,  athiest's and idolators.


----------



## wayneL (2 July 2019)

Macquack said:


> "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”  *Matthew* *19:23-26*
> 
> Looks like Izzy is heading to hell with all the other drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornication,  theives,  athiest's and idolators.



Well,  define rich. Where's the line? 

The parable may be more nuanced than face value. 

My wife,  who was born in the Rift Valley in Kenya,  considers the tribes people of the area far more rich than us... And it's nuttin' to do with money.

Ate they going to hell?


----------



## Macquack (3 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well,  define rich. Where's the line?
> 
> The parable may be more nuanced than face value.
> 
> ...



Define "rich" yourself, it is what ever you judge it to be.

As for the people of the Rift Valley in Kenya, NO they won't be going to hell unless they have sold their soul to the devil for money in the same way Folau has got himself into a bind having two masters.


----------



## StockyGuy (3 July 2019)

It might be quibbling but saying someone won't enter kingdom of God is not same as saying they'll reside in hell.  Hell is a very nebulous concept and means different things in different parts of Bible.  Ie, "hell" is a translation for several distinct words.

If he'd said they won't enter heaven it'd probably be more legit paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (3 July 2019)

StockyGuy said:


> It might be quibbling but saying someone won't enter kingdom of God is not same as saying they'll reside in hell.  Hell is a very nebulous concept and means different things in different parts of Bible.  Ie, "hell" is a translation for several distinct words.
> 
> If he'd said they won't enter heaven it'd probably be more legit paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.




Which becomes another VERY interesting point. The Australian High Court has to interpret the Bible and determine whether Hell in fact is real 

Although I think it'll just judge on the scope of the Fair Work Act.


----------



## StockyGuy (3 July 2019)

Hell as in Gehenna is/was real place outside Jerusalem - it was a garbage dump where certain undesirables would suffer ignominy of having their body burnt after death; very shameful for their families.  Not eternal torment, though.


----------



## wayneL (3 July 2019)

Macquack said:


> Define "rich" yourself, it is what ever you judge it to be.
> 
> As for the people of the Rift Valley in Kenya, NO they won't be going to hell unless they have sold their soul to the devil for money in the same way Folau has got himself into a bind having two masters.




RA Is the devil?


----------



## grah33 (3 July 2019)

Macquack said:


> "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”  *Matthew* *19:23-26*
> 
> Looks like Izzy is heading to hell with all the other drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornication,  theives,  athiest's and idolators.






wayneL said:


> Well,  define rich. Where's the line?
> 
> The parable may be more nuanced than face value.
> 
> ...




I'm familiar with the passage.  it's about the rich man.  If you read  the story, his salvation is established , and his character praised ,before this verse occurs .  So rich  people aren't condemned for being rich.  It's just that this particular rich man, wanted to be like one of Christ's followers,  and was invited to become one, but was disappointed that he would have to part with his riches.  My personal take on this, is that there are benefits and advantages to not having luxuries and comforts, that Christ was alluding to here.  

Regards the verses in the Bible about homosexuality, being debated here,  to me it's clear enough.  U got Leviticus, and Paul's letter.  Furthermore, Christ prescribed a new and rather original virtue  - purity in the mind - which the world has known for  2000 years.  Part  of His mission wasn't to restate the old code (for primitives such as murderers and criminals), but to bring in a HIGHER order of virtue , fit and proper for the human race.


----------



## Macquack (4 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> RA Is the devil?



I think if you are a christian, Rugby Australia's actions in sacking Folau is considered the Devil's work.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2019)

Well it appears a precedent may have been set, in Britain.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fol...reedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

As we said, it will be a long and costly excercise.

From the article:
There are other notable implications from this British decision for the Folau case.  Ngole’s case took four long years before he finally obtained his vindication. Many have criticised Folau for raising such a big war chest of legal fees. His fundraising efforts may be both prescient and proportionate given that he might face a similar long, hard and expensive legal battle.

The appeal court also took a distinctively different approach compared with the original judge. While the lower court judge gave a “full and meticulous” judgment that navigated a maze of dense common law principles and cases, the justices on appeal went to the heart of the matter.

*This was about a failure of common sense. At the outset of the matter in 2014, the university had overreached and overreacted*. It effectively purported to restrict Ngole from expressing his religious views in any public forum. The implication was that a professional should only express controversial religious views in absolute privacy.

*The court rightly pointed out that, if correct, no Christian would be secure in any profession, let alone Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Further, Ngole’s expulsion was disproportionate, given that the posts were expressions of religious and moral views that were based on the Bible.

My bolds*


----------



## moXJO (4 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well it appears a precedent may have been set, in Britain.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/fol...reedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html
> 
> ...



That was my idea of how it might play out. Depending on who leans on the judges.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2019)

moXJO said:


> That was my idea of how it might play out. Depending on who leans on the judges.



Yes, it was a dumb play by R.A, as we said they can discipline but to sack someone is a whole new level.
The judges still have to justify their reasoning.

From the article:
However, the Court of Appeal disagreed and has found that the university discipline process was fundamentally flawed. The university took an entrenched position early on, adopted processes that lacked insight and imposed a sentence that lacked proportion.


----------



## satanoperca (4 July 2019)

Always check the fine print before making assumptions.

Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol

John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.


----------



## sptrawler (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Always check the fine print before making assumptions.
> 
> Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol
> 
> John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.



As I said, it will be a long and costly excercise.


----------



## moXJO (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Always check the fine print before making assumptions.
> 
> Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol
> 
> John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.



Unless he lied about the judgment,  then this case gives a guideline.


----------



## satanoperca (5 July 2019)

Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.


----------



## wayneL (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.



I gather a new contract with a SM clause was drafted *after he signed his current contract, but he did not sign it, as he already had a contract.

That's as I understand it.


----------



## moXJO (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.



If the contract is unlawful then it hardly matters. You cannot dismiss workplace laws with a contract. 

Its still a guide and the rulings will be considered  by the judges. 

That still doesn't mean this is an open and shut case either way.


----------



## satanoperca (5 July 2019)

Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.

Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
As for the sponsors not being able to have their say, that is bull-****, they have every right if they in turn believe that there ROI on sponsorship was negative due to his outdated views of the world.

The only thing that can save him is if  Jesus gets off his arse and returns but after 2000 years, don't think it is going to happen anytime soon


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.
> 
> Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
> Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
> ...




Because they can't get Alcohol or Tobacco sponsorship and the Wallabies brand is shot due to them playing like busted a***holes. 
I heard "inconsistencies" in Alan Joyce's statements previously which lead me to not trust him. A gay CEO sponsor throwing his own money around for the LGBIT cause, tell me he didn't directly or indirectly lean on RA.

You've just got a beef with Jesus, Satan.


----------



## moXJO (5 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.
> 
> Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
> Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
> ...



Yeah,  nah....
People have rights. 

RA has cost themselves more now by mishandling the situation.


----------



## Logique (5 July 2019)

The whole issue is a monumental stuff up. It has been woefully handled by RA.

Do they really think persecuting Folau will advance the cause of rugby in Australia? Which will be the chief casualty out of all this.

What on earth would have been wrong with a Media Release from RA: "Mr Folau's social media comments are his own, and in no way representative of RA".  

No, somebody wanted to be a social justice warrior.


----------



## moXJO (5 July 2019)

Netball Australia handled it with more class and little backlash.


----------



## Dark Knight 2.0 (6 July 2019)

A sign next to Folau reads a mock religious message, “The righteous shall taketh from the punters for the divinity of one’s property portfolio is most sacred in the eyes of the lord. Amen!”.

The sign then offers dummy account details for Folau, and promising free Holy Water with every donation.


----------



## Logique (8 July 2019)

RA might first get their own house in order.


> *Rugby Australia Boss Raelene Castle Under Fire for Israel Folau Saga*
> https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby...a/news-story/3811b49e5cf7e1d3806ea19482297693
> ...However, the wheels are reportedly close to falling off....
> ...In a World Cup year where less test matches are played on home soil, Rugby Australia is bracing for an *$8 million financial deficit this year* — which could total a loss of $12 million if Folau is paid out his contract in full.
> A *full $12 million hit* would leave RA “on the *precipice of insolvency*,” according to The Daily Telegraph’s Pandaram...


----------



## PZ99 (8 July 2019)

If this thread sends one message it's this: the Conservative Right should never push the agenda for a return of Workchoices or any other form of de-regulated workplace reform.

Because under those polices - employees could be, and were, sacked for the sake of nothing


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If this thread sends one message it's this: the Conservative Right should never push the agenda for a return of Workchoices or any other form of de-regulated workplace reform.
> 
> Because under those polices - employees could be, and were, sacked for the sake of nothing



 What, you mean just like us in Small-business?

We can be summarily fired for no reason whatsoever. I guess luckily, at least in my case, my employers are fairly diversified, around 65 of them.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If this thread sends one message it's this: the Conservative Right should never push the agenda for a return of Workchoices or any other form of de-regulated workplace reform.
> 
> Because under those polices - employees could be, and were, sacked for the sake of nothing



Actually from what I've read, as long as you sign a contract, there is plenty on here reckon you can be sacked for anything. Also they aren't the Conservative Right members.


----------



## PZ99 (8 July 2019)

Yeah but.... no one here wants workchoices back do they ? LOL

The irony is... it was only today the business community pushed to make it easier to fire workers.

Maybe Folau should've joined a real "union"


----------



## moXJO (8 July 2019)

Big business is getting a little to much power imo. Starting to push into decisions that they should not be making.


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah but.... no one here wants workchoices back do they ? LOL
> 
> The irony is... it was only today the business community pushed to make it easier to fire workers.
> 
> Maybe Folau should've joined a real "union"



Well considering Howard introduced it in 2006 and he was chucked out over it in 2007, I can't see any reason it would be resurected.
I hope they don't bring back putting children down mines and the 40 hour week, but i'm not going to keep bringing it up, every couple of months.


----------



## PZ99 (8 July 2019)

The way things are heading, it might be pensioners going down the mines...

We have little else to offer; maybe that was the hell we're supposed to avoid by repenting


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2019)

PZ99 said:


> We have little else to offer; maybe that was the hell we're supposed to avoid by repenting




Hey, give up our rights and we will be in hell soon enough. It's never time to lay down and roll over.


----------



## Logique (9 July 2019)

In response to the comments from PZ99 and MoXJO - WorkChoices always looked like a political suicide note to me. Hubris from a right of centre government. Not all Trade Unions are renegades! (yes that's me saying it)

Political influence, look at the demographic bell curve. Which group has the numbers?  Deeming rate under review, that's a good start.


