Society/Culture Andrew Thorburn - Controversial appointment as Essendon CEO. Broader discussion not for the AFL board..

Remove this Banner Ad

I’ll admit to not pouring over the 20+ pages, but….

Isn’t this essentially (in part) what the Christian right campaigned for during Scomo’s religious discrimination act... the right to hire and fire based on personal preference and/or belief?

Essendon simply acted in line with the same principled stance that a private school would've taken when dismissing a gay teacher. A stance, in that instance, presumably Andrew Thorburn would have supported.

Except they also want the right to be protected from the same applying to them. Somehow they believe that choosing a religion should be protected in the same way as not choosing your gender, race, sexual orienatation or age is.
 
But if you read some of the things atheists say about God to the religious then an atheist homosexual would just laugh at anyone mentioning Hell wouldn’t they? If a religious homosexual doesn’t like what some faith teaches about his lifestyle then he can do a Thorburn and choose between his faith and lifestyle.

What if it's a homosexual who has been brought up in that religion? Whose family belongs to that religion? Who may face discrimination because of those religious beliefs?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I’ll admit to not pouring over the 20+ pages, but….

Isn’t this essentially (in part) what the Christian right campaigned for during Scomo’s religious discrimination act... the right to hire and fire based on personal preference and/or belief?

No.

Also religious entities already have the right to hire/discriminate based on personal preference and/or belief.
 
No.

Also religious entities already have the right to hire/discriminate based on personal preference and/or belief.
Indeed they do. However the first incantation of the failed act was, in part, an attempt to strengthen those provisions. Particularly around student removal and in non-teaching positions. So, yes.

The extent to which they already have those rights is irrelevant. The point is the logic and reasoning behind Essendon's stance was/is identical to the reasoning used by the religious-right when dismissing employees, or indeed coercing resignations.

That is, having the right to hire and fire, when it's felt an employee fails to comply with an arbitrary value set. Even if it could be conceivably argued that this has no baring whatsoever on the job at hand.

I'm not necessarily defending Essendon here, rather I'm simply pointing out the blatant, high velocity, balls to the wall, hypocrisy of the glass-jawed religious right.

Mr - "boo hoo, they sacked me because I have these personal views", represents a segment of the community that is more than comfortable behaving in an identical fashion in essentially identical circumstances. ...to other Christians, no less!
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why people are discussing Thornburn's beliefs or the beliefs of the Church

It is irrelevant

It is his failings as a Chair to maintain a safe work environment that is the issue at hand. This failing as a Chiar atttests he is NOT CAPABLE to carry out his duties as a CEO. Further his inability to work this issue out in his own head, suggests he doesn't have the IQ to be an executive.

I'd recommend he considers a career in Uber driving or baggage handling.
 
On their website all of their pastors are men. Do we know if City on a Hill is one of the churches that believes only men can preach/be pastors?

I know this is common practice in some churches, but I don’t know whether it’s actually legal or and if not, how they get away with it. Religious beliefs is not an excuse to break the law.
 
... to you.

Wrong….in the eyes of the law

In Western Australia it is the Occupation Health and Safety Act 1984. I'm unfamiliar with Vic law but would suggest a similar name and federally the fairwork act.

The workplace gender equality act

Add to that the various discrimination acts both state and federal including the ADA, SDA, DDA and RDA.............https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/right-discrimination-free-workplace
Employers may be vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of their
employees (including harassment) unless they can demonstrate that they:
  • ‘took all reasonable steps’ to prevent the doing of the act
    (under the RDA[63] and
    SDA[64]); or
  • ‘took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the
    conduct’ (under the DDA[65] and ADA[66]).
The onus
is on an employer to prove that they ‘took all reasonable steps’ or
‘took reasonable precautions and exercised due
diligence’.[67]
 
Last edited:
got evidence? I think thats garbage

somewhere between 2-5% of priests are pedos which may or may not be above the general population statistics

where it vastly differs is in general population 0.4% are boys where 80% of victims of the church are boys


It is probably this stat demonstrates that has earned the church the reputation it has
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wrong….in the eyes of the law
This thread on this forum is not a courtroom, and I'm not wrong that his christanity or its shortcomings are relevant to this thread.

The legal might be more important to you, but that doesn't entail that this holds true for everyone else, most of whom seem plenty happy to discuss his religion.
 
somewhere between 2-5% of priests are pedos which may or may not be above the general population statistics

where it vastly differs is in general population 0.4% are boys where 80% of victims of the church are boys


It is probably this stat demonstrates that has earned the church the reputation it has
these are priests though, who are not married and in specific situations where they care for young boys regularly. They are not pastors or ministers who are married and not involved in caring for young boys exclusively
 
1. Love
2. Mercy
3. Compassion
Love- torturing himself to die for the sins of man he created because a talking snake convinced a rib woman to eat an apple in a garden that never existed.
Mercy-killed everyone (except one family, whom presumably repopulated the planet via incest)on the planet because we disappointed him because of the way he made us.
Compassion-see above👍
Sounds legit, it almost like you just make s**t up to suit your gods needs🧐
 
these are priests though, who are not married and in specific situations where they care for young boys regularly. They are not pastors or ministers who are married and not involved in caring for young boys exclusively

Why are you trying to minimise and make excuses for pedophiles?
 
Not trying to “win” . Given you Think that you’re above everyone explain how it is different ?
Not having a go at muslims just simply stating that the religion has similar views to that expressed . Very keen. To understand how that differs in your simple mind or is it the fact that it doesn’t suit your narrative ?

Greater Western Sydney player and practising Muslim Haneen Zreika - doubtful she copes the same backlash as thorburn
 
Of course not - she wasn't chairman of a muslim church, or CEO of GWS.

This false equivalence you guys keep raising is ridiculous.

So the difference is how high up in her church / religious Organization she is?

If houli was promoted to mid level within his mosque would the afl have to ban him?

What if Rance was a priest. Which is not a far fetched example
 
So the difference is how high up in her church / religious Organization she is?

If houli was promoted to mid level within his mosque would the afl have to ban him?

Yes, there's a massive difference. Stop with the hypothetical nonsense.

All you are doing is pointing at muslims and yelling 'look over there'. It's pathetic.
 
Yes, there's a massive difference. Stop with the hypothetical nonsense.

All you are doing is pointing at muslims and yelling 'look over there'. It's pathetic.

Maybe. Or maybe you want to hide behind 'false equivalence' to discriminate against religion when it suits you?

Quite the bigoted world view some might say.

Rance was almost a priest while being the goat and his religious group is very dodgy*. Would you have banned him in his prime?

* I don't actually know if this is true. They could be great
 
Last edited:
Maybe. Or maybe you want to hide behind 'false equivalence' to discriminate against religion when it suits you?

Quite the bigoted world view some might say

Says the guy pointing and yelling at Muslims.

You look like quite the bigot yourself Marcel.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top