You have never yet shown a grasp of what is at play here.
What I posted would be quite acceptable as it would be based on a person's religious beliefs no matter how vile.
That appears to be what you think "snowflakes" might be concerned about. Yet when I put the shoe on the foot, you don't want to wear it. No hypocrisy eh?
It will be impossible to exclude what is written in religious works - without proscribing them - and that is all that Folau is claiming, as I understand it.They'll re-write the Legislation to get rid of absurdities, they always do.
You are forgetting that religious freedoms will allow them.Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable.
That required standard in Folau's case included abiding by a very clear written code of conduct ON AND OFF THE FIELD.... as long as a person does his job to the required standard, it's not a matter for the employer to sack them.
That required standard in Folau's case included abiding by a very clear written code of conduct ON AND OFF THE FIELD.
But you just will not accept that, will you?
Haha good to see you boys still slogging it out.......
Yet you say exactly this: "Extreme religious views would not be tolerated by a persons workmates and the word would go out that they were unacceptable."No I won't because that code of conduct diminishes the right of an individual to free speech, a right we should all fight our hardest to protect instead of knocking it down like you are intent on doing.
You are correct. Except you have ignored the employer's rights, and you cannot see that you have despite pages of posts.Once again, employee conduct that does not interfere with an employee's ability to do their job is no business of an employer.
My thoughts of how it could be used are:I do not consider it relevant.
But here's the thing:
Imagine this idea of Folau's were found to be lawful.
You go to work and the walls are plastered with religious commentary of the worst kind, from any and every religion. The new "freedoms" allow this to be so. Workers are offended but employers can do nothing.
That's not a world I find acceptable.
You are correct. Except you have ignored the employer's rights, and you cannot see that you have despite pages of posts.
Employers rights are concerned with an employee's behaviour ON THE JOB, not in their private lives.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...ss-backs-action-on-folau-20190509-p51lnv.html SMH, 9 May 2019:
.. Joyce, the head of RA’s major sponsor Qantas, weighed into the scandal for the first time, telling the Australian Financial Review he was "quite happy" with the action against the 73-Test fullback...
On the job wont apply here as Folau was part of the brand which is social media driven and written into his contract. Basically any time Folau used social media he was on the job.
BTW Folau was fully aware of this.
My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity. The very nature of the construction of his post as a warning immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.that it shows his post was not negative in the sense of "homosexuals are going to hell", but was a message of concern to get people into heaven.
This is the slippery slope that would be opened. There's some pretty nasty stuff in religious texts and if workers post it verbatim then they would be protected. The crazy thing here is that workers who felt consistently disrespected by the material would have to appeal to the courts for a remedy as their employers would rightfully claim their hands were tied.It's possible someone may "plaster the walls". But I don't think it would pass the 'workplace laws' sniff test even if Folau wins.
Doesn't matter to me, there has to be a demarcation between employer time and employee time that a contract can't override.
We'll see what the courts say.
If he had named names, I would agree with you, what he did was make a generalisation and included a religious chant.My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity. The very nature of the construction of his post as a warning immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.
.
Definitely not, when you compare it to the donations R.A will use from its members and kids clubs etc.The CEO of the Australian Christian Lobby said this morning that there were approximately 15,000 donors at a average donation of roughly $100. 15,000 cashed up christians supporting Folau is hardly the opening of the floodgates of support.
My view is that Folau's case falls down on how he went about his post, rather than the religiosity. The very nature of the construction of his post as a warning immediately put those affected by its content into disrepute.
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.Totally agree re demarcation between employer time and employee time, however that applies to mere mortals, in the age of superstar athletes being paid ridiculous amounts of money their private lives become part of their earnings stream.
If it’s not relevant then RA doesn’t have a leg to stand on surely ?That's not a good example for a lot of reasons.
But mostly because it completely lacks relevance.
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?