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2019)

Interesting development with regard ARL and code of conduct.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...y-australian-rugby-league-commission/11319290

I think they have painted themselves into a corner with this one, he is toast in my opinion, calling a Singaporean policeman a F###ing dog.
They look nothing like that, maybe he should have told him to go to hell, he probably would have been in less trouble.


----------



## Macquack (19 July 2019)

This is for the Victorians,   South Australians and Western Australians - Rugby League is not the same game as Rugby Union.


----------



## StockyGuy (19 July 2019)

Macquack said:


> This is for the Victorians,   South Australians and Western Australians - Rugby League is not the same game as Rugby Union.




Hehehe.  Indeed, as a league fan I'm taken aback by way union now calls themselves  Rugby Australia (RA) - old name ARU was less controversial and avoided confusion with the more popular format in Aus.


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2019)

Macquack said:


> This is for the Victorians,   South Australians and Western Australians - Rugby League is not the same game as Rugby Union.



What, they have two different types, of running head first into each other.


----------



## sptrawler (23 July 2019)

Looks like Australia is embroiled in another code of conduct issue.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...world-championships/11334782?section=analysis

Mack Horton is making a stand for what he believes in, but from what I can gather the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, hasn't been found guilty of drug use yet.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/mack-h...onal-swimming-federation-20190722-p529ok.html

Funnily enough, some of the people who said Folau should keep his beliefs and opinions to himself, are now saying Horton did the right thing.
It's a complicated life, being these paragons of virtue.  
They will be kept very busy, adjudicating on all these moral issues.


----------



## PZ99 (24 July 2019)

It gets even more complicated for them if they compare Folau with Yassmin Abdel-Magied.

Two nearly identical cases of bad comments online met with vastly different reactions from radio shock jocks and God botherers


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2019)

It was more a legal issue with Folau. 
And media was against him.
Yassmin had media onside apart from shock jocks.

It was funny that they had the Goodes doco on about how we need to do better with poc. And then turn around and do a similar thing to Folau.

 Folau was and is hounded by some of the biggest "whitey" reporters in Australia for his opinion. His words were twisted to suit the agenda.
Fair enough. Media and news in this country has turned to dribble.

 But getting forced out of his job for it.
Demonized for trying to exercise his rights.
Thats where the cases differ. Folau stuck around to fight. The others ran off under the weight of conviction.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 August 2019)

A very good article.



> *The price of getting a job*
> The terms of employment contracts — millions of them — are all remarkably similar. Although they are signed by individuals, there is nothing individual about them because signing an employment contract is the price of getting a job. Their terms heavily favour the interests of the employer.
> 
> It is now routine for employment contracts to require all employees abide by all workplace policies, company codes of conduct and company "values". The employee signs the contract without even having seen any of these documents or obligations, which are unilaterally promulgated by their employer.
> ...




https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-07/israel-folau-should-be-able-to-go-back-to-work/11386826


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> A very good article.



Basically say's what we have been saying Rumpy, all employers have to do is write a broad far reaching code of conduct, then they can sack anyone for any misdemeanour at work or at home.
What I can't understand is people cheering it on, weird IMO, because it seems to be the ones cheering are the ones you would least expect to. You know those warm, fuzzy, holier than thou, do the right thing by people ones.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Basically say's what we have been saying Rumpy, all employers have to do is write a broad far reaching code of conduct, then they can sack anyone for any misdemeanour at work or at home.
> What I can't understand is people cheering it on, weird IMO, because it seems to be the ones cheering are the ones you would least expect to. You know those warm, fuzzy, holier than thou, do the right thing by people ones.




I think it's mainly the gay lobby doing the cheering and the Lefty SJW's are going along with it.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 August 2019)

A separate case which may have some bearing on Folau.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...ech-public-service--banerji-decision/11377990


----------



## Knobby22 (7 August 2019)

I agree with the result.
She was in the public service and it was her job to maintain a distance.
Some of the people arguing that what happened to her is unfair and yet somehow it is fair enough for Folau to be sacked.
In my view, Folau case is much less serious than Banerji's and politicians acting for us need to be protected from people like her.


----------



## PZ99 (7 August 2019)

This will be good. Members of the Govt who criticise the Govt can be sacked.

Last time I checked, everyone in parliament are in the public service


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2019)

PZ99 said:


> This will be good. Members of the Govt who criticise the Govt can be sacked.
> 
> Last time I checked, everyone in parliament are in the public service



Some are employed, some are elected, most do very little except criticise each other from my experience.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 August 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> She was in the public service and it was her job to maintain a distance.




This goes beyond the public service.

Now every employer will be able to control what their employees say on or off the job.

There is no right to free speech that powerful organisations can't subjugate.

A truly awful decision in a "free" country in my opinion.


----------



## PZ99 (7 August 2019)

Sadly, that's what you get when I/R laws are allowed to drift to the right of the political spectrum.

In the 20th century you were employed by your boss - in the 21st, you are owned.

It'll get worse until Australia is the same as the USA. Then watch the poverty stats


----------



## Knobby22 (7 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> This goes beyond the public service.
> 
> Now every employer will be able to control what their employees say on or off the job.
> 
> ...



You are drawing a long bow. 
The job of a public servant is quite different to working in the private sector however if you were undermining your employer secretly then it would by the employers right to sack you.


----------



## SirRumpole (7 August 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> You are drawing a long bow.
> The job of a public servant is quite different to working in the private sector however if you were undermining your employer secretly then it would by the employers right to sack you.




The idea that one individual can undermine a huge organisation is preposterous.

The idea that the public service thinks with one mind is also preposterous. They all have their own opinions which feed into the advice they give whether they express those opinions publicly or not.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2019)

Maybe the lady in question, would have been better to have asked for a transfer from her position, if she disagreed with her departments policy.
To get on a public stage and criticise the enforcement of that departments policy, is a bit different from Folau saying homosexuals, thieves and others will go to hell.
If Folau had said something about the way Rugby Australia is run, well maybe he would be in trouble and depending how bad it was maybe sackable. But he didn't say anything about Rugby Australia.
So how the comparison can be drawn is a bit beyond me, but no doubt people will try, hopefully the obvious prejudice against him isn't as bad as it appears.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2019)

Pretty amazing display of bullying and bigotry, this guy really needs to look in a mirror, before he bags other people for being rude and intolerant. Real piece of work.
Someone needs to remind him, the issue isn't about Folau's rugby playing.

https://au.yahoo.com/sports/bledisl...sledges-israel-folau-wallabies-012707843.html


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Pretty amazing display of bullying and bigotry, this guy really needs to look in a mirror, before he bags other people for being rude and intolerant. Real piece of work.
> Someone needs to remind him, the issue isn't about Folau's rugby playing.
> 
> https://au.yahoo.com/sports/bledisl...sledges-israel-folau-wallabies-012707843.html



Bet he was crying over Adam Goodes as well. Fitzy was always a wanker.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> Bet he was crying over Adam Goodes as well. Fitzy was always a wanker.



Yes, I knew nothing about him until this Israel Folau issue, but I have to agree with you.
I mean whether you you agree with what Folau said or not, to make a statement like he did about him on National T.V, is really dumb and just shows how little he looks at his own behaviour. 
While openly commenting on others. 
If he has always had that sort of attitude, I certainly wouldn't want him in my corner, shows an absolute lack of class.


----------



## wayneL (12 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> an absolute lack of class.




Nailed it SP.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe the lady in question, would have been better to have asked for a transfer from her position, if she disagreed with her departments policy.
> To get on a public stage and criticise the enforcement of that departments policy, is a bit different from Folau saying homosexuals, thieves and others will go to hell.




Does the Public Service make policy ?

I was under the impression that policy was the job of politicians, the PS give advice on how to carry out the policy.

So really, the people who are protected by the Public Service Code of Silence are the politicians who we all can vote for and we should be able to criticise.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Does the Public Service make policy ?
> 
> I was under the impression that policy was the job of politicians, the PS give advice on how to carry out the policy.
> 
> So really, the people who are protected by the Public Service Code of Silence are the politicians who we all can vote for and we should be able to criticise.



Aren't we talking about someone who works for a department of the public service? not someone who makes policy.
I was making a comment that if the Lady in question had some sort of moral issue with carrying out her function in that department, it would seem sensible to request a transfer to another department, where her emotional and or moral compass wasn't compromised.
A bit like working in a butcher shop all week, then going out with the vegans to protest on the weekend, carrying a placard denouncing the butcher shop you work for. IMO
I wouldn't think the butcher would be too happy if he found out.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I wouldn't think the butcher would be too happy if he found out.




Maybe not, but if the person was still doing a good job, why sack them ?

I'm sure the PS would like the person to move on, then they could just dismiss what they say, but some people's conscience needs them to stay around and try and make things better (not saying this was the case recently, but it does happen).


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe not, but if the person was still doing a good job, why sack them ?
> 
> I'm sure the PS would like the person to move on, then they could just dismiss what they say, but some people's conscience needs them to stay around and try and make things better (not saying this was the case recently, but it does happen).




Absolutely, but if it is affecting the persons ability to function well in the job, be that emotionally or physically, it would seem obvious to offer the person a transfer the public service is a big employer.
If the person is openly being obstructionist in carrying out their function and refuses a transfer, then it becomes very difficult to find common ground.
If dismissal is unfair or disproportionately severe, then the person has the ability to challenge that, as the Lady did.
The decision was upheld, one can only assume the hearing was fair and took all aspects into consideration.

The other thing is, when you say some people just want to stay around and make things better, you are assuming that the person's perception of how things should be done, is a correct one.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2019)

Anyway, here is the latest on the Folau saga.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/rug...-twitter-pages-disappear-20190812-p52gao.html


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2019)

Today's court hearing outcome, mediation and if not successful trial in February.
Folau's lawyers claim RA trying to bleed Folau of money.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...tralia-to-federal-court-over-sacking/11407404


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2019)

Nick Kyrgios shows everyone what a sackable statement is like IMO.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis...k-from-corruption-claims-20190829-p52lt2.html


----------



## SirRumpole (29 August 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Nick Kyrgios shows everyone what a sackable statement is like IMO.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis...k-from-corruption-claims-20190829-p52lt2.html




Kyrgios has backed down on the "corrupt" statement, but what if they were actually corrupt ?

Might be an interesting case of harassment or unfair dismissal.


----------



## Macquack (29 August 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Kyrgios has backed down on the "corrupt" statement, but what if they were actually corrupt ?
> 
> Might be an interesting case of harassment or unfair dismissal.



