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

[Dark Knight 2.0]

It might be quibbling but saying someone won't enter kingdom of God is not same as saying they'll reside in hell. Hell is a very nebulous concept and means different things in different parts of Bible. Ie, "hell" is a translation for several distinct words.

If he'd said they won't enter heaven it'd probably be more legit paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Which becomes another VERY interesting point. The Australian High Court has to interpret the Bible and determine whether Hell in fact is real

Although I think it'll just judge on the scope of the Fair Work Act.

 

[StockyGuy]

Hell as in Gehenna is/was real place outside Jerusalem - it was a garbage dump where certain undesirables would suffer ignominy of having their body burnt after death; very shameful for their families. Not eternal torment, though.

 

[wayneL]

Define "rich" yourself, it is what ever you judge it to be.

As for the people of the Rift Valley in Kenya, NO they won't be going to hell unless they have sold their soul to the devil for money in the same way Folau has got himself into a bind having two masters.

RA Is the devil?

 

[grah33]

"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” Matthew 19:23-26

Looks like Izzy is heading to hell with all the other drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornication, theives, athiest's and idolators.

Well, define rich. Where's the line?

The parable may be more nuanced than face value.

My wife, who was born in the Rift Valley in Kenya, considers the tribes people of the area far more rich than us... And it's nuttin' to do with money.

Ate they going to hell?

I'm familiar with the passage. it's about the rich man. If you read the story, his salvation is established , and his character praised ,before this verse occurs . So rich people aren't condemned for being rich. It's just that this particular rich man, wanted to be like one of Christ's followers, and was invited to become one, but was disappointed that he would have to part with his riches. My personal take on this, is that there are benefits and advantages to not having luxuries and comforts, that Christ was alluding to here.

Regards the verses in the Bible about homosexuality, being debated here, to me it's clear enough. U got Leviticus, and Paul's letter. Furthermore, Christ prescribed a new and rather original virtue - purity in the mind - which the world has known for 2000 years. Part of His mission wasn't to restate the old code (for primitives such as murderers and criminals), but to bring in a HIGHER order of virtue , fit and proper for the human race.

 

[Macquack]

RA Is the devil?

I think if you are a christian, Rugby Australia's actions in sacking Folau is considered the Devil's work.

 

[sptrawler]

Well it appears a precedent may have been set, in Britain.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fol...reedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

As we said, it will be a long and costly excercise.

From the article:
There are other notable implications from this British decision for the Folau case. Ngole’s case took four long years before he finally obtained his vindication. Many have criticised Folau for raising such a big war chest of legal fees. His fundraising efforts may be both prescient and proportionate given that he might face a similar long, hard and expensive legal battle.

The appeal court also took a distinctively different approach compared with the original judge. While the lower court judge gave a “full and meticulous” judgment that navigated a maze of dense common law principles and cases, the justices on appeal went to the heart of the matter.

This was about a failure of common sense. At the outset of the matter in 2014, the university had overreached and overreacted. It effectively purported to restrict Ngole from expressing his religious views in any public forum. The implication was that a professional should only express controversial religious views in absolute privacy.

The court rightly pointed out that, if correct, no Christian would be secure in any profession, let alone Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Further, Ngole’s expulsion was disproportionate, given that the posts were expressions of religious and moral views that were based on the Bible.

My bolds

 

[moXJO]

Well it appears a precedent may have been set, in Britain.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fol...reedom-ruling-in-britain-20190704-p5240w.html

As we said, it will be a long and costly excercise.

From the article:
There are other notable implications from this British decision for the Folau case. Ngole’s case took four long years before he finally obtained his vindication. Many have criticised Folau for raising such a big war chest of legal fees. His fundraising efforts may be both prescient and proportionate given that he might face a similar long, hard and expensive legal battle.

The appeal court also took a distinctively different approach compared with the original judge. While the lower court judge gave a “full and meticulous” judgment that navigated a maze of dense common law principles and cases, the justices on appeal went to the heart of the matter.

