Folau has no regrets - would say it all again

[Midean]

I don't know much about the ARU's response to domestic violence offenders, to be honest. Can you provide some examples of incidents and punishments? I'm not stirring, by the way, I'm genuinely curious.



I didn't intend to get personal, but you did mention and provide a link to a study supporting the idea that sexual preference is not genetic, so you can surely understand how that might be interpreted.



What's the argument here? He chose to be a bigot. The consequence was losing his job. Actions have consequences.



Yes, absolutely, if their job involves agreeing to a code of conduct and/or social media policy that they disregard, or if their job gives them a platform which they then use to spout bigoted, small-minded horseshit, which then reflects badly upon their employer.



Again, I'll be completely honest and admit I don't know a lot about Russell Packer, but I can compare Folau to Matt Lodge. As far as I'm concerned these things are apples and oranges. Both heinous in their individual ways, but not really comparable. Matt Lodge committed a crime for which he was arrested, tried, and punished. From all accounts he has since turned his life around, given up alcohol, payed damages as ordered, and otherwise toed every line asked of him. He's also demonstrated that he is one of our team's more respected leaders, and has led projects to give back to the community. There is no doubt he was on a short leash, and knew that any indiscretions would cost him his job. There would be consequences. Like there was for Ben Barba.

Israel Folau, meanwhile, is a demonstrated bigot, who is unapologetic about being a bigot, and has made no efforts of any kind that indicate he will ever stop being a bigot. My understanding is that he had previously been warned about the very thing he went on to do (correct me if I'm wrong, please). So my answer would be yes, he deserved to lose his job more. Specifically, and importantly, the job of being a highly paid professional sportsperson. If he wants to toil away in anonymity as a plumber or truck driver or trolley boy, he can post whatever bigoted bullshit he wants to his Instagram. Provided, of course, it doesn't contravene any agreement he has with that employer.

Edit: Oh, and also, Lodge did lose his job. The Tigers sacked him, and he had to be re-registered before he could play for us.

Cheers for the constructive conversation.
A lot of good points in your post, of which most i agree with.
I just find the whole situation quiet bizarre.
I get that what Israel has done is wrong and harmful, i just don't see it as harmful as physical assault or drink driving, or domestic abuse, as at the end of the day, it is just one fools words and are easily ignored.
I mean, if you avoid social media, you would not be privy to Israels delusional posts.
He did nothing Illegal and lost his job for it, again, which i find odd as technically he has just voiced an opinion, albeit a polarizing one.
You have guys actively breaking the law, who suffer less repercusions than one idiot posting some garbage on social media.
[automerge]1571491863[/automerge]

It's only nonsense because you think it is. To an impressionable young mind it is far more than that.

No, its nonsense because one is blatantly illegal, the other is not.
I can tell a police officer right now he is going to hell and literally nothing will come of it, but if i belt that cop up the side of the head, you better believe im going straight to jail.
You see the difference?
Both are dick moves, but one is blatantly against the law, the other is just a jackass talking shit.

 

[Kimlo]

Not that I care about Folau's employment status but "breaking the law" is of absolutely no relevance to his employment.

You can break a million laws and be employed if you avoid jail for those convictions and you can break no laws, like turning up late to work a few times and be sacked while the guy who bashed his wife gets a promotion.

Business hire and fire based on contractual agreements and if those employees can generate profitability. It's not a charitable venture, if an employee is pissing off your sponsors by making inflammatory remarks in public then refuses to remove those remarks from public view, while being a public representative of the brand, then he can get fucked.

He's free to have his views, for sure, I'm all for freedom of religion, if he was sacked for something he was preaching in private, by all means I'd be throwing my full support behind him.

He breached his contract, which is a signed agreement, and refused to correct this, so he doesn't honour his word, very unchristian like.
He doesn't have a right to be employed.
He can do what he likes if he finds an employer that doesn't care about his public commentary, or if he's self employed. You work for someone else, you follow their rules or you don't get their money.

It's super simple stuff honestly.