I doubt it. Kyrgios deserves every sanction he gets from the ATP. How can the ATP be corrupt when Kyrios breaks every rule they have ever penned.

Kyrgios makes John McEnroe look like a choir boy. With Kyrgios's lack of success on the court, I like the statement "Kyrgios is a poor man's McEnroe".


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2019)

I wonder if the outcome of Peter Ridd's unfair dismissal trail, will have a bearing on Israel Folau's outcome?

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-dismissal-case-against-james-cook-university
From the article:
_“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom,” he said. “Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

“Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”

Vasta’s ruling on Friday determined the extent of the economic loss suffered by Ridd as a result of his censure and dismissal_.


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

I think Rugby Australia is digging a bigger hole for itself, now they want to stop him playing for Tonga, it will be interesting to see how the courts view all this. IMO

https://au.yahoo.com/sports/israel-folau-alan-jones-slams-rugby-league-officials-225930935.html


----------



## sptrawler (24 September 2019)

It will be interesting if the Rugby League International Federation (RLIF), also impose a ban on him, I would guess he would then sue them as well.
Oh dear, this is going to get very, very messy IMO.


----------



## PZ99 (9 October 2019)

Speaking of getting messy "The Australian Christian Lobby has backed calls for religious businesses such as aged care providers to gain more powers of hiring and firing employees who do not conform to religious teachings."

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...g-of-employees-with-no-christian-sexual-ethic

Looks like credibility for so-called "religious freedom" has just gone down the swanny.


----------



## moXJO (9 October 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Speaking of getting messy "The Australian Christian Lobby has backed calls for religious businesses such as aged care providers to gain more powers of hiring and firing employees who do not conform to religious teachings."
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...g-of-employees-with-no-christian-sexual-ethic
> 
> Looks like credibility for so-called "religious freedom" has just gone down the swanny.



Yeah.... they can obey the law like the rest of us.


----------



## sptrawler (10 October 2019)

One of them is digging a hole for themselves.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fol...comments-on-social-media-20191010-p52zjl.html


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2019)

My guess is Ms Castle is on borrowed time.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...d-clash-at-tokyo-embassy-20191023-p533jz.html

The "my way, or the highway" style of running anything, went out with the dinosaurs, well it has for most people. 
I think Israel's case is looking better and better.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 October 2019)

It has served the Libs well. Look over here while they progressively remove freedoms.
They are in no rush for it to end.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> It has served the Libs well. Look over here while they progressively remove freedoms.
> They are in no rush for it to end.



Oh you think only the Libs are authoritarian? Come on!


----------



## Knobby22 (24 October 2019)

wayneL said:


> Oh you think only the Libs are authoritarian? Come on!



No, all parties are authoritarian. Seems to be the fashion in Australia at present.
Victorian State Labor are doing similar things. We aren't allowed to know any information regarding contracts anymore. FOI is a joke.


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> No, all parties are authoritarian. Seems to be the fashion in Australia at present.
> Victorian State Labor are doing similar things. We aren't allowed to know any information regarding contracts anymore. FOI is a joke.



There is obviously a lot of $hit happening, that the public aren't aware of, at all levels in all States.


----------



## satanoperca (24 October 2019)

Might as well live in China, at least they are open about hiding the truth


----------



## Ferret (17 November 2019)

*‘Doing this out of love’: Israel Folau says bushfires are God’s judgment after same-sex marriage, abortion law*

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/11/17/israel-folau-bushfires-sermon-gods-judgment/

I'm speechless.


----------



## PZ99 (18 November 2019)

I'm not remotely surprised. Some people take longer than others to deindoctrinate 

Freedom of speech derives from freedom of thought - something for him to aspire at.


----------



## orr (18 November 2019)

Thanks for runnning up the flag on on this twat fella's.
And remember the Australian Rugby Union is likely up for a mutli Million pay out to this Prick..

For Anyone that finds themselves in close proximity to Izzy and his 'tight knit ilk' ; may I humbly suggest;
* avoid the Koolaid. 
*Think twice (three or more times) before entering the compound.
*Do not let these people get anywhere near your children.
*And for those of Faith; 'pray for them' ... _not that that's likely to do any good_.

Religion is the sea in which this idiocy swims....


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2019)

orr said:


> Thanks for runnning up the flag on on this twat fella's.
> And remember the Australian Rugby Union is likely up for a mutli Million pay out to this Prick..
> 
> For Anyone that finds themselves in close proximity to Izzy and his 'tight knit ilk' ; may I humbly suggest;
> ...




Yeah really dumb... really REALLY dumb on many levels.

If one is a **believer, it is the height of ignorance and arrogance to presume to know the mind of God. It also doesn't give God a hell of a lot of credit for targeting the purported blasphemers. It is the political, journalistic, and inner-city trendy classes that voted in SSM etc, not the humble country folk in the path of the fires, not en masse anyway.

**Disclaimer: I am not an atheist, I do have my own set of beliefs but do not follow any organised religion, do with that what you will.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2019)

.... But free speech reigns. Through the power of free speech we have learnt a little bit more about this man and that is a good thing.


----------



## sptrawler (18 November 2019)

Whatever his thoughts or beliefs, he is allowed to have them and if others wish to listen to them so be it.
That is why Australia is the Country it is, because people can and do speak their minds, that is what people the World over like about Australians.
We are a weird bunch, when we criticise the very thing that sets us aside from other Countries. IMO
Really what happened to just saying, "yeh whatever mate, you're a goose".
No now we have to take them out and strip them and give them a public lashing, WTF has Australia become?
Anyway gotta go, this ships internet is slow and expensive.


----------



## chiff (18 November 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Whatever his thoughts or beliefs, he is allowed to have them and if others wish to listen to them so be it.
> That is why Australia is the Country it is, because people can and do speak their minds, that is what people the World over like about Australians.
> We are a weird bunch, when we criticise the very thing that sets us aside from other Countries. IMO
> Really what happened to just saying, "yeh whatever mate, you're a goose".
> ...



He has good effect on most people-he is entertaining.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 November 2019)

chiff said:


> He has good effect on most people-he is entertaining.




I think the real joke's on those who take him seriously.

He's a guy who gets paid to play with a ball and who randomly makes a silly comments with a religious theme. 

OK, whatever, it's not like he's running around lighting fires or shooting people. I don't agree with pretty much anything he says but he's easily ignored.


----------



## basilio (19 November 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I think the real joke's on those who take him seriously.
> 
> He's a guy who gets paid to play with a ball and who randomly makes a silly comments with a religious theme.
> 
> OK, whatever, it's not like he's running around lighting fires or shooting people. I don't agree with pretty much anything he says but he's easily ignored.




I disagree with taking Israel Folau lightly. We have hate laws because as a community we decided that denigrating whole groups of people created division, distrust and lead to violence - social/emotional/physical.  I can't see why we should ignore a person doing this and particularly when they use the umbrella of relegion (Christian as well !) to spread such a message.


----------



## wayneL (19 November 2019)

basilio said:


> I disagree with taking Israel Folau lightly. We have hate laws because as a community we decided that denigrating whole groups of people created division, distrust and lead to violence - social/emotional/physical.  I can't see why we should ignore a person doing this and particularly when they use the umbrella of relegion (Christian as well !) to spread such a message.



 Why does the left take Islam so lightly then?


----------



## cynic (19 November 2019)

basilio said:


> I disagree with taking Israel Folau lightly. We have hate laws because as a community we decided that denigrating whole groups of people created division, distrust and lead to violence - social/emotional/physical....



So let me see if I understand just one of the key elements being stated here:

Denigration of whole groups is divisive and unwelcome as it tends to lead to social emotional and physical violence.

Before I proceed, I feel the need to ask, have I correctly understood this first part of your post?


----------



## PZ99 (19 November 2019)

chiff said:


> He has good effect on most people-he is entertaining.



Hence the fundraising campaign. 1 million dollars wasn't it ? 

Heck, I'd spray fundamentalist god bothering faecal matter for that sort of money as well


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 November 2019)

basilio said:


> I disagree with taking Israel Folau lightly. We have hate laws because as a community we decided that denigrating whole groups of people created division, distrust and lead to violence - social/emotional/physical.  I can't see why we should ignore a person doing this and particularly when they use the umbrella of relegion (Christian as well !) to spread such a message.




I see the point you are making but it seems a bit harsh for society to be singling out one individual.

Among many others, the following whole groups have been targeted at some point in the relatively recent past by politicians, government agencies or government itself, the media or others with a reasonable profile:

*People born at a certain time, particularly those born between 1945 and 1964 or after 1980.

*Illegal immigrants who arrived by boat (but strangely not those who arrive by plane).

*Men

*Avocado eaters

*Anyone with a lot of money

*Women

*Anyone who does not have a lot of money

*Public Servants

*Workers in certain occupations especially "blue collar" trades

*Shareholders

*Unemployed persons

*Retirees especially those aged under 65

All those and more have been "demonized" by some politician, government itself, government department, media or others in the relatively recent past but I don't see too many taking personal offence to it even where they strongly disagree with what's being said. Far more commonly they just think whoever said it is totally out of touch with reality and ought to stick to whatever they're good at or if there's a serious chance that some drastic thing is actually going to be done then they fight it via the political process.

Now I think Folau's an idiot yes and I don't even slightly agree with what he has to say, heck I was an advocate for gay law reform well before it was fashionable to support the cause and when homosexuality as such was still a crime, but I see no reason to silence him. Better to let him carry on, leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of any thinking person that he's a fool, and win the argument passively without resorting to gagging anyone.


----------



## wayneL (22 November 2019)

FWIW


----------



## satanoperca (22 November 2019)

Oh Wayne, poor Wayne, lucky we know that there are some great horses to save you.

So you post a link, to a post that states here is the transcript, no video, a transcript, well I call that fake, and more so that the author could have had conformational bias - In 2009 Rod moved on from a 12 year management career with Koorong. Then went on to study a degree through Tabor College Adelaide, graduating from there in 2013 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Ministry & Theology. You can read more of Rod’s work at his website.

Just another nut job.


----------



## wayneL (22 November 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Oh Wayne, poor Wayne, lucky we know that there are some great horses to save you.
> 
> So you post a link, to a post that states here is the transcript, no video, a transcript, well I call that fake, and more so that the author could have had conformational bias - In 2009 Rod moved on from a 12 year management career with Koorong. Then went on to study a degree through Tabor College Adelaide, graduating from there in 2013 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Ministry & Theology. You can read more of Rod’s work at his website.
> 
> Just another nut job.



Whoa there Sapphire. The link is there, and I posted without comment, purely for brevity and interest.

