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

[rederob]

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]

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]

I personally cannot see this matter ever going to court.

You mean RA will admit they were wrong and pay out of court ?

 

[Smurf1976]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

That’s the issue, nobody’s suggesting doing it within the workplace.

NOT THE POINT... as I have explained above.

 

[wayneL]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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]

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]

"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]

I think ATM the LGBT card trumps it.

Well, at least one person on this thread reckons that is "Bollocks"