 

[Foordy]

If it was simple, there would be no 4 million dollar court case happening, there would not have been 2 million dollars raised in 48 hours to cover his court costs, this would not be front page news, and this whole thread wouldn't exist.
This is far from simple, no matter how you spin it.
What we have here is oppression of freedom of speech in the form of religious oppression.
Again, far from simple.

there are frivolous law suits all the time.

the churches also have plenty of people of means that will pay to supports their beliefs as misguided as they may be.

Its a symptom of believe what i believe or you lose your job.

it is not that at all ... it is a case of abide by the conditions of the contract you signed.

he was warned once before then signed a contract in which he would have agreed to abide by the ARU's code of conduct, social media policies etc ... Folau clearly signed this contract under false pretenses as he never intended to abide by it's conditions ... He obviously thought his talent would again cause the ARU hierarchy to overlook his indiscretions, but unfortunately for him everyone has their limits.

FYI, my company has a social media policy and if I come out and say something similar to Folau that makes my company look bad publicly, then i would be gone in a heart beat, and i wouldn't have shitloads of people funding a losing fight.

unrelated, but my company also makes a welcome to the country style statement at the start of every meeting/function (but they don't need to remember it by heart like James did)

 

[Kimlo]

If it was simple, there would be no 4 million dollar court case happening, there would not have been 2 million dollars raised in 48 hours to cover his court costs, this would not be front page news, and this whole thread wouldn't exist.
This is far from simple, no matter how you spin it.
What we have here is oppression of freedom of speech in the form of religious oppression.
Again, far from simple.

Wrong, it's very simple, it's a contractual breach, not some kind of religious oppression.
The court case costs, or there even being a court case doesn't make it any more complex than any other contract breach.

Apparently its ok to follow a religion that condemns an entire group to eternal damnation, so long as you shut the **** up about it and practice it in private.
In your scenario, its perfectly ok to be a part of a hate group like ISIS so long as you do it privately and not on a public forum. Radicalization is fine if you practice it in private?
This is nonsense and you know it.

Yes, that's what freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of belief is about! He's more than free to preach what he wants just like his employer is free to only employ people who meet their contractual obligations.

ISIS is a terror group, it's against the law, you'd be in jail. Pretty difficult to get a job in there and behind a multi-decade sentence getting fired from your job would be pretty low on the concern list at that point. In case you missed it, I specifically said if you break the law while avoiding jail for the conviction, so major crimes wouldn't be allowed. Not my scenario at all, certainly a weird, pretty out there example.

Its a symptom of believe what i believe or you lose your job.
We live in a society it seems, where freedom has conditions.
You are free to be a part of a religious group, so long as you don't talk about it in public, or practice its teachings.
FAR FROM SIMPLE.

No, it's a symptom of believe what you want to believe but when you're a public representative of a brand, who ask you to refrain from commentary on certain topics as part of the contract you signed voluntarily in exchange for a million a year, you lose the money when you violate that same deal. Very simple.

And who gets to dictate what is ok to talk about in public, and what isn't?

The person gets to dictate what they can or can't talk about in public and the employer gets to dictate under what terms they employ people. I'm honestly not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. It's ridiculously straight forward.

I could give a **** what happens to Folau, but this is insanity the way it is being handled.
A man has lost his job, because of his religious views, and is being held accountable on behalf of an entire religion.
The religion is the problem here, not Folau, yet Folau is the one being punished.

Glad we agree on one thing, I don't care about Folau either.

There's no insanity.
He didn't lose his job because of his religious views, you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
He's only held to account on the contract he signed. Have the ARU taken his home, kids and liberty or something? He got paid in accordance with the contract he signed and he got fired in accordance with that very same contract.

The only argument here is whether the ARU have breached contract law but I doubt you're a lawyer, and neither am I. The reasons of his dismissal don't make it any more relevant than the thousand other contract disputes that reach the courts every year.

 

[Midean]

Wrong, it's very simple, it's a contractual breach, not some kind of religious oppression.
The court case costs, or there even being a court case doesn't make it any more complex than any other contract breach.


Yes, that's what freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of belief is about! He's more than free to preach what he wants just like his employer is free to only employ people who meet their contractual obligations.

ISIS is a terror group, it's against the law, you'd be in jail. Pretty difficult to get a job in there and behind a multi-decade sentence getting fired from your job would be pretty low on the concern list at that point. In case you missed it, I specifically said if you break the law while avoiding jail for the conviction, so major crimes wouldn't be allowed. Not my scenario at all, certainly a weird, pretty out there example.