I think you have jumped the shark on me there matey.


----------



## satanoperca (22 November 2019)

wayneL said:


> I think you have jumped the shark on me there matey.




Fair call, I might have, no disrespect intended. 

Plus, you change how I think of horses and I will be always grateful to anyone who can change my thought process from negative to positive on anything in life.

 but sometimes I am a little


----------



## SirRumpole (22 November 2019)

As Oscar Wilde once said

"there is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about."


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2019)

I just read Rugby Australia has formally apologised and settled out of court with Folau, well I think that saved them the biggest ar$e whipping in history.lol
Absolute morons, someone's head should roll for the wholed sorry incident IMO.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I just read Rugby Australia has formally apologised and settled out of court with Folau, well I think that saved them the biggest ar$e whipping in history.lol
> Absolute morons, someone's head should roll for the wholed sorry incident IMO.



Chairman's head is rolling.
They are in a bad way on many fronts not just Folau.


----------



## satanoperca (4 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I just read Rugby Australia has formally apologised and settled out of court with Folau, well I think that saved them the biggest ar$e whipping in history.lol
> Absolute morons, someone's head should roll for the wholed sorry incident IMO.




Please read the pr release from both parties, both apologized.

Both are stupid.


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Please read the pr release from both parties, both apologized.
> 
> Both are stupid.



But the post that started it all is still there for anyone to read.


----------



## wayneL (4 December 2019)

Meanwhile, "Islamophobia" is in the process of  being criminalised.

Not Christophobia
Not Sihkophobia
Not Buddhaphobia
Not Rastaphobia
Not Shintophobia
Not Wiccanphobia
Not even Coulrophobia (sic?)

Think about that.

Why?


----------



## sptrawler (4 December 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Please read the pr release from both parties, both apologized.
> 
> Both are stupid.



Israel is just doing the Christian thing and being humble, RA are the ones with egg all over their faces and paying out big money I bet.


----------



## satanoperca (4 December 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> But the post that started it all is still there for anyone to read.



Agree, we will never know the truth as both parties sold out to the conviction through a confidentiality  clause. 
So both parties are sell outs to their beliefs (or voiced beliefs, as the truth is it is all about a dollar which brings back the reason for the fight or conflict in the first place, show me the $$$$) of what is right or wrong


----------



## satanoperca (4 December 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Israel is just doing the Christian thing and being humble, RA are the ones with egg all over their faces and paying out big money I bet.



Sorry but I live on planet earth, he was doing nothing about the Christian thing, $14m is hardly that.


----------



## moXJO (4 December 2019)

Folau won.... 
Big payout, can still preach his rubbish and allowed to play rugby again.
Must have been a big payout as well. He had the money and the backing to go all the way.

RA will be sacking board members and dealing with the fallout. Shame it didn't make the courts. Would have been an interesting test case.


----------



## satanoperca (4 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Meanwhile, "Islamophobia" is in the process of  being criminalised.
> 
> Not Christophobia
> Not Sihkophobia
> ...



Sorry you did not get the press release but I have been campaigning hard for the following things to be criminalised :


*Waynelophobia*
*Equinophobia - they are only good to eat*
Punishable by eating the testicles of Scomo


----------



## moXJO (4 December 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Punishable by eating the testicles of Scomo



Dude... thats homophobic


----------



## satanoperca (4 December 2019)

moXJO said:


> Dude... thats homophobic



Then I am homophobic, a racist (I hate white people, especially men who are bold), anti cultural, anti ethnic, anti national and a *misanthrope.

 Oh, did I mention, a total distrust for those that like horses.
*
So, is there anyone else I can offend in the name of xxxxx.


----------



## PZ99 (5 December 2019)

wayneL said:


> Meanwhile, "Islamophobia" is in the process of  being criminalised.
> 
> Not Christophobia
> Not Sihkophobia
> ...



What about Atheisophobia? 

After all we're the ones that keep getting told we're going to hell. Some one just got paid a truck load of money for doing just that. Talk about special treatment. Fully sick, bro


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2019)

satanoperca said:


> Then I am homophobic, a racist (I hate white people, especially men who are bold), anti cultural, anti ethnic, anti national and a *misanthrope.
> 
> Oh, did I mention, a total distrust for those that like horses.
> *
> So, is there anyone else I can offend in the name of xxxxx.



Dude, I could've told you all horse people are nuts


----------



## Logique (8 December 2019)

CEO Raelene Castle - resign
ARU Board - resign

When has Australian Rugby ever been at such a low point as it is now?  There was never any need for it to come to such an ignominious end (for Rugby Australia). Mishandled from the beginning.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2019)

Logique said:


> CEO Raelene Castle - resign
> ARU Board - resign
> 
> When has Australian Rugby ever been at such a low point as it is now?  There was never any need for it to come to such an ignominious end (for Rugby Australia). Mishandled from the beginning.



Has it happened yet?
I was listening to Irish born reporter Catherine Murphy on the ABC and she was very upset with everyone but especially Folau who she says has damaged Rugby badly.

She said Rugby hasn't got a broadcast deal, lost their main sponsor, they performed poorly in the world cup, they are now rating below soccer and basketball. 

As a fan she was quite sad and angry. It is a low point that the sport will have trouble recovering from.


----------



## PZ99 (9 December 2019)

Good luck finding another sponsor then - they tend to take a dim view of hate speech.

According to the conspiracy theorists, that's what led to this outcome.


----------



## sptrawler (9 December 2019)

Trying to use your position in running a sporting body, as a beachhead for social engineering, was always going to be difficult.
To pick such an abstract incident, to hang their hat on, was always going to be a loser.
They would have been better far better off, waiting until the end of year shenanigans that happen every year and made an example of one of those. IMO
The Folau case smacked of a personal vendetta, rather than an honest attempted to correct poor conduct, the punishment far exceeded the indiscretion.IMO
All involved should be sacked. Just my opinion.


----------



## Logique (15 December 2019)

Arsenal deftly deflects the whole Ozil controversy. It's just the players personal opinion, not ours says the club.
What, you can do that?
Yes you can, ARU Board and CEO.  And it's much less expensive







> *Arsenal distance themselves from Mesut Özil comments on Uighurs’ plight*
> https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-from-mesut-ozil-comments-china-uighur-people
> - Midfielder highlighted persecution of Muslims in China
> • Club says it ‘does not involve itself in politics’ in statement
> ...


----------



## sptrawler (25 February 2020)

Interesting development post the Israel Folau incident, apparently Rugby Australia gagged players from supporting Folau, no wonder they settled out of court it must have been getting awkward.
_*Christian Wallabies* Sekope Kepu and Samu Kerevi say *Rugby Australia* '*muzzled*' their *support* for teammate *Israel Folau*. *Christian Wallabies* felt *muzzled by Rugby Australia* during the *Israel Folau* saga, leading to division in the locker room before the World Cup, explosive court documents reveal_.(Daily Telegraph)


----------



## sptrawler (3 March 2020)

The sporting codes are kicking up about the proposed religious freedom bill, maybe if R.A had been more circumspect and not so heavy handed with the penalty they handed out, they may have more money and the bill wouldn't have been required.
Just my opinion, but it seemed to be the biggest case of blowing your feet off, in recent history.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/spo...d-religious-freedom-bill-20200303-p546fv.html


----------



## macca (3 March 2020)

sptrawler said:


> The sporting codes are kicking up about the proposed religious freedom bill, maybe if R.A had been more circumspect and not so heavy handed with the penalty they handed out, they may have more money and the bill wouldn't have been required.
> Just my opinion, but it seemed to be the biggest case of blowing your feet off, in recent history.
> 
> https://www.theage.com.au/sport/spo...d-religious-freedom-bill-20200303-p546fv.html




Remember the golden rule, He who has the gold makes the rules................

Some sponsors have very strong views on what was posted.

They are sure going to need big sponsors if the TV rights are not bid up very soon.


----------



## sptrawler (3 March 2020)

macca said:


> Remember the golden rule, He who has the gold makes the rules................
> 
> Some sponsors have very strong views on what was posted.
> 
> They are sure going to need big sponsors if the TV rights are not bid up very soon.



No point in having sponsors with strong views, that upsets supporters with strong views, that is counter productive.
Finishing someones working career, over a vaguely perceived insult, doesn't pass the pub test as they say. IMO
When other players had been cautioned or fined, for what could be classed as outrageous behaviour, at past end of year celebrations.
Just my opinion, from the outside looking in, not a fan or follower of the sport or religion. Just found the whole incident very interesting and entertaining.


----------



## sptrawler (9 March 2020)

Finally the media is asking people who matter, rather than just the weird ones, who have serious mental issues.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/we...au-this-is-their-verdict-20200308-p5482f.html
From the article:

_While the majority of clubs are still opposed to Folau's return, the NRL is bracing for support to continue to grow.

"All we hear is about inclusiveness, but it's hypocritical to say we're a game that accepts everyone when we won't accept him or his beliefs," one club figure said.

"If he agrees to strict rules and has learnt his lesson, why shouldn't he be allowed to come back? He hasn't committed a crime."

There's a growing realisation from head office that, should a club attempt to sign Folau, the NRL could have a legal battle on its hands if it tries to stand in the way.

The NRL has already sought legal advice on the matter but hasn't had to act as clubs wait to see how he performs in his first season in rugby league since 2010_.

This has a long way to play out yet, some must be wondering, how long they will be in a job.
Who knows, Israel may be heading for a second go, at the redundancy package.
Just my opinion.


----------



## sptrawler (30 March 2020)

Rugby Australia reports a $9.4 million loss, that is probably what they paid Folau.

https://www.rugby.com.au/news/2020/03/30/rugby-australia-annual-general-meeting-update


----------



## PZ99 (1 April 2020)

I was waiting for Folau to make some silly comment about God shutting down the footy like he did with the bushfires but it seems at last he has had the decency of restraint for once.

If God really did start the bushfires as stated then I'd be the first atheist to send religion a tax invoice to pay for all the damage.


----------



## moXJO (1 April 2020)

PZ99 said:


> I was waiting for Folau to make some silly comment about God shutting down the footy like he did with the bushfires but it seems at last he has had the decency of restraint for once.
> 
> If God really did start the bushfires as stated then I'd be the first atheist to send religion a tax invoice to pay for all the damage.



Drought, fire, toilet paper famine, plague, cancellation of khabib vs Ferguson. It's biblical times.


