Religion Folau

[Monkey King]

Otherwise, don't go saying science is just as screwy as religion.

Oh no. You’ve misunderstood me. The two sides that are screwy are those religious folk saying all drunks and fornicators go to hell, and the other side who are trying to control other’s thoughts, or at least, suppress the expression of them.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Lucky for me I've recently had a mental health assessment and scans etc after a head injury and illness for a clean bill there and given I don't think you're a shrink I'm going to ignore that.

Phew! Good to read that.

I thought you were just about to "guilt bomb" me.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Folau had a contract.

He chose to breach it.

This has yet to be determined, despite all the experts in contract law who have magically popped out of the woodwork in the last week.

 

[Echoes]

God if half the blood, sweat, tears and other bodily fluids being expended over this wank by the public, instead went towards someone truly in the fight of there life (ie Julian Assange) how much better off we would all be.

 

[Chief]

This has yet to be determined, despite all the experts in contract law who have magically popped out of the woodwork in the last week.

... and the online analysis by actual contract law talkin guys?

 

[Mofra]

Apparently the right to free speech equates to the right to play rugby.

Meanwhile, abortion clinic advertising in Australia have been blocked by Google. Where is Alan Jones now?

 

[Chief]

Apparently the right to free speech equates to the right to play rugby.

Meanwhile, abortion clinic advertising in Australia have been blocked by Google. Where is Alan Jones now?

And yet bitcoin ads continue.

 

[Borisdog]

God if half the blood, sweat, tears and other bodily fluids being expended over this wank by the public, instead went towards someone truly in the fight of there life (ie Julian Assange) how much better off we would all be.

I know who I reckon is the bigger threat to society between Assange and Folau.

 

[Snake_Baker]

... and the online analysis by actual contract law talkin guys?

I checked out the article in "The Conversation" and it left unanswered questions hanging in the air.

Of course, I see constitutional implications, and I have seen none of these people even attempt to address that.

 

[Crankitup]

If he'd made a slur on the football field, for instance called someone a bloody ****ter or similar, he would've probably received a fine and perhaps a few games suspension. To paraphrase a bible passage and then quote the passage in full on his social media account on his own time in response to someone asking 'What is God's plan for gays?' and be sacked for it, is an overreaction that amounts to unfair dismissal. He'll win in court unless RA settles first.

...given that the Fair Work Act makes it unlawful to discriminate based on religion, are breaches of the code of conduct enough to make Folau’s dismissal fair?

Alan McDonald, the Managing Director of employment law firm McDonald Murholme says, “If Folau is to be treated as an employee, then he and his employer need to comply with the Fair Work Act and Rugby Australia’s code of conduct cannot override the law. Which is what the organisation is appearing to be trying to do.”

 

[Mofra]

If he'd made a slur on the football field, for instance called someone a bloody ****ter or similar, he would've probably received a fine and perhaps a few games suspension. To paraphrase a bible passage and then quote the passage in full on his social media account on his own time in response to someone asking 'What is God's plan for gays?' and be sacked for it, is an overreaction that amounts to unfair dismissal. He'll win in court unless RA settles first.

RA are screwed either way.

If they win there will be a backlash by Christians.
If they lose sponsors may discontinue their association (and make no mistake, that's the only reason RA care in the first place).

It's all about dollars, not ideology.

 

[Echoes]

I know who I reckon is the bigger threat to society between Assange and Folau.

Yeah it’s Folau and his mates at the minute

 

[Borisdog]

RA are screwed either way.

If they win there will be a backlash by Christians.
If they lose sponsors may discontinue their association (and make no mistake, that's the only reason RA care in the first place).

It's all about dollars, not ideology.

You're dead right that it's about the cash.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[GuzzLG]

You're dead right that it's about the cash.

Money talks.

Maybe if corporate Australia realises that people will rally around certain people they feel have been unfairly dismissed for wrong think they will back the **** down a bit.

People are scared to be who they are and talk honestly both inside and outside of the workplace. They know they have little chance to stand up against their employer and others and don't want to risk their livelihood so they stay suppressed.

Maybe if the other side were also a bit scared of a bit of the financial consequences of going a bit too far in making their employees conform to the ideology they are cramming down the workers' throats the balance will be restored and people will be left alone.

 

[Monkey King]

And what powers did your King Louis have over laws in the United States of America in the 19th Century?
FMD
Your logic is mind blowing!

What are you talking about? The State’s were one of the last to abolish slavery. Certainly not leaders of the abolition movement, more so the recipients of spreading European sentiment.

What should not be lost here, is that someone has brought this up in relation to Folau’s skin tone. Astounding!

 

[Borisdog]

Th

Money talks.

Maybe if corporate Australia realises that people will rally around certain people they feel have been unfairly dismissed for wrong think they will back the **** down a bit.

People are scared to be who they are and talk honestly both inside and outside of the workplace. They know they have little chance to stand up against their employer and others and down want to risk their livelihood so they stay suppressed.

Maybe if the other side were also a bit scared of a bit of the financial consequences of going a bit too far in making their employees conform to the ideology they are cramming down the workers' throats the balance will be restored and people will be left alone.