No, it's a symptom of believe what you want to believe but when you're a public representative of a brand, who ask you to refrain from commentary on certain topics as part of the contract you signed voluntarily in exchange for a million a year, you lose the money when you violate that same deal. Very simple.


The person gets to dictate what they can or can't talk about in public and the employer gets to dictate under what terms they employ people. I'm honestly not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. It's ridiculously straight forward.

Glad we agree on one thing, I don't care about Folau either.

There's no insanity.
He didn't lose his job because of his religious views, you repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
He's only held to account on the contract he signed. Have the ARU taken his home, kids and liberty or something? He got paid in accordance with the contract he signed and he got fired in accordance with that very same contract.

The only argument here is whether the ARU have breached contract law but I doubt you're a lawyer, and neither am I, but the reasons of his dismissal don't make it any more relevant than the thousand other contract disputes that reach the courts every year.

Yea i see what you are saying, and i get it, the company has every right to fire him if he does things that make them look bad.
Just the way it has been handled is odd to me, it does not seem so cut and dry i suppose.
I mean there is a full blown court case raging around this and i couldn't even begin to guess how it will play out.
And nope, i am 100% not a lawyer haha.
I wouldnt have thought they would pursue legal action against the ARU if they were not reasonably certain they had a case to put forward. Which leads me to believe that Israel and his camp believe he was wrongly fired for sharing his religious views.

edit: Would it not be discrimination on the ARU's behalf to tell Folau he cant practice his religion publicly?

 

[Alec]

Rugby players are generally dumb as ****, and Twitter is easily the dumbest social media platform too. Just a bad combination.

 

[Kimlo]

he was warned once before then signed a contract in which he would have agreed to abide by the ARU's code of conduct, social media policies etc ... Folau clearly signed this contract under false pretenses as he never intended to abide by it's conditions ...

Honestly, this is the only thing that matters and it's exactly why I have zero sympathy for Folau. The ARU are 100% correct in their handling and the only disappointing thing is all the idiots who donated millions to line the pockets of a large legal team when that money could be used on so many worthy causes.

If Folau funded his own legal fight on principle, I'd possibly have some sympathy that he at least believes what he's fighting for.

- He signed a contract in bad faith to try to con the ARU out of more money with total disrespect for his employer
- Instead of owning his dishonest behaviour, he's trying to fight it to get some more cash for himself.
- Instead of risking his own money to fight against his breach, he's leached millions off the public with a well designed PR stunt that he will probably pocket the large change from and buy another sports car with.

Folau is a shit person. Really shit person.
There's a lot of people who deserve sympathy for being mistreated by employers, Folau is the very last on that list and I only feel sorry for the ARU for having to deal with such a nightmare employee.

 

[Unbreakable]

Yea i see what you are saying, and i get it, the company has every right to fire him if he does things that make them look bad.
Just the way it has been handled is odd to me, it does not seem so cut and dry i suppose.
I mean there is a full blown court case raging around this and i couldn't even begin to guess how it will play out.
And nope, i am 100% not a lawyer haha.
I wouldnt have thought they would pursue legal action against the ARU if they were not reasonably certain they had a case to put forward. Which leads me to believe that Israel and his camp believe he was wrongly fired for sharing his religious views.

edit: Would it not be discrimination on the ARU's behalf to tell Folau he cant practice his religion publicly?

Are you just pretending to be ignorant about this topic? This entire conversation has almost nothing to do with his religious beliefs, it has to do with what he posted on social media. If an atheist posted "gays should burn in hell" on social media, they'd be fired. And if you're telling me that the only way Israel Folau is capable of practicing his religion is posting hateful images on social media telling a vast majority of the population to turn to God or burn for eternity, then you're almost as much of a lost cause as he is.