----------



## Logique (2 April 2020)

How Folau must be laughing now

_https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...rugby-pay-war-turns-ugly-20200401-p54g4n.html
*'They're being treated with contempt': Rugby pay war turns ugly*
By Georgina Robinson and Tom Decent - April 2, 2020 

"Past players union bosses have accused Rugby Australia of treating its athletes with "contempt" and chief executive Raelene Castle came in for vicious criticism from a former Wallaby as the coronavirus pay stalemate continued on Wednesday..."_


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2020)

Logique said:


> How Folau must be laughing now
> 
> _https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...rugby-pay-war-turns-ugly-20200401-p54g4n.html
> *'They're being treated with contempt': Rugby pay war turns ugly*
> ...



They deserve the problems after the Folau incident IMO, What cost virtue signalling? well some are finding out. Maybe Allan Joyce can bail them out.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Logique (6 April 2020)

Rugby Australia could become insolvent. Basket case. Reported cash reserves of just $11 million







> New Zealand Herald
> news.com.au, APRIL 6, 2020: https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby...f/news-story/f5d6c91e063ce7c8244ea45d31633399
> *Israel Folau Rugby Australia pay out twist as game heads over the cliff*
> Israel Folau’s multi-million dollar settlement goldmine is reportedly set to turn to dust as Rugby Australia braces to head over a cliff.
> ...The report claims the governing body has *cash reserves of just $11 million* — which would only allow the game to cover the wages of players through to the end of June...


----------



## sptrawler (6 April 2020)

Logique said:


> Rugby Australia could become insolvent. Basket case. Reported cash reserves of just $11 million



Well IMO you are playing a dangerous game, when you are using a sporting code for social and moral engineering, firstly you need a water tight case and secondly you are going to split your player base and also your fan base.
Then on top of that, they capitulate and pay Folau out. I'm guessing a lot of paying fans would see the whole incident as an example of poor management, poor discipline and an absolute waste of money. It will take a lot of work to rebuild the brand IMO.


----------



## Logique (7 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Well IMO you are playing a dangerous game, when you are using a sporting code for social and moral engineering, firstly you need a water tight case and secondly you are going to split your player base and also your fan base.
> Then on top of that, they capitulate and pay Folau out. I'm guessing a lot of paying fans would see the whole incident as an example of poor management, poor discipline and an absolute waste of money. It will take a lot of work to rebuild the brand IMO.



Spot on Spt.  Judging by the media reports, I think the past players have had enough, and want change at RA


----------



## sptrawler (15 April 2020)

I 'm from W.A and know nothing about rugby, but I do read the media, how can this bloke be allowed to keep writing stuff?
He wrote during the Folau incident that RA had a lay down misere, when blind Freddy could see they had blown their feet off OMG.
Now he tries to backfill the hole the boss of RA has dug, he is saying the RA boss is in the $hit because of sexism, I guess you have to pull some thing out, if you keep digging up there.
Australian media really is in trouble IMO.
Just my humble opinion, from the other side of the Country.
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/rugby-a...s-claims-raelene-castle-sexism-225156721.html

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/ne...gby-rebuild-link-to-fans-20200415-p54k5c.html
Untill RA gets over themselves and admit a huge error, they will continue having problems, to F$%k up is one thing to keep denying it just wears thin IMO.
By the way, I do hope they get over it, because IMO any sport is a good sport, way too much sitting around these days.
Just my opinion.


----------



## sptrawler (21 April 2020)

Well the virus is about to take another casualty by the looks of it, the chickens come home roost.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...y-australia-leadership/12122714?section=sport
From the article:
Rugby Australia is headed for insolvency, with serious questions raised over the management of the game by the board and its chief executive, Raelene Castle, according to one of the sport's most revered elders.

Former World Cup-winning captain, Nick Farr-Jones, has told The Ticket that with "ongoing concerns", the board must be wary of being "in breach of the Corporations Act".

"I wouldn't be surprised if an administrator was appointed in the next fortnight," he said.

_While several former Wallabies captains were approached by The Ticket, only Farr-Jones agreed to speak publicly about the current state of the game.

"I understand reserves are minimal … there're no games happening, we have no broadcasting deal and I think sponsors would see rugby as very much on the nose at the moment — so they're the three areas where you get your income," he said.

"As soon as they [Rugby Australia] cut a deal with the players, one would expect there'd be a liability that will crystallise and if I was sitting on the board … I would really be looking at the going concern issues.

"If you have going concern issues, and you don't want to breach the Corporations Act, well then you go into what's known as VA, or voluntary administration."
He said the game had been in demise for several years with responsibility for poor judgment to be shared by the board and the chief executive.

"Absolutely I think there has been some very poor board decisions, I think that executively the game has been very poorly managed," Farr-Jones said.

"You look at the sponsorship situation, you look at bums on seats and the declining viewership on TV which of course leads to issues in relation to how you can sell your broadcasting rights.
"You look at the judgment of the chief executive and the board in not accepting the Fox broadcasting deal and whether that's left us in this very precarious situation — of course there's responsibility.

"And you look at the abysmal way that Rugby Australia handled the [Israel] Folau case and got bullied by senior sponsors into making a very stupid decision and then you later — a long time later — read the lack of communication between teammates and coaches_."


----------



## PZ99 (22 April 2020)

If they go into VA is just means Israel Folau won't get his money.

I Understand Ocasio-Cortez won't be getting hers either


----------



## sptrawler (22 April 2020)

PZ99 said:


> If they go into VA is just means Israel Folau won't get his money.
> 
> I Understand Ocasio-Cortez won't be getting hers either



I think that is the least of the problems RA has, and from what I read about Folau he was prepared to drop all action, for an appology.
Which he ended up getting anyway, when the boards ego is bigger than the obligation to those it represents, it is time to toss them.


----------



## sptrawler (23 April 2020)

I see the CEO has fallen on the sword, all it needs now is the rest of the board to follow suite. IMO
They were there to represent the players and the members, not to pedal personal agendas.
Just my opinion.


----------



## PZ99 (24 April 2020)

So they'll replace their CEO with another one. But their rules regarding players using social media to pedal personal agendas will stay the same. Just as it will stay the same with any other employer. As I said at the start, these laws have been in place for more than a decade.
Ironically, they started appearing in employee contracts when the Coalition's Workchoice IR laws stated you could sack anyone for nearly nothing - a policy the current Govt is revisiting 

Yep, Folau gets his payout meanwhile his fellow (or is that ex-fellow) players cop a pay cut.

He got his apology whilst having to issue his own apology "for any hurt or harm caused."

That's a win for atheists like me. Except I don't get a payout LOL
I wouldn't want his tainted money anyway...

I just hope he continues his E-rampage against people who don't conform with his BS beliefs so that he can continue apologising for being divorced from reality afterwards. _(Yep, that's IMO)_ 

As for Raelene Castle - see ya - wouldn't wanna be ya.


----------



## sptrawler (24 April 2020)

I agree with you PZ88, it is a win for personal rights, the company pays you, it doesn't own you.
When you can be sacked for an opinion, that had nothing to do with your employer, it needs chucking out same as work choices.
If the social media rule is applied the same way again, I hope it is tested again.
I would like to see Folau re employed, as no employer should have the right to ban you from being re employed, that is just bizarre.
Anyway the whole sorry saga is coming to an end fortunately.


----------



## Humid (24 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I agree with you PZ88, it is a win for personal rights, the company pays you, it doesn't own you.
> When you can be sacked for an opinion, that had nothing to do with your employer, it needs chucking out same as work choices.
> If the social media rule is applied the same way again, I hope it is tested again.
> I would like to see Folau re employed, as no employer should have the right to ban you from being re employed, that is just bizarre.
> Anyway the whole sorry saga is coming to an end fortunately.




Sponsorship Homer Sponsorship


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> When you can be sacked for an opinion, that had nothing to do with your employer, it needs chucking out same as work choices.



Absolute and utter nonsense.
Our laws are very clear on what constitutes a sacking offence.  In Folau's case the point has been made dozens of times that he breached a written condition in his employment contract which he had been warned about prior to entering into it. 
At no time have you grasped what was at issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

rederob said:


> Absolute and utter nonsense.
> Our laws are very clear on what constitutes a sacking offence.  In Folau's case the point has been made dozens of times that he breached a written condition in his employment contract which he had been warned about prior to entering into it.
> At no time have you grasped what was at issue.




So you uphold the right of employers to write anything they want into a contract ?

Clauses which involve an employees private life should not be allowed to be written into an employment contract.

You agree with Folau's sacking because you disagree with what he said.

Suppose he was sacked for saying something you agreed with, I bet you would be screaming about freedom of speech then.


----------



## Humid (24 April 2020)

Even FIFO workers are told you're representing the company on their time off when going to town.
They might not sack you but they withdraw your accommodation.
Which is the same I know guys who have been sacked for indiscretions at home.I think you old blokes have been out of the workforce too long
Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it


----------



## sptrawler (24 April 2020)

Humid said:


> Even FIFO workers are told you're representing the company on their time off when going to town.
> They might not sack you but they withdraw your accommodation.
> Which is the same I know guys who have been sacked for indiscretions at home.I think you old blokes have been out of the workforce too long
> Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it



They still have to justify the action, or it is unfair dismissal, what happened to Folau is like the mining company saying you can't work in mining for anyone.
The punishment has to befit the crime.
Jeez at meetings with management, I have told them exactly what I thought of them and I mean exactly.
You do represent your company, but what you say outside of work as long as it has nothing to do with the company and isn't illegal. Isn't a stackable offence, disciplinary maybe? Banned from working in Australia I don't think so.
When I was a young bloke, a whole family was thrown out of Dampier, the kids stole and scuttled a service tug, it didn't mean the father couldn't get a job for Goldsworthy.


----------



## Humid (24 April 2020)

Mate they withdraw your accommodation


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> So you uphold the right of employers to write anything they want into a contract ?
> 
> Clauses which involve an employees private life should not be allowed to be written into an employment contract.
> 
> ...



We covered these points many times and you have not got a lot right.
I never would have sacked Folau as I reckoned there were smarter ways to deal with him.  
However, an independent panel determined his fate.
Had Folau's case proceeded to the High Court he would have been well and truly exposed for his hypocrisy.  Folau conceded his twitter posts - more than one - had offended elements of the community and had breached the Code of Conduct.  He did offer an apology but refused to take down his posts.  Moreover, Folau indicated to RA that he would continue to post as he saw fit, which included repeating similar posts that could be offensive.
The decision to settle the matter was smart at the time in that RA hoped to put an end to the brand damage that had already been done.  Unfortunately there remains a group who consider it is their god given right to offend whomever as they fit.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> They still have to justify the action, or it is unfair dismissal, what happened to Folau is like the mining company saying you can't work in mining for anyone.



