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

[moXJO]

Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .

I was an employer and a regular at some of the meets.

One case I remember well, was an incident in which a staff member was stealing from the till. So they installed cameras above the counter and fired the girl when she was caught.
Well thats illegal so she got her job back and a payout.

 

[moXJO]

Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .

As long as it isn't discrimination they would be fine.There are basics in the workplace laws to protect employers.

 

[moXJO]

Maybe you now realise what the consequences are in terms of what employers would have to accept as lawful behaviour from their employees .

I say we start a "knock off at 1pm with full pay" religion, thats gotta get members.

I'll be high priest you can be altar boy.

 

[wayneL]

ANZ!

WTF?

I wonder how many accounts will be closed today?

 

[rederob]

I'll be high priest you can be altar boy.

(What if Folau had just posted a picture of the cover of a lawful magazine?)

 

[sptrawler]

Well all employers require to do, is put general sweeping statements in conditions of employment and then make anything a sackable offence.
At the end of the day Folau made a sweeping statement of a very general and broad nature, there was no threat as 'hell' isn't a place, if that is grounds for dismissal it opens up pandora's box for employers.IMO
If he had said I wish to bash gays and lesbians, that is a whole new ball game, but he didn't threaten them in any way.

 

[Smurf1976]

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

It will also have the practical effect of partially shutting down the "Left" side of politics.

Apart from the relative few who are employed by businesses which have a political leaning that way, the rest won't dare comment in anything which could be considered a public forum. Social media, traditional media, street marches and so on.

Every past issue from the Vietnam war and the Franklin dam to more recent ones like gay rights would have been substantially silenced if the masses were precluded from expressing their view at the time by means of newspapers, street marches or whatever.

Politically, if Floau loses then it's a win for the Liberals and a loss for the Greens and Labor since it's the latter two who will find their supporters silenced far more than the former given that business is more inclined toward conservative politics.

 

[Smurf1976]

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?

If your soap box is on company property then that's not acceptable.

If it's somewhere else, and you are not wearing a company uniform etc whilst doing it, well then no problem in my view. Obviously whoever owns the land has to agree to you using it but it's got nothing to do with your work.

Only exception would be if whatever you're preaching was against the business. Eg working for a commercial fishing company, and then getting on your box and telling everyone that eating fish is bad, would clearly be an attack on your employer's business and it seems reasonable for an employer to expect that their employees won't intentionally undermine the business.

 

[moXJO]

(What if Folau had just posted a picture of the cover of a lawful magazine?)

That is possible one of the most amusing things I've seen.

 

[satanoperca]

there was no threat as 'hell' isn't a place, i
If he had said I wish to bash gays and lesbians, that is a whole new ball game, but he didn't threaten them in any way.

Your statements are incorrect. If religion is defined in believing in the supernatural, then by definition someone who's faith defines hell as a place, believes in it. By your definition, God doesn't exist and so therefore nor should religion - bit unfair on believers.

So he did threaten those that are gays/lesbian and believe in the Christian faith and so hence believe hell is a real place.

 

[SirRumpole]

So he did threaten those that are gays/lesbian and believe in the Christian faith and so hence believe hell is a real place.

Folau was merely repeating what the Bible said. If people in those categories were religious, then it was the Bible who threatened them , not Folau.

Folau has no power to send people to hell, it's like the President of Peru threatening people with nuclear devastation. If you don't have the power to carry out a threat, it's not a threat.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well all employers require to do, is put general sweeping statements in conditions of employment and then make anything a sackable offence.

The ARU already has this , something to do with "actions contrary to the image of the game", which of course means anything they want it to mean.

 

[Smurf1976]

If people in those categories were religious, then it was the Bible who threatened them , not Folau.

If you believe that hell exists then rationally you’d also believe that you’re going there if you sin.

It would seem somewhat ridiculous if someone claimed to believe one part of the Bible but takes offence at someone quoting a different page.

 

[grah33]

Well all employers require to do, is put general sweeping statements in conditions of employment and then make anything a sackable offence.
At the end of the day Folau made a sweeping statement of a very general and broad nature, there was no threat as 'hell' isn't a place, if that is grounds for dismissal it opens up pandora's box for employers.IMO
If he had said I wish to bash gays and lesbians, that is a whole new ball game, but he didn't threaten them in any way.

Good point. One wonders why people are so concerned about his comments. Perhaps its existence (Hell) is a real possibility for many people, so they feel threatened or disturbed. It is argued that Hell must exist for there to be a moral order in the world. I have also been told that Aristotle , or someone else, derived its existence from philosophy. And Christ of course, who values spread everywhere, warned about it several times. I think Folau , in his own style, was just trying to help people.

 

[satanoperca]

Can any Christians on this forum point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell.

 

[willoneau]

If Folau was a nobody no one would care what he say's and this wouldn't be news.

 

[Logique]

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.
Raelene Castle has damaged the brand possibly to the point of bankruptcy. The damage RA [Rugby Australia] has done in handling the situation far outweighs what Folau posted.

Spot on mate

 

[SirRumpole]

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.

The religion thing in this issue has been blown out of proportion.

I see no reason that religious expression should be given any more right than political expression or social expression or engineering expression or scientific expression.

The point is the ability/right to voice an opinion on ANY subject that the employee chooses without retaliation by their employer (unless expression of those views causes a reduction of ability of the employee to perform their employment duties).

Those rights should be codified in a Bill of Rights if necessary and should not be diminished by any contract of employment.

 

[Smurf1976]

A related thought is that I’m sure there’s plenty of employers who would have conservative moral views in general.

So is a ban on employees using Tinder appropriate? Or even any dating website? Or what about attending nightclubs and being photographed? Lots of sins in those places.

Or what if your boss is racist and sexist? They can’t apply that at work but they could ban you from any comment online in support of equality.

It all seems a very dangerous slippery slope to me.

 

[moXJO]

Can any Christians on this forum point to where in the Bible it says that homosexuality is a sin and you will go to hell.

Being homosexual isn't a sin. Its the same sex bonking that is.