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

LMAO

I designed the second half of thatpost specifically for you, Komrade.

Consider yourself trolled.

Notwithstanding that however, the broad thrust of my point still stands. Although I don't expect pedophilia to be accepted as mainstream anytime soon, despite their attempts, the identitarian victim culture will soon invent creative ways to be grievously offended by one or another triviality.

Your denial (and pathological need to indulge in ad hom) does nothing to disprove this objective truth.

Look what happened to the NFL, look how the AFL is alienating its core.

Watch what happens to RA from this.

People should take a little advice from Chopper Reid and harden the fxck up. Stick and stones an' all that.

I mean it like us mate, wvery time yo ad hom me, makes me more convinced of your status as a p1ssant cultural vandal.

But free speech and all that. You're entitled to prove you're a leftist idiot.

(and to be clear, Im make a point about ad hom, in case you missed that)
 
Smurf1976 said:
This time - rugby team sacks player for expressing religious view saying it harms the team.
Click to expand...
Except RA continues to be clear that his religious views are not the cause of sacking.
Smurf1976 said:
Next - coal mining company sacks truck driver who posted online that climate change might be a real thing and that people will die because of it.
Click to expand...
That would need to be supported some contractual way, so exactly how do you propose it would apply?
 
rederob said:
Seriously?
Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?
Click to expand...

Prove that sponsorship opportunities have been damaged.

Do you really think that people go to football matches to hear religious speeches ?

Maybe they just go to see football. An amazing idea to you I'm sure.
 
wayneL said:
Your denial (and pathological need to indulge in ad hom) does nothing to disprove this objective truth.
Click to expand...
I post on what you present, which is riddled with ideological irrelevances, as typified in your last post.
You need to learn why that is different to an ad hominem because you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Frankly, I ignore the majority of your posts because they are mostly superfluous.
Otherwise they introduce utter rubbish, as per this point:
wayneL said:
Although I don't expect pedophilia to be accepted as mainstream anytime soon, despite their attempts, the identitarian victim culture will soon invent creative ways to be grievously offended by one or another triviality.
Click to expand...
Pedophilia is illegal and I am not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise. Where is any evidence supporting your idea?
NOWHERE!
 
You foolish man.

I have my reasons for not linking, but its everywhere. Google it, idiot.
 
rederob said:
Except RA continues to be clear that his religious views are not the cause of sacking.
That would need to be supported some contractual way, so exactly how do you propose it would apply?
Click to expand...
She has to say that. Its unlawful to say otherwise. That will be the point argued in court. So like I said "will be interesting".


RA has done more damage to its brand amongst pacific islanders and those that are religious. It is now at a point where it is being framed as "PC culture gone mad" and losing a lot of its base supporters. They were worried about losing sponsors, instead they put their fan base at risk. They made a big song and dance about it, then doubled down.
I'd be firing people from the top down.
 

At the end of the day, the ARU is in the advertising and promotion business, and it is really a different kind of business.

It’s not employing low income factory workers, it’s writing checks for millions or atleast hundreds of thousands to people that it expects to be its representatives full time, not 9-5
 

I doubt it would have to mention social media specifically, there would be some catch all wording that covers any behavior those in charge at the time don’t like.

Second point- they aren’t preventing him writing about his religious beliefs, he is free to write what he likes, but there is no law saying you must remain associated with someone you find vile.

Thirdly, I wouldn’t know, I don’t even like the game, nor did I know who this guy was before these headlines.

But it doesn’t really matter who is offended, it’s about what the advertisers who pay he bills think,
 

The thing is, he isn’t really an employee, he is the product that is sold.

If he does something that spoils his image and he becomes damaged goods, he can no longer be seen as a salable product, so can’t be on the pay roll anymore.
 
Donations up to $583k
Message from one of the people who donated:

$10
Mainstream Media stop dictating who people can support! Left wing authoritarian intolerant hypocrite
 
moXJO said:
Message from one of the people

$10
Mainstream Media stop dictating who people can support! Left wing authoritarian intolerant hypocrite
Click to expand...

I would genuinely be interested to find out if that person would feel the same way if it was a Muslim footy player quoting the Koran.
 
moXJO said:
Thats a lot of assumptions to make on someone else's behalf.
It's also leading a narrative to produce a fantasy result.
Click to expand...

I don’t think so.

I think the people that want Israel to have the right to say what he likes in the name of his Christian beliefs, but wouldn’t support a Muslim saying the same thing in the name of their Islamic beliefs are most certainly Being hypocrites.

In my opinion he can say what he likes, whether he was Christian or Muslim I don’t care, but people do have the right to disassociate them selves from him also.
 
Value Collector said:
In my opinion he can say what he likes, whether he was Christian or Muslim I don’t care, but people do have the right to disassociate them selves from him also.
Click to expand...

Not when someones living depends on it and a contract has been signed, the breaking of which denies Folau the opportunity to earn an income.
 
SirRumpole said:
Not when someones living depends on it and a contract has been signed, the breaking of which denies Folau the opportunity to earn an income.
Click to expand...

Depends on the contents of the contract doesn’t it.

Either way, I am not much interested in footy or footy players, so I will leave this discussion to you all.
 
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...