Again, more unmitigated rubbish.  Folau was playing rugby in France after his settlement from RA.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

rederob said:


> We covered these points many times and you have not got a lot right.
> I never would have sacked Folau as I reckoned there were smarter ways to deal with him.
> However, an independent panel determined his fate.
> Had Folau's case proceeded to the High Court he would have been well and truly exposed for his hypocrisy.  Folau conceded his twitter posts - more than one - had offended elements of the community and had breached the Code of Conduct.  He did offer an apology but refused to take down his posts.  Moreover, Folau indicated to RA that he would continue to post as he saw fit, which included repeating similar posts that could be offensive.
> The decision to settle the matter was smart at the time in that RA hoped to put an end to the brand damage that had already been done.  Unfortunately there remains a group who consider it is their god given right to offend whomever as they fit.




Oh dear causing "offence" it now a crime apparently.

Anyone but a total snowflake would realise that the opinions of one employee don't matter a damn, he had no power to enforce any of his opinions on anyone in the game.

Now, if a member of the Rugby Australia management said the same thing it would cause concern that that individuals private opinions could influence the policy of the organisation and could influence the employment opportunities of others.

Folau had no such influence, he was simply an employee paid to play a game, nothing else.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh dear causing "offence" it now a crime apparently.



It most definitely can be.
Since the introduction of provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the _Racial Discrimination Act_ makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, *offend *or intimidate another person or group in *public *on the basis of their race.
Some States have laws that cover communications made in public that incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of people on the ground of their sexual orientation or sex and/or gender identity. This can include comments made in the media or in web pages with public access.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

rederob said:


> It most definitely can be.
> Since the introduction of provisions dealing with racial hatred in 1995, the _Racial Discrimination Act_ makes it unlawful to insult, humiliate, *offend *or intimidate another person or group in *public *on the basis of their race.
> Some States have laws that cover communications made in public that incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of people on the ground of their sexual orientation or sex and/or gender identity. This can include comments made in the media or in web pages with public access.




But he hasn't been charged with any offence has he ?


----------



## PZ99 (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> But he hasn't been charged with any offence has he ?



He doesn't have to be. There are many workplace violations that wouldn't attract a charge but they're still a sackable offence. A fair analogy is if I repeatedly swore at a god botherer at work or told the boss to go to hell I would be warned and eventually sacked.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

PZ99 said:


> A fair analogy is if I repeatedly swore at a god botherer at work or told the boss to go to hell I would be warned and eventually sacked.




No they are not fair analogies because they happened in the workplace and were directed against specific individuals.

Folau expressed his opinions in his own time.

I'll give you another analogy. Suppose there was a clause in the contract that all employees must support the employer's sponsors. Suppose one of those sponsors was the Meat and Livestock corporation and an employee was an animal rights supporter, which (s)he has a complete right to be.

If that employee refused to publicly support the MLC should that be a sackable offence ?

Once you allow not employment related clauses into employment contracts then that is a slippery slope downwards, like putting backdoor access into mobile phones.

The point being that employment contracts must not infringe on employees civil rights and one of those rights is Freedom of Speech.


----------



## PZ99 (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> No they are not fair analogies because they happened in the workplace and were directed against specific individuals.
> 
> Folau expressed his opinions in his own time.
> 
> ...



Well that's not a fair analogy either. No one is asking Folau to publicly support gays or atheism either.

And Australia doesn't have freedom of speech in its constitution does it?
We have 28c laws or whatever they are... overturn those and your point becomes valid.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Once you allow not employment related clauses into employment contracts then that is a slippery slope downwards, like putting backdoor access into mobile phones.
> The point being that employment contracts must not infringe on employees civil rights and one of those rights is Freedom of Speech.



You wrongly assume that Folau's employment is only about what he does on the field; he and every player are bound by a Code of Conduct that conditions their actions beyond the playing field.
Folau's had a detailed employment contract which had been clearly explained to him in relation to using social media, as well as including prescribed duties regarding a wide range of representational activities flowing on from being paid additional monies as a brand ambassador. 
Your unusual insistence that he can say what he wants "off the field" is not enshrined in any applicable laws - the "freedom of speech" you keep throwing up has no legal basis.  For that matter, people who are not even in employment can be prosecuted for expressing *opinions *which are contrary to laws. 
Remember that the Tribunal found that Mr Folau, by making his posts had breached rules 2.1(b)(i) (conduct detrimental to best interests), 2.1(b)(ii) (conduct likely to bring Game etc. into disrepute), 2.2(a) (duty to promote reputation of the Game and prevent disrepute), 3.5(a)(i) (public comment detrimental to best interests), 3.5(a)(ii) (public comment likely to bring Game etc. into disrepute), 3.6(a)(i) (social media content detrimental to best interests) and 3.6(a)(ii) (social media content likely to bring Game etc. into disrepute) of the Code of Conduct, and that these breaches were high level in severity.
It beggars belief that you consider Folau's breaches as "*not employment related*."


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

rederob said:


> It beggars belief that you consider Folau's breaches as "*not employment related*."




They occurred when he was "off the job".

If it's ok with you that an employer can control every aspect of an employees life, then I'm afraid you have little concept of what the word "democracy" means.


----------



## sptrawler (24 April 2020)

I find it strange that RA gets support, for not only sacking Folau but also saying he cannot be employed in Australia in his trade, by the very same people who bemoan 'workchoices' and the loss of weekend penalties.
I find it absolutely stunning, I in my whole working life have never heard of a more ridiculous and shallow reason for sacking someone, let alone making it so the person can never be re employed.
It is just astounding that people who appear to care about workers rights can agree with it, as Rumpy has said if an employer is allowed to do that, it is 10 times worse than work choices.
Rugby Australia has slapped wrists, for players bringing the game into disrepute, just about every end of year windup parties.
Then when a player as part of a religious post, including references to several biblical moral sins upsets a certain person, then that player is not only sacked but is told he will never play again.
That is just outrageous, at any level, those who dreamed up that punishment have serious issues.IMO
Suspend him for half a season with loss of wages, suspend him for a season maybe,
Sack him never to play again, that is bloody stupid and shows a personal vendetta, not a rational managerial decission IMO.
Those idiots said, they sacked him and banned him for life because it went against their inclusive agenda, if they were inclusive they wouldn't hand out a penalty like that.
Just a dumb, nasty, malicious move, that deserved the treatment it got IMO.
By the way I am an atheist and am open minded with someone sexual preferences, it is their business just for the record.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> They occurred when he was "off the job".
> 
> If it's ok with you that an employer can control every aspect of an employees life, then I'm afraid you have little concept of what the word "democracy" means.



As a paid "brand ambassador" you don't have the option of being "off the job."
Democracy is founded on laws - none of which you are able to offer in support of your ideas.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I find it strange that RA gets support, for not only sacking Folau but also saying he cannot be employed in Australia in his trade, by the very same people who bemoan 'workchoices' and the loss of weekend penalties.
> I find it absolutely stunning, I in my whole working life have never heard of a more ridiculous and shallow reason for sacking someone, let alone making it so the person can never be re employed.
> It is just astounding that people who appear to care about workers rights can agree with it, as Rumpy has said if an employer is allowed to do that, it is 10 times worse than work choices.
> Rugby Australia has slapped wrists, for players bringing the game into disrepute, just about every end of year windup parties.
> ...



I read a lot of rubbish at this site, but why do you keep regurgitating factless claims!


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

rederob said:


> As a paid "brand ambassador" you don't have the option of being "off the job."
> Democracy is founded on laws - none of which you are able to offer in support of your ideas.




Everyone has the right to a private life, otherwise we live in slavery.

Maybe that's the way you prefer it, I don't know.

Democracy is also founded on rights, if we don't have the right to disagree with others without penalty, then we don't have any rights at all.


----------



## PZ99 (24 April 2020)

Sadly, it's not private in the modern world of employment SR. Just ask Andrew Peacock. LOL -  I remember even as far back as the early 90's as a salaried dept head our directors could order us back to work even when we were on holiday. We had to keep our phone on all the time, every night. weekends, the lot.

I think the "private life" vapourised when companies that survived the '90 recession became ultra greedy and would scab every dollar and/or labour they could get away with. And with 10% unemployment, they got away with a truckload 

And then over the years, employers were given more and more ground that culminated to the laws we have today where your employer can dictate what you can and can't post on social media and whether it complies with THEIR best interests.

Today I work 2 jobs and social media rules are made very clear in both agreements. Their intents are exactly the same as what Folau signed in his contract. So there's nothing unique about this case.

It was a massive beat up by the angry-right media fuelled by a religious rage against unbelievers.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Democracy is also founded on rights, if we don't have the right to disagree with others without penalty, then we don't have any rights at all.



You are raising issues having nothing to do with Folau's case.
Even though I am retired, my prior employment in different organisations forever bind me through non disclosure clauses and the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.  As a result I do not have the democratic right to provide knowledge of events and activities that might prove actionable.


----------



## sptrawler (24 April 2020)

PZ99 said:


> Sadly, it's not private in the modern world of employment SR. I remember even as far back as the early 90's as a salaried dept head our directors could order us back to work even when we were on holiday. We were required to keep our phone on all the time, every night. weekends, the lot.
> 
> I think the "private life" vapourised when companies that survived the '90 recession became ultra greedy and would scab every dollar and/or labour they could get away with. And with 10% unemployment, they got away with a truckload
> 
> ...



Well it should have gone to court and been tested, it is in the best interest of workers that it should have gone to court, by management capitulating to Folau just showed establishment didnt want it tested.
Management wont try that again IMO.
Folau did the workers a great service by not capitulating, I would rather he had my back, than a certain CEO.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

rederob said:


> You are raising issues having nothing to do with Folau's case.
> Even though I am retired, my prior employment in different organisations forever bind me through non disclosure clauses and the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.  As a result I do not have the democratic right to provide knowledge of events and activities that might prove actionable.




Yeah I share your concern about Folau divulging National secrets.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 April 2020)

PZ99 said:


> Sadly, it's not private in the modern world of employment SR. Just ask Andrew Peacock. LOL -  I remember even as far back as the early 90's as a salaried dept head our directors could order us back to work even when we were on holiday. We had to keep our phone on all the time, every night. weekends, the lot.
> 
> I think the "private life" vapourised when companies that survived the '90 recession became ultra greedy and would scab every dollar and/or labour they could get away with. And with 10% unemployment, they got away with a truckload
> 
> ...




Well, this is just another example of restriction by stealth.

You may say that these restrictions apply to you, and I take your word for it, the question is "should they" ?