 

[Kimlo]

Yea i see what you are saying, and i get it, the company has every right to fire him if he does things that make them look bad.
Just the way it has been handled is odd to me, it does not seem so cut and dry i suppose.
I mean there is a full blown court case raging around this and i couldn't even begin to guess how it will play out.
And nope, i am 100% not a lawyer haha.
I wouldnt have thought they would pursue legal action against the ARU if they were not reasonably certain they had a case to put forward. Which leads me to believe that Israel and his camp believe he was wrongly fired for sharing his religious views.

edit: Would it not be discrimination on the ARU's behalf to tell Folau he cant practice his religion publicly?

What @Foordy said is of crucial importance here. This wasn't like a first time post and he got fired. He did this exact same thing in his prior contract, signed a new contract after specifically agreeing to avoid doing that exact same thing again, then did it again and got fired.

Folau's behaviour can be summarised as follows

- Make employer angry
- Sign contract to say you won't do that thing again
- Do thing again
- Get fired

Of course he's fighting it, I'd take a few companies to court if the public were going to fund the risk involved in losing while potentially getting a few million in payout. Who wouldn't do that? Ask any accountant in the world. Risk fully funded by people unrelated to you. Potential reward all yours.

Heck, I'll take the ARU to court on Folau's behalf on those terms just to roll the dice.

 

[Midean]

Are you just pretending to be ignorant about this topic? This entire conversation has almost nothing to do with his religious beliefs, it has to do with what he posted on social media. If an atheist posted "gays should burn in hell" on social media, they'd be fired. And if you're telling me that the only way Israel Folau is capable of practicing his religion is posting hateful images on social media telling a vast majority of the population to turn to God or burn for eternity, then you're almost as much of a lost cause as he is.

For starters, keep it civil.
Why would i pretend ignorance?
There is a big big difference between spewing vitriolic nonsense and quoting bible passages.
Israel posting on social media is a platform he has chosen to push his religion.
You act like Israel created the topic he posted. But he didn't.
You say it has nothing to do with religion, yet it is religious quotes he posted.
Israel didn't just make up those posts on the spot and decide to put them out there.
He practices a religion, that religion preaches that sinners will go to hell unless they repent, sinners in this case are comprised of alcoholics, thieves, homosexuals, adulterers, athiests etc etc.
The post Israel put up, is literally scripture, word for word taken from the bible.
By firing him for that, they have effectively said, by practicing your religion publicly, we are terminating your contract. That is discrimination based on religious beliefs no matter how much you moan that it isn't.
He targeted sinners by the way, not just homosexuals. yet everyone here is getting all worked up over that one specific part of his post as though his intention was to target that one group of people, when it flat out wasn't.
If you cant understand that, then you are the lost cause mate.

You all keep saying its simple and it isn't, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Midean]

So after thinking on this overnight, and doing a lit bit more research into it, it turns out all you guys on here are flat out wrong.
Israel had his employment terminated because he tweeted his religious beliefs on a social platform.
That is 100% religious discrimination and is grounds for a lawsuit, just the same as if you fired someone for being black, or gay.
Ultimately, he was fired because of his faith, no other reason.
There is also evidence that 3rd parties were involved (quantas) who put pressure on the ARU to sack Folau or risk losing sponsors. (Turns out the CEO of Quantas is gay, coincidence?).
You cannot use the argument that he broke a contract by sharing his beliefs with the public, as that still falls under unfair dismissal based on his religious affiliation.
There is not a contract in the world that will stand up in court stating you can only maintain employment if you agree to hide your religious beliefs from the public.

You don't have to like Israel, or his beliefs but to stand here and vilify him for having those beliefs is as absurd as the the religion he follows.
You are all basically condoning the sacking of a man because he shared his religious ideals on a public platform.
It would be no different to firing a gay individual for participating in Mardi Gras and posting pictures of it to facebook, as it may offend the religious people who use facebook.

To all you guys saying this is a simple matter, do a quick google search on the topic, and you will find it is anything but simple, to the point where the government may have to introduce new workplace laws based on this case to avoid this sort of shit happening in the future.
REAL SIMPLE HUH.
There are legal professionals on both sides who are unsure of how this case will play out, as there is no precedence for it, and the water is murky as to what is vilification against homosexuals and the oppression of free religious speech.

Cheers for the constructive conversation to those that participated civilly.

