This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

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

Jump to new
IFocus said:
This is worth a read from a gay

Makes the point of double standards quite well


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ree-speech-that-keeps-gays-in-the-firing-line
Click to expand...
Hmm another white guy stepping on legal rights of coloured people. Its like a reverse 1960s rights protest in which we lynch the darkie.

I haven't seen anything like it. Its funny stuff. Both left and right are doing some polar opposite things during this whole event.
Fertile ground for my kinda stirring.
 
In principle I agree with your points, but what makes me laugh is that the left are (currently) the worst transgressors of the principle
 
IFocus said:
This is worth a read from a gay

Makes the point of double standards quite well
Click to expand...

It does but two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes.

Rather than silencing Folau I'd take the opposite approach and deal with the problems with churches.

In the same way that rather than making everyone poor because some people are poor, I'd rather overcome the problem by putting those who are poor due to unemployment etc into paid work with decent wages and paying sensible rates of welfare to those genuinely unable to work.

Same with anything. If my house is flooded then setting yours on fire isn't resolving anything. Better to stop the source of the water, dry the place out and replace the carpets.
 
Smurf1976 said:
It does but two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes.

Rather than silencing Folau I'd take the opposite approach and deal with the problems with churches.

Click to expand...

Take on the churches and you will be burned at the stake

Important to understand Folau doesn't represent all Christians or most churches he condemns Idolators which is the Roman Catholic Church..........funny how they have remained silent no doubt happy some one else takes the spot light.

Personally I don't really care either way but I do think long term this will damage Christians as a whole.
 
Smurf1976 said:
It does but two wrongs do not make a right as the saying goes.

Rather than silencing Folau I'd take the opposite approach and deal with the problems with churches.
Click to expand...

Indeed so. David Marr was just on ABC saying that a chemistry teacher in a religious school should not be sacked for being an atheist. I agree as I think it comes down to what the person was employed to do. Do religious views have any effect on a persons ability to teach chemistry ? No. Should the chemistry teacher be sacked ? No.

Do Folau's religious views have any effect on his ability to play football ? No. Should he be sacked ? No.

QED.
 
IFocus said:
This is worth a read from a gay

Makes the point of double standards quite well


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ree-speech-that-keeps-gays-in-the-firing-line
Click to expand...
The following quote from the article has been pretty much overlooked:-

"For a million bucks a year, he agreed to go easy on denouncing, among other vices, the evils of homosexuality. He traded his freedom of speech."

I thought the same, as in, did Folau sell his soul when he signed the Rugby Australia contract. If he changed his mind, fair enough, except he then broke the conditions specified in the contract. Is that the actions of an honourable person?
 
Macquack said:
I thought the same, as in, did Folau sell his soul when he signed the Rugby Australia contract. If he changed his mind, fair enough, except he then broke the conditions specified in the contract. Is that the actions of an honourable person?
Click to expand...

He's probably trying to test whether the code of conduct is lawful if applied to his private life.
 
It is starting to get interesting.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...settlement-on-folau-saga-20190627-p521yw.html

From the article:
Folau rejected overtures of a settlement worth half the value of his four-year, $4 million contract, before his code of conduct hearing last month and spoke in church of such a compromise being the devil's work.

And this:
Davis conceded Folau's attitude appeared to be hardened against a compromise but said RA and NSW Rugby had to keep trying.

"I would like to believe it was possible," he said. "Common sense is the least common of our senses at times but everyone's got until tomorrow and we are trying to encourage people to mediate and find a middle ground. But it takes two to tango.

I would suggest sphincter's are tightening.
Maybe if they had shown a bit of common sense, they wouldn't be in the predicament, it's a bit rich to belittle someone, then try and buy them off to cover the fopaux. IMO
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
He's probably trying to test whether the code of conduct is lawful if applied to his private life.
Click to expand...
Also whether they can dictate, how he wishes to voice his religious beliefs.

I'm not religious and neither pro or anti gay, I'm just a live and let live sort of person, but the way the virtue signalers have gone after him is appalling. IMO
I hope he kicks their butts, all over the court system, it's about time someone stood up to the bullies.
 
Wow, you guys still going on about this. Talk about kindergarten childen trying to discuss economics, great enthusiasm, little knowledge.

