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

[qldfrog]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[SirRumpole]

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]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!