 

[Nashy]

So after thinking on this overnight, and doing a lit bit more research into it, it turns out all you guys on here are flat out wrong.
Israel had his employment terminated because he tweeted his religious beliefs on a social platform.
That is 100% religious discrimination and is grounds for a lawsuit, just the same as if you fired someone for being black, or gay.
Ultimately, he was fired because of his faith, no other reason.
There is also evidence that 3rd parties were involved (quantas) who put pressure on the ARU to sack Folau or risk losing sponsors. (Turns out the CEO of Quantas is gay, coincidence?).
You cannot use the argument that he broke a contract by sharing his beliefs with the public, as that still falls under unfair dismissal based on his religious affiliation.
There is not a contract in the world that will stand up in court stating you can only maintain employment if you agree to hide your religious beliefs from the public.

You don't have to like Israel, or his beliefs but to stand here and vilify him for having those beliefs is as absurd as the the religion he follows.
You are all basically condoning the sacking of a man because he shared his religious ideals on a public platform.
It would be no different to firing a gay individual for participating in Mardi Gras and posting pictures of it to facebook, as it may offend the religious people who use facebook.

To all you guys saying this is a simple matter, do a quick google search on the topic, and you will find it is anything but simple, to the point where the government may have to introduce new workplace laws based on this case to avoid this sort of shit happening in the future.
REAL SIMPLE HUH.
There are legal professionals on both sides who are unsure of how this case will play out, as there is no precedence for it, and the water is murky as to what is vilification against homosexuals and the oppression of free religious speech.

Cheers for the constructive conversation to those that participated civilly.

What have you read that says he was terminated for his beliefs? He wasn't, he was terminated for falling outside of the expectations of his employment contract.

"Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union have made repeated attempts to contact Israel both directly and via his representatives since 6.30pm on Wednesday, and at this point he has failed to communicate directly with either organisation,” the statement read.

"Whilst Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport. We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.

"Israel has failed to understand that the expectation of him as a Rugby Australia and NSW Waratahs employee is that he cannot share material on social media that condemns, vilifies or discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality.

"Rugby is a sport that continuously works to unite people. We want everyone to feel safe and welcome in our game and no vilification based on race, gender, religion or sexuality is acceptable and no language that isolates, divides or insults people based on any of those factors can be tolerated.

"As a code we have made it clear to Israel formally and repeatedly that any social media posts or commentary that is in any way disrespectful to people because of their sexuality will result in disciplinary action.

"In the absence of compelling mitigating factors, it is our intention to terminate his contract.”

 

[Midean]

What have you read that says he was terminated for his beliefs? He wasn't, he was terminated for falling outside of the expectations of his employment contract.

Based on his religious beliefs.
The breach of contract is because he shared his religious beliefs on social media, thus religious discrimination.
Like i keep saying, if it was cut and dry, and simple, as others have put it, it would not be facing the courts, it would not be prompting the creation of new laws to deal with the situation, and it wouldn't be front page news.

'No Australian should be fired for their religion': Folau sues over axing

Lawyers for sacked rugby union international Israel Folau launch legal action in the Fair Work Commission against Rugby Australia, alleging their client's contract was unlawfully terminated under the Fair Work Act.

www.abc.net.au

Just one article among many that describe the situation and the legal rights and obligations on both sides of the fence.
Do a quick google search and you will see there is plenty of information in regards to him being terminated for a high breach of the code of conduct under ARU regulations, and that those breaches are inherently discriminatory towards his freedom of religion.
The ARU state they terminated his contract and uphold their standard of inclusiveness for everyone regardless of gender, orientation, sex, or religion.
Which they have not done, as he was sacked due to sharing his religious beliefs.

The fact this is in the high courts and is being played out like this is evidence that it is not just a simple case of contract breach, otherwise he would be sacked, and that would be the end of it.
[automerge]1571522262[/automerge]

Oh dear...

View attachment 6461

Someone disagrees with you and you resort to this? how very ARU of you.

 

[Midean]

After this thread, i hope he wins the court case, and the broncos employ him, just to stick it to you lot lmao.

jk btw.

 

[Nashy]

Based on his religious beliefs.
The breach of contract is because he shared his religious beliefs on social media, thus religious discrimination.
Like i keep saying, if it was cut and dry, and simple, as others have put it, it would not be facing the courts, it would not be prompting the creation of new laws to deal with the situation, and it wouldn't be front page news.

