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
SirRumpole said:
The Folau's may suffer personal sponsorship loss, that's their problem, it's another matter if the ARU sack him for "perceived" damage where none actually exists.
Click to expand...
That is my opinion also Rumpy, if R.A was an organisation that specifically employed gays then it may be another matter, but it doesn't it isn't a prerequisite.
The other thing is if R.A gets away with sacking him, for such a general religious statement, against a group that they are not in anyway directly connected to. Will it therefore be possible for gays to individually sue a religious person for quoting the bible, on the grounds of defamation?
It is certainly a test case that requires running and the Muppets that think it will only cost $100k or so, are dreaming.IMO
 
Smurf1976 said:
The issue is what is reasonable to be in a contract in the first place.
Click to expand...
What RA had in its Code of Conduct was lawful. It's Code was part of the contract.
I do not find your examples particularly meaningful.
Dark Knight 2.0 said:
More drunks, fornicators, liars and thieves than homosexuals. That's one massive market segment to lose.
Click to expand...
Except the sponsors are not suggesting these people are sinners or will go to hell, and nor is RA. I think you have it back to front.
SirRumpole said:
The Folau's may suffer personal sponsorship loss, that's their problem, it's another matter if the ARU sack him for "perceived" damage where none actually exists.
Click to expand...
He was not sacked for what you claim.
The fact that Folau was dumped by ASICS clearly shows that businesses are damaged by brand ambassadors who disrespect their market. These are "real" actions and not perceptions.
 
Just remember that RA does not care what religion Folau follows, so the rest of your commentary is a non sequitur.
 
@rederob I was making the comparison that the drunk, fornicator, athiest etc market is bigger in Football than would be the homosexual market. So screaming homophobia doesn't add up, they shoulda screamed drunkophobia etc.

Secondly, Rugby Union is generally played in Private Schools too. Public Schools play Rugby League. Private Schools are generally christian schools so R.A. have shot themselves massively.
Alan Joyce has to have interfered imo.
 
rederob said:
The fact that Folau was dumped by ASICS clearly shows that businesses are damaged by brand ambassadors who disrespect their market. These are "real" actions and not perceptions.
Click to expand...

Businesses may "think" they are being damaged but how could they actually prove that ?

Look , the fact is that if businesses are allowed to sack people for what they say then free speech is dead. "Free" means free from retaliation from your employer and applies to religious, political, social or any other form of speech. There are laws to protect people from harrassment but no one has charged Folau with breaking any laws so he has a right to say what he did and no employment contract should be able to override that.

And furthermore robbie, if you support RA's right to sack Folau you must also support Christian churches rights to sack atheists, gays and other people that the churches don't like.

Do you ?
 
Last edited:
Your points are nonsense and continue to ignore realities.
Businesses can quantify things which do damage, and they can even insure against many things.
Businesses can sack people who breach their employment contracts.
You have some ideas which have no foundation in law, but repeat them nevertheless.
You still think freedom of speech means you can say anything, but that reflects ignorance of laws that exist to offer protections.
You simply cannot work this out.
 
Last edited:
RA handling of the matter is what caused the damage.

We then have lobby groups like 'sleeping giants' and 'change.org' directly influencing outcomes.

RA can have clauses in their contract. That does not mean they are always legally allowed depending on the situation.
 

Those protection laws are in the Sex Discrimination Act.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/employers/sex-discrimination

Folau has not been charged with breaking those laws.

Please answer the question I posted before:

Do you support churches being able to sack atheists, gays and other people they don't like ?
 
In this case it was Folau believing he was preaching Gods word to his followers. RA then got involved after prompting from a gay ceo.

Folau gained no benefit from posting what he did except to spread a religious message.

RA risked putting the large amounts of religious people that both play and watch the game offside. There is a rift in the camp between the Pacific islanders and the whites. They single-handedly stuffed up and turned it into a worldwide spectacle of religion vs rugby.

Netball Australia and NZ handled it in a sensible manner with little repercussions.
 
Last edited:
rederob said:
You really have no idea about what laws allow, do you!
Click to expand...

I am fully in agreement with Rederob, who has made constructive discussion on this subject.

I think Israel has done more damage to his faith than good, note, that 60% of population do not identify as Christian, so he has marginalized his faith more, with more and more people analyzing all parts of the bible that modern day society would condemn.
 
SirRumpole said:
And you really have no idea how to answer my question !
Click to expand...
More rubbish - you cannot sack people because you do not like them.
You can sack them because they have breached the conditions of their employment, and this is a point I keep making and which you cannot grasp.
 
rederob said:
More rubbish - you cannot sack people because you do not like them.
You can sack them because they have breached the conditions of their employment, and this is a point I keep making and which you cannot grasp.
Click to expand...
Not if there are laws in place. Contract is not above laws.
 
How many identify as religious, this isn't just a "Christian" thing. And some countriesthat rugby were trying to grow the brand in are very religious.
 
rederob said:
I do not find your examples particularly meaningful.
Click to expand...
In what way?

There will be exceptions of course as with anything but of all areas that business would rationally want to influence, who governs the country is the biggest and most obvious one with unions and environmental regulations being more specific examples of things most businesses would rather have less of.
 

I don't believe that is true. IME, it has drawn latent Christians out into defending their faith, even if they don't agree with IF.

I see people professing their Christianity more than ever, even people I never thought were Christians. (with zero prompting from me BTW)
 
This is what I am seeing.
 
rederob said:
More rubbish - you cannot sack people because you do not like them.
Click to expand...

The principle is the same.

If a person was employed by the Catholic church, and out of working hours made a comment on social media pro-abortion, they could be sacked by the church for "damaging the brand" of their employer.

So , would you agree with that the church has a right to sack them ?
 
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...