There are far too many CEOs of businesses in Australia who think they're able to ram whatever ideology they want down the general publics' neck.

I, as a shareholder, want one thing and one thing alone out of a CEO. Run the business well and devote ALL of your paid time to that. I do not want to see you up on a dais talking shit about stuff that has nothing to do with how the business makes a buck.

I work in the mining game, dead-set the amount of BS that some of these execs sprout is humiliating. And they say it with a straight face. It turns my stomach.

"Safety is our number one priority". No, no it's not. Making a buck is. No-one ever went to a bank and asked for 2 Billion bucks to build a safety.

 

[randyzany]

How silly of me! There’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us. Folau is free as a footballer to vilify homosexuals without losing his job but were he coaching rugby at a Sydney Anglican school and tweeting approval of gays it might well see him shown the door.

A more appropriate relevant comparison would be a Christian being hired in some LGBT committee/council and instead of promoting the agenda of his workplace, he spends his time undermining it, proselytizing to his colleagues about how they're going directly to hell if they don't repent and stop sinning for being attracted and making out with the same sex, etc...

Another would be a butcher hiring a Vegan who then refuses to sell any meat to customers and even admonishes them for sustaining an industry that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent animals every year or vice versa hiring a meat eater to work in a Vegan/Vegetarian who waffles on to Vegan customers about how meat is an essential part of a healthy diet, etc...

Personally it baffles me why a homosexual would ever wanna work, let alone consider, in an organization that has clearly outlined their sexuality as immoral or any other views that are important to them. It's not like Christian workplaces make up a huge percentage of the jobs available in a secular society like Australia. The vast majority of jobs do not come from religious institutions and therefore should never ever be a need for anyone that doesn't agree with Christine doctrine to resort to work in such a setting out of desperation.

 

[Evolved1]

For who? The very loud minority who think this is some big issue?

Yes. People like you.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Brian Mitchell obviously supports Folau's position.

 

[GuzzLG]

Who's suggesting that it's not okay for people to "crack the sook" every time Folau posts some religious garbage on social media?

 

[GuzzLG]

A more appropriate relevant comparison would be a Christian being hired in some LGBT committee/council and instead of promoting the agenda of his workplace, he spends his time undermining it, proselytizing to his colleagues about how they're going directly to hell if they don't repent and stop sinning for being attracted and making out with the same sex, etc...

Another would be a butcher hiring a Vegan who then refuses to sell any meat to customers and even admonishes them for sustaining an industry that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent animals every year or vice versa hiring a meat eater to work in a Vegan/Vegetarian who waffles on to Vegan customers about how meat is an essential part of a healthy diet, etc...

Personally it baffles me why a homosexual would ever wanna work, let alone consider, in an organization that has clearly outlined their sexuality as immoral or any other views that are important to them. It's not like Christian workplaces make up a huge percentage of the jobs available in a secular society like Australia. The vast majority of jobs do not come from religious institutions and therefore should never ever be a need for anyone that doesn't agree with Christine doctrine to resort to work in such a setting out of desperation.

It's a good point but do you distinguish between working for the Church and working for an organisation owned by the Church that isn't itself a religious institution? For example, many of our hospitals are owned/controlled by religious institutions. I wouldn't think its okay for doctors and nurses to be excluded for being gay.

 

[Evolved1]

Sure, if you breach a specific clause agreed to as cause for termination; if that’s a legal clause, then you’re done. Obviously Folau doesn’t agree and he’s going to challenge that in the courts. So let him. I find the active resistance to a bloke trying to raise funds to exercise his legal rights objectionable.

Personally, I don’t like to think that any contract could have a legal clause that suppressed the expression of religious beliefs. So what he thinks all “sinners” will go to hell? Is this new?

I found the GFM crowdfunding effort amusing, but understand why it was shut down. I didn't care either way; if idiots want to give their coin to a multi-millionaire, so be it.

The ACL crowdfunding is more nefarious. I hope the non-religious who donated to Folau's legal fund understand that excess funds may go towards promoting unwanted 'Christian values' into the public sphere.

Be careful for how much 'religious freedom' you wish for.

 

[Monkey King]

He can THINK what he likes. He can preach what he likes in his own church.

He could even post his disagreement with SSM if he liked. I think he'd be fine with that as just an opinion.

But posting a crude meme damning homosexuals and Catholics to hell? Nah. On his contract that is over the line.

The paradox here is that if you don’t believe in hell, what’s the difference? If you do believe in hell, then you probably agree with him. Or if you believe in a different hell, then he’s the one going to your hell anyway. So ... what? He’s damning us to an imaginary place that we don’t believe in?

I don’t think contracts should be allowed to suppress religious expression. Folau didn’t just come up with this stuff and no doubt believes his misguided proselytising is doing the Lord’s work. It’s a slippery slope picking and choosing what parts of a religion people are free to express, and which parts to suppress.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Is there anybody of average or above-average intelligence out there who does not want to see this go to the High Court?

Let's get some answers from the big wigs.

Is RA allowed to do what they did?

Time for a precedent.