For what is it worth this is the most insightful comment I have read so far :

"
ThinkitThrough

1 hour ago

1. There should not be a religious freedom argument in this case.
What Folau posted was not a religious passage - it was a meme expressing an opinion. It is irrelevant if Folau has arrived at that opinion via his interpretation of a faith. He did not post a scripture or religious text. He posted a personal view or his agreement with the meme maker's personal view.

2. Freedom of speech has not been impeded.
Folau is/was employed in a capacity that not only needs his atheletic talent, but requires him to be a publicly recognised 'figure head' or representative of a number of brands and sporting associations.

When employed in a 'representative' capacity of any brand, it standard measure to ensure that the views you make public are not in conflict with your employers 'brand' image. When you agree to receiving a pay cheque in this capacity, it represents the compensation you receive for agreeing to the contract terms, which may include rules and expectations for publicly made comments/appearances/opinions etc.

If you choose to make conflicting or "off brand" opinions public, then you do so accepting the consequence that you may no longer be employed as a representative of those "brand/s".

You do however, retain the freedom to make your views public.
No one is suggesting Folau be imprisoned, fined or personally prosecuted for his opinion - which is what freedom of speech protects.
He was free to say what he wanted and no one is suggesting he should be 'gagged'. However, he must also accept his employment consequences as a brand representative.

The 'issues' here are misleading, a waste of resources, media coverage and public attention. "

But don't worry about the detail, everything should be decided upon with emotion and not fact or logic, lol
 
oh please old man, do I need to compile a chart showing your contribution to this thread against every other poster.

Anyone with the nic prefixed with Sir, I Satan, the believer in the supernatural and all things that cannot be proven, places the following upon SirRumple, his/hers family and associated family and friend the following:
"I Satan curse you, your children, family and friends to ill health and sickness for as long as the curse holder(Satan) wishes (eternity) For every time you or your loved ones fall sick, are in illness or die, it was the result of your ignorance SirRumple that this situation resulted, due to your comments and beliefs, Satan places this curse on you.
Be warned, that Satan has placed this curse on only three people in 20 years, 2 of those people died with 14 days and the third lives with great health, but their loved ones have not, his wife died within weeks and both his children were in a horrible car accident, that is the power of the supernatural and of belief"
 
Does it come across as any surprise that Satan himself is against Christians expressing their religion lol.
 
To suggest that freedom of speech is not impeded by means of an employment contract precluding it has a lot in common with saying that the law does not impede drink driving or murder.

Indeed it doesn't, the law in no way physically stops you or me from driving under the influence of alcohol or from murdering someone. It does however impose significant penalties if caught doing so, and in the case of murder a major effort is made to find the offender, such that in practice the punishment as per the law is a very strong deterrent.

Likewise being sacked is a very strong deterrent to speaking out and one which would stop 95%+ of people from doing so.

Journalists having their homes raided by the AFP is likewise a form of deterrent to publishing their views. Doesn't physically stop them but it's a very strong deterrent to doing it.

Likewise sending someone to prison for blowing the whistle on the actions of a government department also doesn't stop anyone from doing so. Being locked up will deter 99%+ of people from doing it however.

And so on. Seems to be a pattern forming here and all of those actions are a clamp on freedom of speech in practice.
 

You should be sacked.

You would be if you played rugby.
 
Therein is where the issue lies, R.A isn't a LGBT organisation, it is a sporting code that recognises and respects the rights and equality of that community.
That doesn't mean the rugby code is tarnished, because someone who plays rugby, says something that offends the LGBT community as the two are not directly connected.
Therefore to terminate someone on those grounds, will be a long bow to draw. IMO
If he had said all gay rugby players will go to hell, then he is making the connection, he didn't make that connection.
He said something in a general sense, from a writing in a religious book, R.A tried to make that connection and it is a very thin connection.
Deep manure. IMO
I could be wrong, but sacking someone shouldn't be taken lightly, which I think R.A did.
 
Sorry, Sptrawler, while I have respected your contribution to this forum, you are no different, so I as Satan, place the same curse on you and your family as I have placed on Sir
 
satanoperca said:
Sorry, Sptrawler, while I have respected your contribution to this forum, you are no different, so I as Satan, place the same curse on you and your family as I have placed on Sir
Click to expand...
Oh well I guess I will have to get my house in order, thanks mate and what about the two cruises I've booked later in the year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
3K
sptrawler
Labour Law - Breach of Contract
Replies
4
Views
3K
CanOz
Crikey's version of Mr Downer's farewell speech to John Howard
Replies
2
Views
4K
BradK
B
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
10K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...