'No Australian should be fired for their religion': Folau sues over axing

Lawyers for sacked rugby union international Israel Folau launch legal action in the Fair Work Commission against Rugby Australia, alleging their client's contract was unlawfully terminated under the Fair Work Act.

www.abc.net.au

Just one article among many that describe the situation and the legal rights and obligations on both sides of the fence.
Do a quick google search and you will see there is plenty of information in regards to him being terminated for a high breach of the code of conduct under ARU regulations, and that those breaches are inherently discriminatory towards his freedom of religion.
The ARU state they terminated his contract and uphold their standard of inclusiveness for everyone regardless of gender, orientation, sex, or religion.
Which they have not done, as he was sacked due to sharing his religious beliefs.

The fact this is in the high courts and is being played out like this is evidence that it is not just a simple case of contract breach, otherwise he would be sacked, and that would be the end of it.
[automerge]1571522262[/automerge]

Someone disagrees with you and you resort to this? how very ARU of you.

You can view it like that, and the courts might too. I'm not a lawyer, but it has nothing to do with his religion when it comes about them specifically stating how he is to act on social media when representing them, IE. all the time.

He broke that promise. He could have posted up anything there, and it wouldn't matter the topic, if it broke the terms of his contract by posting it, he's gone.

 

[Midean]

It was meant as irony, considering the show it comes from.

Honestly, when everyone disagrees with you, yet you come to the conclusion that only you are correct, a “Ya Basic” gif seems very appropriate...

If you say so.
I also never said i was correct, i enjoy a good argument and im on the fence as to what is right or wrong "legally" in this situation.
Morally, Israel is as wrong as it gets, he is a hateful twat, following a religion that preaches hate.
I don't think there is a single person in this thread who thinks Israel is right in his way of thinking.
However, in the word of the law, and under freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, he has rights, just like anyone else, and this whole saga is testing those laws on both sides of the fence.
No kidding, the government is legitimately considering creating new laws to deal with this sort of thing, because of how all this has played out.
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong here, but the legality of the situation and the impact it has on freedoms on both sides.

 

[Midean]

You can view it like that, and the courts might too. I'm not a lawyer, but it has nothing to do with his religion when it comes about them specifically stating how he is to act on social media when representing them, IE. all the time.

He broke that promise. He could have posted up anything there, and it wouldn't matter the topic, if it broke the terms of his contract by posting it, he's gone.

Sure it does have something to do with his religion.
If the contract states he cannot share his religious beliefs on social media, that is religious discrimination.
You can continue to be employed with us, so long as you don't share your religious views in public?
How is that not suppression/discrimination based on your religion?
The ARU have the right to dictate contracts within the bounds of workplace laws. Any contract stating you cant speak publicly about your religion would be breaking those laws.
[automerge]1571523069[/automerge]
You guys being wrong, does not automatically make me correct haha.
I was referring to people stating this was a simple situation by the way.
[automerge]1571523182[/automerge]

Regardless, I think we’ll be proven right when the case eventually plays out and wastes a heap of our taxpayer money...

The best thing that can come from this, is the new laws that will state regardless of your religious beliefs you cant alienate any other group based on those beliefs, or something to that effect.
I will give Izzy this, he knows how to start a shitfight.

 

[Nashy]

Sure it does have something to do with his religion.
If the contract states he cannot share his religious beliefs on social media, that is religious discrimination.
You can continue to be employed with us, so long as you don't share your religious views in public?
How is that not suppression/discrimination based on your religion?
The ARU have the right to dictate contracts within the bounds of workplace laws. Any contract stating you cant speak publicly about your religion would be breaking those laws.
[automerge]1571523069[/automerge]

You guys being wrong, does not automatically make me correct haha.
I was referring to people stating this was a simple situation by the way.
[automerge]1571523182[/automerge]

The best thing that can come from this, is the new laws that will state regardless of your religious beliefs you cant alienate any other group based on those beliefs, or something to that effect.
I will give Izzy this, he knows how to start a shitfight.

Does it say he can't share his beliefs, or does it say he can't say things that are offensive on social media?