- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,845
- Reactions
- 19,166
Being an atheist is still exercising freedom of religion by choosing “none”.
Israel Folau - Breach of contract or right to free speech?
- Thread starter SirRumpole
- Start date
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,299
- Reactions
- 4,653
I could not see how what they said related to their contracts of employment. In other words, what was the lawful action exercised by their employers.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,299
- Reactions
- 4,653
I realise that is what YOU believe.
Unfortunately there is no legal leg that props up your ideas.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,823
- Reactions
- 13,871
You keep dodging the essential question so I'll leave it there and just realise that you apply principles only to people you agree with. Unfortunately for your arguments , that means double standards and hypocrisy.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,845
- Reactions
- 19,166
My point is that Folau is a test case and if we’re going down the track which says employers can gag their employees so long as it’s in a contract then rationally we’re going to soon have rather a lot of such contracts prohibiting comments about anything even remotely at odds with maximising profit.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,299
- Reactions
- 4,653
Folau is testing the waters - not employers.
Folau is trying to say he did not breach his contract because he has religious rights.
I agree that Folau has religious rights, and he should express them in a manner which is appropriate. We do not go about condoning slavery or stoning people to death because it's in some religious script, so when you do there are adverse reactions. It's not appropriate!
So when you are effectively a brand ambassador, and your employment depends on maintaining the brand, it is reasonable for employers to protect their interests.
The points I raised very early on related to the fact that it was the inappropriate nature of what was posted that got him into trouble, and it need not have been religious. That would be a point that RA will bring out should the matter proceed.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,823
- Reactions
- 13,871
Why shouldn't this apply to churches as well ?
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,299
- Reactions
- 4,653
Who are you suggesting is their brand ambassador?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,823
- Reactions
- 13,871
Their brand is whatever they want it to be just like the ARU.
They are the employer, they write the rules.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,590
- Reactions
- 14,324
Hang on... If you are suggestion Issy was a "brand embassador", was that either explicitly stated or even just implied in the contract?
That may be a very important point.
- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,863
- Reactions
- 648
Difference is, us athiests don't carry so much bloody baggage.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,928
- Reactions
- 26,766
A garbo wearing a shirt with the council logo on it, is an ambassador for the Council, if they wish to use it as an excuse to sack him.
- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,863
- Reactions
- 648
They still (at least) need an excuse to sack him, which you have overlooked.A garbo wearing a shirt with the council logo on it, is an ambassador for the Council, if they wish to use it as an excuse to sack him.
There are cases where union members went on strike and were sacked over it due to contract stipulations.
But because this is against workplace laws it was deemed unlawful termination. That was not employees "testing the law". Business did not follow the law.
This isn't Folau testing the law, anymore than it is RA testing the law. Its more a clarification.
But because this is against workplace laws it was deemed unlawful termination. That was not employees "testing the law". Business did not follow the law.
This isn't Folau testing the law, anymore than it is RA testing the law. Its more a clarification.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,928
- Reactions
- 26,766
He says on his facebook page that gay's will go to hell, unless they repent, and the council has the same stance on gays as R.A and similar general conditions of employment.
Using a council vehicle to drop off the mail while at work, it isn't difficult to find a reason, it is just getting it to stick that is the issue.
That is why this needs to be tested, otherwise it just opens the door to sack who the hell you like, just write something into the company holistic statement that covers any sort of misdemeanor.
- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,863
- Reactions
- 648
You have lost me. You just said a council worker may be sacked for wearing a shirt with a council logo on It???
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,928
- Reactions
- 26,766
And saying something in public, that transgresses their stated policy, on a similar matter. Or any misdemeanor, that they wish to say, contravenes their public image.
Actually, it is the very reason unfair dismissal was brought in, as employers were sacking people with inadequate grounds, but more as a personal vendetta to get rid of people they considered troublesome.
I could try to write slower, but I don't think it will help.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,928
- Reactions
- 26,766
Actually the last line in the last post, is exactly why people were being sacked, it was seen as being insubordinate, rather than frustrated.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,928
- Reactions
- 26,766
This article actually highlights the problem from another perspective.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/let...ture-warriors-codswallop-20190628-p5227g.html
In the text, which is well thought out, it brings up the other side IMO.
In any case, it simply isn’t true that Folau’s religious freedoms have been fundamentally encroached. Folau can still say what he likes about homosexuals and sinners. It’s just that saying that may come with consequences. That’s not free speech being unjustly restrained. That’s Folau choosing his religious conviction over his contractual obligations. A choice he is free to make. It’s hard to see how Folau is a victim.
Does that example, then cover the issue of 'whistle blowers'?
It certainly is going to be a very interesting case.
Obviously, if you say something that isn't in line with your employers stance, it is grounds for dismissal.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/let...ture-warriors-codswallop-20190628-p5227g.html
In the text, which is well thought out, it brings up the other side IMO.
In any case, it simply isn’t true that Folau’s religious freedoms have been fundamentally encroached. Folau can still say what he likes about homosexuals and sinners. It’s just that saying that may come with consequences. That’s not free speech being unjustly restrained. That’s Folau choosing his religious conviction over his contractual obligations. A choice he is free to make. It’s hard to see how Folau is a victim.
Does that example, then cover the issue of 'whistle blowers'?
It certainly is going to be a very interesting case.
Obviously, if you say something that isn't in line with your employers stance, it is grounds for dismissal.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,863
- Reactions
- 648
You could also be a bit clearer so I don't have to guess what you were saying.
