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

[wayneL]

Agreed.
But this has nothing to do with what balls they juggle at home, and you still cannot grasp that point.
Seriously?
Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?
Then why didn't Folau do that?
Typical of your garbage. Apply some thought to come up with real issues - because it is not too hard.
You mean when should we not put BS in front of all your posts?

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)

 

[rederob]

This time - rugby team sacks player for expressing religious view saying it harms the team.

Except RA continues to be clear that his religious views are not the cause of sacking.

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.

That would need to be supported some contractual way, so exactly how do you propose it would apply?

 

[SirRumpole]

Seriously?
Look at sponsorship opportunities - are you blind to all this?

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.

 

[rederob]

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

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:

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.

Pedophilia is illegal and I am not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise. Where is any evidence supporting your idea?
NOWHERE!

 

[wayneL]

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:
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.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Delete the GoFundme page Israel. Donate the money to those causes more worthy - some of them are heartwrenching.

And careful who's in your Ear.

 

[moXJO]

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?

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.

 

[Value Collector]

You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?

The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.

There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.

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

 

[Value Collector]

Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.

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,

 

[Value Collector]

So you believe that employers should have the right to impose conditions on employees that bind them every minute of their lives ?

I agree that sometimes this is necessary, eg out of work hours drug taking where the effects may still be present during working hours. However the idea that this should also extend to expression of beliefs is anathema to anyone who believes in a free society.

So lets take another example.

Player A has trouble with his car, can't get any satisfaction from his dealer or the car maker, so vents his problems on social media. Oops, said car maker turns out to be a sponsor. Grounds for sacking ?

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.

 

[moXJO]

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

 

[Value Collector]

Message from one of the people

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

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]

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.

I doubt it to be honest.

 

[SirRumpole]

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

That's their problem.

I suspect the courts may take a different view.

We will see.

 

[Value Collector]

I doubt it to be honest.

So if they wouldn’t support a Muslim acting as Israel did, aren’t they being a hypocrite?

 

[moXJO]

So if they wouldn’t support a Muslim acting as Israel did, aren’t they being a hypocrite?

Thats a lot of assumptions to make on someone else's behalf.
It's also leading a narrative to produce a fantasy result.

 

[Value Collector]

Thats a lot of assumptions to make on someone else's behalf.
It's also leading a narrative to produce a fantasy result.

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.

 

[SirRumpole]

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.

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.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

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.

 

[SirRumpole]

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.

It's not actually about footy though is it ?

It's about individual rights vs employer control and could happen in any sector of the economy.