Anyone wanting to employ Folau can, and he is presently contracted as a player in France.Obviously Rob is still dribbling $hit, I can't see it because with the ignore function you don't have to, which is interesting because the thread still flows so his input must be absolutely worthless as usual. lol
Anyway getting back to Folau, I'm sure I read that some clubs were thinking about employing him in breach of RA ruling, now the management has been given the ar$e I'm sure that avenue will be re opened.
It is amasing how you can have a free Australia, until some dick decides your not dancing to my song, well you can only eat so many $hit sandwiches before people say enough is enough.
Again, you confuse facts.Do you enjoy the fact that your private life is the business of your employer ? Do you AGREE that it SHOULD be so ? Or do you just accept it because otherwise you wouldn't have a job ? I think your second paragraph basically admits that it was overreach by employers who had governments on their side at the time and no other government bothered to retract these employer "rights".
Again, you confuse facts.
A public posting to the internet is not a "private life."
You might be Sir Rumpy, but on matters of law and reasoning you are posting like Humpty Dumpty.
Will I meet you there, darling?Robbie, I really think you would be happier in another country. China or North Korea perhaps.
Will I meet you there, darling?
Given that the case had nothing to do with those matters, you seem to keep falling into the hole dug by others who do not understand what was at issue.No word from these PC warriors about the 'adulterers', 'fornicators', 'thieves' or 'idolaters'..
Robbie brings a counterpoint to the forums.
Often a very educated one at that. Conversation would wither and die without posters having differing views.
The entire matter could have been handled with one RA press release - dissociating RA from Folau's private time social media.
I have said more on this topic, with relevant references and using the applicable laws and reasoning which would be applicable, than any other poster.He would be better of explaining his views more and less on insulting people.
High handed arrogance never goes down well.
You can say almost anything in private, but once you put it into the public domain you are constrained. You continue to be confused by this point.Like others I would have liked to see this go to court because it raises important points about what people are allowed to say in their private lives.
You can say almost anything in private, but once you put it into the public domain you are constrained. You continue to be confused by this point.
You cannot reference a single a law to support your contentions.
Apparently you do not.Do you understand the difference between laws and rights ?
Apparently you do not.
You have a right to break a contract, but the applicable laws in relation to you exercising that right shall be applied.
No!What you are saying is that any contract can override human rights. Correct ?
If one exercises a right that causes hurt, harm or injury to another then what makes it "righteous?"
Given that "offensive" and "hurtful" actions can be prosecuted, that does not make sense.I would agree with "harm and injury", but "hurt " or "offense" is another matter.
People can choose to be offended by whatever they like, I could choose to be offended by you and vice versa, but that is a matter of choice.
This is covering old ground, and formed the basis of RA's decision to sack Folau. I referenced the legal construction of the grounds it generated, so it does not matter how many times you think something is "x," you need to provide the legal basis that guides that thinking.Most people who were mentioned by Folau would just laugh the matter off, only those with very thin skins make the loud noises.
Given that "offensive" and "hurtful" actions can be prosecuted, that does not make sense.
False.Yes they can, because the laws were passed by thin skinned social justice warriors and foisted on us without debate.
Objecting to something does not diminish the law.Just because "it's the law" doesn't mean that people can't object to it, my objection is that it reduces our rights to speak (including the truth) if it may possibly offend someone somewhere.
It's Contract law, and forms the basis of most undertakings between parties.This is the classic case of over application of a stupid law that wastes the time of the courts and drags people through the court system for harmless statements.
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?