Do you enjoy the fact that your private life is the business of your employer ? Do you AGREE that it SHOULD be so ? Or do you just accept it because otherwise you wouldn't have a job ? I think your second paragraph basically admits that it was overreach by employers who had governments on their side at the time and no other government bothered to retract these employer "rights".


----------



## sptrawler (24 April 2020)

I just hope this virus clears and Folau applies to play back in Australia, before he is too old, this garbage needs to be challenged and I hope it is.
When you have workers worried about what they say when out with the boys and  have everyone cowtowing to a snotty nosed $hitbag, there is something seriously wrong, I really hope Folau pushes the boundries in Australia.
Just my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I just hope this virus clears and Folau applies to play back in Australia, before he is too old, this garbage needs to be challenged and I hope it is.
> When you have workers worried about what they say when out with the boys and  have everyone cowtowing to a snotty nosed $hitbag, there is something seriously wrong, I really hope Folau pushes the boundries in Australia.
> Just my opinion.




I thought it was all over, the case has been settled hasn't it ?


----------



## moXJO (25 April 2020)

This was already argued and Rob you were and are wrong. 
After RA ate a spoonful of sht, it ended in the blowing up of management. They were adamant that they wouldn't settle and look where we are.
Qantas is getting a royal shafting too, so maybe there is a God 

Already pulled out the laws throughout the thread. And it needed to be tested in court. You saying it was a "sure thing" is far from the facts.

Given we have God bothers in control of parliament and many of the judges in the courts. I didn't see it ending well for RA.


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I thought it was all over, the case has been settled hasn't it ?



Obviously Rob is still dribbling $hit, I can't see it because with the ignore function you don't have to, which is interesting because the thread still flows so his input must be absolutely worthless as usual. lol
Anyway getting back to Folau, I'm sure I read that some clubs were thinking about employing him in breach of RA ruling, now the management has been given the ar$e I'm sure that avenue will be re opened.
It is amasing how you can have a free Australia, until some dick decides your not dancing to my song, well you can only eat so many $hit sandwiches before people say enough is enough.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Obviously Rob is still dribbling $hit, I can't see it because with the ignore function you don't have to, which is interesting because the thread still flows so his input must be absolutely worthless as usual. lol
> Anyway getting back to Folau, I'm sure I read that some clubs were thinking about employing him in breach of RA ruling, now the management has been given the ar$e I'm sure that avenue will be re opened.
> It is amasing how you can have a free Australia, until some dick decides your not dancing to my song, well you can only eat so many $hit sandwiches before people say enough is enough.



Anyone wanting to employ  Folau can, and he is presently contracted as a player in France.
There is nothing preventing him playing in Australia because what you have said about RA is untrue.
Your knowledge of the Folau case is as sound as Trump's knowledge of COVID-19.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you enjoy the fact that your private life is the business of your employer ? Do you AGREE that it SHOULD be so ? Or do you just accept it because otherwise you wouldn't have a job ? I think your second paragraph basically admits that it was overreach by employers who had governments on their side at the time and no other government bothered to retract these employer "rights".



Again, you confuse facts.
A public posting to the internet is not a "private life."
You might be Sir Rumpy, but on matters of law and reasoning you are posting like Humpty Dumpty.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> Again, you confuse facts.
> A public posting to the internet is not a "private life."
> You might be Sir Rumpy, but on matters of law and reasoning you are posting like Humpty Dumpty.




Robbie, I really think you would be happier in another country. China or North Korea perhaps.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Robbie, I really think you would be happier in another country. China or North Korea perhaps.



Will I meet you there, darling?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> Will I meet you there, darling?




Yeah, in Tienamin Square.

Bring a flak jacket.


----------



## moXJO (25 April 2020)

Robbie brings a counterpoint to the forums. 
Often a very educated one at that. Conversation would wither and die without posters having differing views.


----------



## Logique (25 April 2020)

Folau in his long list of those damned to eternal hellfire, made the mistake of mentioning 'homosexuals' and 'atheists'. To some powerful people, and sponsors of the game, here was a gilt-edged opportunity for some social engineering.

The entire matter could have been handled with one RA press release - dissociating RA from Folau's private time social media.  But no, the PC bloodhounds were on the scent, as self-appointed arbiters of social mores. But this mandate wasn't theirs to exercise.

No word from these PC warriors about the 'adulterers', 'fornicators', 'thieves' or 'idolaters'..


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

Logique said:


> No word from these PC warriors about the 'adulterers', 'fornicators', 'thieves' or 'idolaters'..



Given that the case had nothing to do with those matters, you seem to keep falling into the hole dug by others who do not understand what was at issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

moXJO said:


> Robbie brings a counterpoint to the forums.
> Often a very educated one at that. Conversation would wither and die without posters having differing views.




He would be better off explaining his views more and less on insulting people.

High handed arrogance never goes down well.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

Logique said:


> The entire matter could have been handled with one RA press release - dissociating RA from Folau's private time social media.




Absolutely correct.

AS I've said for a while, if Folau was sacked for saying something that annoyed RA's sponsors , but was a popular community view, then the shrieks of protest would have gone the other way, in Folau's favour and his rights to speak out.

It's all about him saying things that the social justice warriors don't like being said, not the fact that he "allegedly" broke his contract.

Like others I would have liked to see this go to court because it raises important points about what people are allowed to say in their private lives.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> He would be better of explaining his views more and less on insulting people.
> 
> High handed arrogance never goes down well.



I have said more on this topic, with relevant references and using the applicable laws and reasoning which would be applicable, than any other poster.
You cannot reference a single a law to support your contentions.
You have not shown that you understand what was at issue.
For example, despite Folau and his legal team accepting he had breached the Code of Conduct, his application to the High Court effectively rejected that the Code could be applied to what Folau did in his own time.  His defence was that no applicable laws would prevent him posting as he saw fit.  Frankly, anyone legally trained could tear that to shreds.  Employees are subject to contract law.
RA would also have made it clear that Folau's "workplace" was contractually the public domain as he was paid extra monies specifically to undertake representative duties which were spelled out.
Some have argued that Folau's Player Contract left room for subjective interpretation regarding acceptable use of social media.  That would be a thin defence as he provided specific undertakings to RA when signing his new contract, due to being previously reprimanded by RA.
Much of Folau's case was weak. For example, there is a claim as follows:
*The content of the Social Media Posts: *

* was consistent with content contained in the Bible*
* was consistent with traditional Christian views*
However, the Bible contains no_ "_*Warnings*_" _as accompaniment to content.
The High Court decision was going to roll on whether they accepted that Contract law mas material, or that it was somehow subservient.
It could have been a very protracted and expensive case for all parties, and prior settlement seemed a sensible compromise, with each parting claiming they intended no harm to the other (somewhat laughably!).



SirRumpole said:


> Like others I would have liked to see this go to court because it raises important points about what people are allowed to say in their private lives.



You can say almost anything in private, but once you put it into the *public *domain you are constrained.  You continue to be confused by this point.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> You can say almost anything in private, but once you put it into the *public *domain you are constrained. You continue to be confused by this point.




I'm afraid you are confused about what the terms speech and thought mean.

Free *speech *means you are entitled to publicly say what you think without suffering penalties. That is what living in a democracy means among other things. All your legal gobbledygook doesn't change the fact that Folau's rights to do this have been curtailed.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> You cannot reference a single a law to support your contentions.




Do you understand the difference between laws and rights ?


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you understand the difference between laws and rights ?



Apparently you do not.
You have a *right *to break a contract, but the applicable *laws *in relation to you exercising that right shall be applied.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> Apparently you do not.
> You have a *right *to break a contract, but the applicable *laws *in relation to you exercising that right shall be applied.




What you are saying is that any contract can override human rights. Correct ?


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> What you are saying is that any contract can override human rights. Correct ?



No!
Lawful contracts correctly exercised constrain the respective parties' actions.
Human rights cut both ways.  
If one exercises a right that causes hurt, harm or injury to another then what makes it "righteous?"
In these forums we are able to "offend" one another only to a limited degree as some things we might say could become actionable, irrespective of our use of niks/avatars.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> If one exercises a right that causes hurt, harm or injury to another then what makes it "righteous?"




I would agree with "harm and injury", but "hurt " or "offense" is another matter.

People can choose to be offended by whatever they like, I could choose to be offended by you and vice versa, but that is a matter of choice.

Most people who were mentioned by Folau would just laugh the matter off, only those with very thin skins make the loud noises.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I would agree with "harm and injury", but "hurt " or "offense" is another matter.
> 
> People can choose to be offended by whatever they like, I could choose to be offended by you and vice versa, but that is a matter of choice.



Given that "offensive" and "hurtful" actions can be prosecuted, that does not make sense.







SirRumpole said:


> Most people who were mentioned by Folau would just laugh the matter off, only those with very thin skins make the loud noises.



This is covering old ground, and formed the basis of RA's decision to sack Folau.  I referenced the legal construction of the grounds it generated, so it does not matter how many times you think something is "x," you need to provide the legal basis that guides that thinking.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> Given that "offensive" and "hurtful" actions can be prosecuted, that does not make sense.




Yes they can, because the laws were passed by thin skinned social justice warriors and foisted on us without debate.

Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean that people can't object to it, my objection is that it reduces our rights to speak (including the truth) if it may possibly offend someone somewhere.

This is the classic case of over application of a stupid law that wastes the time of the courts and drags people through the court system for harmless statements.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-lab-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-thrown-out


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes they can, because the laws were passed by thin skinned social justice warriors and foisted on us without debate.



False.
These laws are regularly debated, as they were many times before coming into effect.







SirRumpole said:


> Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean that people can't object to it, my objection is that it reduces our rights to speak (including the truth) if it may possibly offend someone somewhere.



Objecting to something does not diminish the law.  
You want a right to harm others by expressing your opinions in public.  Why not just express your opinions in private?







SirRumpole said:


> This is the classic case of over application of a stupid law that wastes the time of the courts and drags people through the court system for harmless statements.



It's Contract law, and forms the basis of most undertakings between parties.
Folau is the ultimate hypocrite and opportunist.  
He got everyone else to fund his legal case, and wanted millions more on top.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> You want a right to harm others by expressing your opinions in public.




"Harm" is your opinion.

You have to have a pretty thin skin not to be able to take some criticism sometimes.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> "Harm" is your opinion.
> 
> You have to have a pretty thin skin not to be able to take some criticism sometimes.



 Specific *harms *are outlined in Section 18C and have been covered ad nauseum.
You have yet to mention what laws you are relying on for the points you keep making, so this is my last reply.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

rederob said:


> so this is my last reply.