This was about a failure of common sense. At the outset of the matter in 2014, the university had overreached and overreacted. It effectively purported to restrict Ngole from expressing his religious views in any public forum. The implication was that a professional should only express controversial religious views in absolute privacy.

The court rightly pointed out that, if correct, no Christian would be secure in any profession, let alone Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Further, Ngole’s expulsion was disproportionate, given that the posts were expressions of religious and moral views that were based on the Bible.

My bolds

That was my idea of how it might play out. Depending on who leans on the judges.

 

[sptrawler]

That was my idea of how it might play out. Depending on who leans on the judges.

Yes, it was a dumb play by R.A, as we said they can discipline but to sack someone is a whole new level.
The judges still have to justify their reasoning.

From the article:
However, the Court of Appeal disagreed and has found that the university discipline process was fundamentally flawed. The university took an entrenched position early on, adopted processes that lacked insight and imposed a sentence that lacked proportion.

 

[satanoperca]

Always check the fine print before making assumptions.

Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol

John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.

 

[sptrawler]

Always check the fine print before making assumptions.

Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol

John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.

As I said, it will be a long and costly excercise.

 

[moXJO]

Always check the fine print before making assumptions.

Who might have written above article and was there bias by the reporter, lol

John Steenhof is managing director of Human Rights Law Alliance Limited. HRLA is an independent sister organisation to the Australian Christian Lobby.

Unless he lied about the judgment, then this case gives a guideline.

 

[satanoperca]

Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.

 

[wayneL]

Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.

I gather a new contract with a SM clause was drafted *after he signed his current contract, but he did not sign it, as he already had a contract.

That's as I understand it.

 

[moXJO]

Slight difference, Faula signed a contract after this issue had been raised with him before.

If the contract is unlawful then it hardly matters. You cannot dismiss workplace laws with a contract.

Its still a guide and the rulings will be considered by the judges.

That still doesn't mean this is an open and shut case either way.

 

[satanoperca]

Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.

Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
As for the sponsors not being able to have their say, that is bull-****, they have every right if they in turn believe that there ROI on sponsorship was negative due to his outdated views of the world.

The only thing that can save him is if Jesus gets off his arse and returns but after 2000 years, don't think it is going to happen anytime soon

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.

Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
As for the sponsors not being able to have their say, that is bull-****, they have every right if they in turn believe that there ROI on sponsorship was negative due to his outdated views of the world.

The only thing that can save him is if Jesus gets off his arse and returns but after 2000 years, don't think it is going to happen anytime soon

Because they can't get Alcohol or Tobacco sponsorship and the Wallabies brand is shot due to them playing like busted a***holes.
I heard "inconsistencies" in Alan Joyce's statements previously which lead me to not trust him. A gay CEO sponsor throwing his own money around for the LGBIT cause, tell me he didn't directly or indirectly lean on RA.

You've just got a beef with Jesus, Satan.

 

[moXJO]

Lets look at this in simple, for the moment no legal terms.

Why would RA dump him from a business perspective?
Only one reason, he was going to cost them more than he could earn them?
As for the sponsors not being able to have their say, that is bull-****, they have every right if they in turn believe that there ROI on sponsorship was negative due to his outdated views of the world.

The only thing that can save him is if Jesus gets off his arse and returns but after 2000 years, don't think it is going to happen anytime soon

Yeah, nah....
People have rights.

RA has cost themselves more now by mishandling the situation.

 

[Logique]

The whole issue is a monumental stuff up. It has been woefully handled by RA.

Do they really think persecuting Folau will advance the cause of rugby in Australia? Which will be the chief casualty out of all this.

What on earth would have been wrong with a Media Release from RA: "Mr Folau's social media comments are his own, and in no way representative of RA".

No, somebody wanted to be a social justice warrior.

 

[moXJO]

Netball Australia handled it with more class and little backlash.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

A sign next to Folau reads a mock religious message, “The righteous shall taketh from the punters for the divinity of one’s property portfolio is most sacred in the eyes of the lord. Amen!”.

The sign then offers dummy account details for Folau, and promising free Holy Water with every donation.