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

[moXJO]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Breach of contract.

 

[sptrawler]

Breach of contract.

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

 

[moXJO]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Tag

Breach of contract.

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

Tag.

 

[sptrawler]

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]

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]

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

 

[sptrawler]

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]

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