Helleujah.


----------



## PZ99 (25 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, this is just another example of restriction by stealth.
> 
> You may say that these restrictions apply to you, and I take your word for it, the question is "should they" ?
> 
> Do you enjoy the fact that your private life is the business of your employer ? Do you AGREE that it SHOULD be so ? Or do you just accept it because otherwise you wouldn't have a job ? I think your second paragraph basically admits that it was overreach by employers who had governments on their side at the time and no other government bothered to retract these employer "rights".



I know this has moved on a bit but to answer your question I just accepted it to keep my job.
I don't agree it should be so and that's one reason I transferred to another part of the company where my private life was more secure. But now it's far more intrusive. I could be sacked simply for posting a photo of my workplace on social media. Overreach it is but that's the rule and smart people follow it if they want to keep their job. Personally, I don't think Israel Folau was very smart on that day.


----------



## PZ99 (25 April 2020)

Logique said:


> No word from these PC warriors about the 'adulterers', 'fornicators', 'thieves' or 'idolaters'..



Obviously not. These people aren't the same identity as atheists or gays.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2020)

PZ99 said:


> I know this has moved on a bit but to answer your question I just accepted it to keep my job.
> I don't agree it should be so and that's one reason I transferred to another part of the company where my private life was more secure. But now it's far more intrusive. I could be sacked simply for posting a photo of my workplace on social media. Overreach it is but that's the rule and smart people follow it if they want to keep their job. Personally, I don't think Israel Folau was very smart on that day.




I quite understand your position, most do the same thing, ie just sign the contract and accept it.

The unions don't seem to be kicking up a fuss about it, maybe they have been paid off to shut up.


----------



## Logique (26 April 2020)

Don't want to labour the point too much. Hopefully RA can now pick up the pieces and work towards a professional future for the sport.

Sorry it's behind a paywall:
_Castle Falls_
Spectator Australia: https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/04/castle-falls/
By: Karalee Katsambanis -24 April 2020
_"...[RA] now understood to be nearly $16 million in debt...
...Ironically, *no one targeted in Folau’s tweet took offence or launched action* against him, despite the continuing all-pervasive spectre of our authoritarian anti-discrimination laws.

Instead, *it was Castles and Rugby Australia* who saw red...tried to evoke trendy buzzwords like inclusiveness and other nonsensical PC-speak.
But eventually, after much publicity and costly legal action, Rugby Australia was forced to apologise and settled the dispute with Folau..."_


----------



## moXJO (26 April 2020)

Sorry Rob but you have rights at work. I also posted up the laws, that from memory you didn't know at the time. Or that what he quoted was actually a bible quote. 

There were no social media contracts and what he posted was a religious quote. You would have to prove he intended harm or if he was of the misguided opinion he was saving souls. 

It was not cut and dry.

Then you have Qantas CEO pushing for his sacking which I'm sure would have gone down like a lead balloon.

RA would not have jumped to a settlement if they thought they were on a sure thing. They couldn't afford it in the first place.


----------



## sptrawler (26 April 2020)

As I've said on numerous occasions, an employer has every right to discipline an employee, for misconduct or unlawfully behaviour.
Folau breached the employer's code of conduct and RA had every right to discipline him.
It is the severity of the punishment that would be tested, not the fact punishment was served IMO.
Just a stupid gross overreaction and display of poor management, it is due to decisions like this that unfair dismissal laws were introduced.
Also RA management apparently had more examples of poor performance, than just the Folau case.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2020)

sptrawler said:


> It is the severity of the punishment that would be tested, not the fact punishment was served IMO.
> Just a stupid gross overreaction and display of poor management, it is due to decisions like this that unfair dismissal laws were introduced.
> Also RA management apparently had more examples of poor performance, than just the Folau case.



Absolute bunkum.
Rather than keep venturing your opinions, how about posting on what you actually know about this case?
Folau breached his employment contract.
Folau was represented by counsel at a tribunal hearing and admitted his actions were not appropriate.
Folau's actions were going to cost RA multimillions in lost sponsorship, so his payout was always going to be small bickies in the scheme of things.


----------



## PZ99 (27 April 2020)

SirRumpole said:


> I quite understand your position, most do the same thing, ie just sign the contract and accept it.
> 
> The unions don't seem to be kicking up a fuss about it, maybe they have been paid off to shut up.



Maybe he wasn't a union member 

Although looking at some of the scary deals the unions are reaching with the ScoMo Govt at the moment I'd say your last sentence has credibility. But that's for another thread


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

The left wing will be after Folau again, not following their prescribed protocol yet again.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/fo...3-p55hx3.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true
From the article:
_Catalans coach Steve McNamara has defended Israel Folau after the controversial former Wallaby was the only player not to take a knee before a Super League clash in England.
‘‘As a club we are completely against racism and all for equal opportunity,’’ McNamara said after the match.

‘‘But there were some players and staff who made the decision not to take the knee, that was based on personal choice and we decided we would respect anyone’s personal choice on the matter._’’

Maybe RA could take a leaf out of Catalans book, on how to handle sensitive issues? That doesn't mean the press will let the issue go of course.
Just my opinion


----------



## wayneL (3 August 2020)

The red bandanaed moron had already started on Twitter. And seeing as that idiot is on the wrong side of every single issue, it proves that IF is 100% correct in his actions in not cowering to the marxists.

The man is a lion!


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

wayneL said:


> The red bandanaed moron had already started on Twitter. And seeing as that idiot is on the wrong side of every single issue, it proves that IF is 100% correct in his actions in not cowering to the marxists.
> 
> The man is a lion!



If Folau is deeply religious, I would guess he would be of the belief that all lives are equal and therefore should be respected the same.
To acknowledge that one color matters, really is not a realistic approach to the problem.
If then another faction feels they are being unjustly treated eg Asian gangs, then do they adopt the same approach?
It really is a mess.
You are right about the guy with the red bandanna, I always wonder why they print his opinion, it bears no resemblance to a balanced logical approach to issues IMO.


----------



## Macquack (3 August 2020)

Folua is a dipstick.

He probably wanted to get sacked again, so he could sue the Catalans Dragons. His actions against Rugby Australia proved very profitable.

Oh yeah, he is a good team man too.


----------



## sptrawler (3 August 2020)

Macquack said:


> Folua is a dipstick.
> 
> He probably wanted to get sacked again, so he could sue the Catalans Dragons. His actions against Rugby Australia proved very profitable.
> 
> Oh yeah, he is a good team man too.



Another way of looking at it is, Rugby Australia's actions against him proved very costly.


----------



## wayneL (3 August 2020)

I look at it this way, there is no way, whether I was black or white, that I would take a knee for anyone, whether black or white.

Content of character Vs colour of skin and all that M.L. Kingesque business.

Let us meet, as fellow humans, as equals, standing proud.


----------



## sptrawler (23 September 2020)

Oh well it looks as though the Israel Folau saga has come to a rather sad end, when those who were hanging the axe over rugby Australia's head, let it go anyway.








						Qantas pulls out of Rugby Australia, Wallabies sponsorship deal
					

Qantas will end its 30-year sponsorship of the Wallabies and cease financial support for the Socceroos and Australian cricket teams in a desperate bid to save money.




					www.smh.com.au


----------



## moXJO (23 September 2020)

sptrawler said:


> Oh well it looks as though the Israel Folau saga has come to a rather sad end, when those who were hanging the axe over rugby Australia's head, let it go anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No TV deal, now no sponsor. Oh and all that after a payout and bad press after the folks saga. Great leadership all round.

Go woke Go broke. Especially when Issys God sent a plague to simultaneously wipe out Australian Rugby and Qantas. 
Repent ye sinners.


----------



## sptrawler (10 March 2021)

I love this thread, it keeps on giving and proves those with the pitchforks and mob rule mentality, don't always win the day. 😂 
How many threw themselves on the cross of sponsor obligation and self righteous discrimination, only to find their sacrifice was for nothing.









						Queensland Rugby League offers Israel Folau fresh hope of NRL return
					

The former Wallaby’s door to the NRL may not be completely closed, with a return via the Queensland Cup reportedly being floated.




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## PZ99 (10 March 2021)

He can play for QLD... that suits me just fine 

If he mutes his God Bothering then we'll know who the real winner is.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2021)

The story that just keeps on giving, Rugby Australia's greatest own goal just keeps playing out, obviously IQ tests aren't a prerequisite. 🤣
One banned in the name of inclusiveness, the rest banned in the name of exclusion.🤪









						RLPA bans players from poll as Folau gains support
					

Early polling suggests Israel Folau’s bid for an NRL return has strong support among players.




					www.smh.com.au
				



From the article:
_The Rugby League Players’ Association (RLPA) has prohibited its members from completing the annual player poll, making a host of demands including the removal of a question about Israel Folau.

Sources with knowledge of discussions told the Herald that RLPA boss Clint Newton considers the Folau question divisive and wants it removed, concerned that the anonymous views of the players may not reflect the views of those running the union. The complaints appear to have fallen on deaf ears, with the NRL refusing to budge_.

It kind of asks the question, "why have an annual player poll", if you don't want them to give their opinion.


----------



## sptrawler (26 May 2021)

Sounds as though registration is imminent.








						QRL could use code of conduct to terminate registration if Folau makes anti-gay posts
					

The QRL announced on Wednesday it would approve Folau’s bid to return to grassroots rugby league on the proviso he obtains a release from Catalans Dragons.




					www.smh.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (7 July 2021)

Israel Folau to play rugby league on the weekend, it will be interesting to see the crowd response.
There must be a lot of ex rugby Australia management, wondering what the brain fart was about, meanwhile Qantas has moved on to bigger problems. 😂 








						Folau to make his Southport Tigers debut this weekend
					

Before he flies off to play Japanese rugby, Israel Folau and great mate Tony Williams will make their debuts for in the third-tier Gold Coast competition.




					www.smh.com.au


----------



## sptrawler (4 August 2021)

Rugby Australia to investigate the behaviour of the Olympic Rugby 7 team.









						RA, FA investigate flight incident from Tokyo
					

Rugby Australia is investigating an incident involving the men's Rugby 7's team on the flight home from the Tokyo Olympic Games.




					tv5.espn.com
				













						Australians party in Olympic Village: trash rooms, break beds - R6Nationals
					

Australian athletes took partying to a new level inside the Olympic Village in Tokyo. Olympians from Australia’s rowing and rugby teams reportedly partied




					www.r6nationals.gg
				




One hopes they never told anyone to go to hell, or there will be hell to pay.  😂


----------

