This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.
This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.Yes, because in Folau's case, he signed a contract which included those conditions, and they were lawful.
Again, why repeat your points without understanding the context?
He is going the the Fair Work Commission, not the courts.Well that is what the courts are there for, obviously someone was worried, to force the withdrawl of funding.
*wonders why Sarah Hansen Young's Gofundalefty wasn't taken down... HmmmmHe is going the the Fair Work Commission, not the courts.
As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.
If it were not true, then it would be an open and shut case and Folau would still be playing. That is, he would immediately have taken his case to court, and not the FWC.This isn't true to this moment and will be decided in court.
Only that he was not defending himself. RA was defending against an unlawful dismissal case. So he didn't break site rules by quoting the bible.I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.
Well I suppose if the parties aren't happy with the outcome, it will end up in the courts anyway, which is probably where it should be dealt with.IMOHe is going the the Fair Work Commission, not the courts.
As to GoFundMe, I previously quoted why they had the discretion to withdraw their site from use.
I already linked articles and section 772. And that he is fighting it on those grounds. You were the one who thought it was already in court now you're trying to backtrack.If it were not true, then it would be an open and shut case and Folau would still be playing. That is, he would immediately have taken his case to court, and not the FWC.
We are going over the same ground.
If you believe I am wrong, state the applicable law and show why RA's actions were unlawful.
All this thread has done is dig over well trodden ground, and keep digging.
Except that is not the distinction required.
To "engage" with the media is, definitionally, a deliberate interaction which has a potential outcome of having your words and information used by that media outlet to amplify your "story" - or, in the vernacular, "give it legs." You have no control of the process after engagement.
"Using" social media requires only the use of a carrier service to spread your message, story, or information. To the extent your use of a carrier service is lawful, you are in control.
So what?
His employer has a social media policy. Folau undertook to use social media in an appropriate manner, if he were to use it at all. Folua had been advised previously about what was not appropriate in terms of that policy and seems to have deliberately ignored it.
Not true - and I explained why.In short - me posting on ASF is exactly the same as me being interviewed on ABC radio or contacting a journalist at the Australian so far as they're concerned and the same or very similar rules apply.
Why is everyone repeating old ground.The issue is about the employer exercising control over an employee in regard to matters having nothing to do with with the employer's business, its activities, management and so on and whether or not that is reasonable.
How many ways does it have to shown that Issy in no way damaged their "brand"?Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.
I think what is naive, is terminating someones highly paid job, over the issue.Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.
He quoted a bible passage. He did not solely target homosexuals. They fired him because of what the passage from the bible said. They also did not understand the passage or Folau's intent. Other people interpreted to be "I hate gays".Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.
Of course an employer has a right to protect their brand.Why is everyone repeating old ground.
So you are saying that an employer has no right to protect their brand. In this case, specifically from a person who reflects the brand more than any other, and who also has entered into a contractual undertaking to not damage the brand.
I think that is naive.
I could post the very same Bible passage, and I am not religious.He quoted a bible passage. He did not solely target homosexuals. They fired him because of what the passage from the bible said. They also did not understand the passage or Folau's intent. Other people interpreted to be "I hate gays".
This is getting tedious - RA places specific contractual obligations on players - clearly stated as applying on and off the field - and these were breached.Of course an employer has a right to protect their brand.
Whether or not they have the right to sack someone for making comments as a private individual, comments which were simply a direct quote from a very widely known and readily available book, which have nothing to do with the business is the question.
Religion is protected for the umpteenth +1 time. His social media feeds are testimony to the fact that he is deeply religious, his father has a church and he has form. If you posted it as a one off then you would get the ar$e because there isnt any evidence.I could post the very same Bible passage, and I am not religious.
If I were the same poster boy, but without religion, then RA could take the very same action.
So for the umpteenth time, it's his inappropriate use of social media that got him into trouble.
His religion is not in question - RA has made that point - groundhog day all over again.Religion is protected for the umpteenth +1 time. His social media feeds are testimony to the fact that he is deeply religious, his father has a church and he has form.
I think R.A will be rueing the day, they had this rush of blood to the head, I would guess there has been some sleepless nights in H.Q.This is getting tedious - RA places specific contractual obligations on players - clearly stated as applying on and off the field - and these were breached.
Breach a contract and suffer the consequences.
Disagree with the consequences by showing they were unlawful.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?