• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Israel Folau saga

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Hi everyone.

Just a reminder. Please try not to name companies and prominent people in any way that could be considered derogatory.

We can't afford to get sued.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Religious freedom is the issue? Whose religion? There are lots of different religions in our society, and some of them have radically different tenets about extremely sensitive issues.


Are radical Islamists allowed to say anything that pops into their heads, no matter how dangerous or hurtful it might be to some of us?


Izzy did not quote the bible, incidentally. He paraphrased a very tiny element of it and he did so in a way that could only be described as potentially hurtful to a segment of the population who happened to have been born with certain sexual preferences. Their sexuality is not a matter of choice.


Some biblical scholars believe that the admonition against "homosexuality" was aimed at the practice of male prostitution in the Temple.

Why would anybody who believes that the God who is a God of love, and who created all things, would then condemn a segment of his own creation?
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
By the way. In less than a day we are back to

It's in a book
Religious freedom
He signed a contract
It's a companies fault
It's the head of a companies fault.
the same people posting the same things
 

Kiwikrs

Bob McCowan (2)
One for the legal experts.

Sonny Bill Williams refuses to wear a banks logo/name on his Auckland Blues jersey, because charging interest under the Muslim religion is not allowed. (Don't quiet understand how he is happy to wear the AIG logo on his All Blacks jersey, they are a money lender as well but that is another issue all together.)

Say he played for the Waratahs and that was a contracted Code of Conduct requirement to wear appareal with sponsors logos and he refused because one sponsor was a bank. He was contracted to do so and dismissed, how would this go down at Fairwork Australia.

It is my understanding that this was negotiated into SBWs contracted and that his lessened marketability to sponsors was also considered in his salary
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
So has he plucked 10 million out of the air to push up the value of any potential settlement? Have to admit that would be my strategy.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
By the way. In less than a day we are back to

It's in a book
Religious freedom
He signed a contract
It's a companies fault
It's the head of a companies fault.
the same people posting the same things

What's your view on Folau's legal challenge?
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
Two separate issues
- can you be fired for posting things on social media? There are many examples of this in Australia - Angela Williamson, Scott McIntyre and Michaela Banerji. Each have their own quirks but there was little uproar about their sacking from many who support Folau’s free speech. In some cases the firing was supported - the whole right to have free speech as long as I agree with it.
- the second is religious beliefs protected from the first.

There are way too many examples of the first for Folau to win on a free speech argument. On the religious exemption - that pretty much opens up anyone to say anything. Who gets to define which religions are protected?
 

James Pettifer

Jim Clark (26)
Folau, obviously.

How is it cynicism? Its a legit strategy. Plus hes only lost 4 million max.

No. He has lost a lot more than that. He has no future likelihood of any sporting contract and he has lost all of his current and future value as someone worthy of being sponsored. Of course that all has nothing to do with RA.
 

Kiwikrs

Bob McCowan (2)
No. He has lost a lot more than that. He has no future likelihood of any sporting contract and he has lost all of his current and future value as someone worthy of being sponsored. Of course that all has nothing to do with RA.
As you say, RA has nothing to do with that. So why should they be expected to pay for Folau's stupidity?
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Folau, obviously.

How is it cynicism? Its a legit strategy. Plus hes only lost 4 million max.

I thought ''he'' might be his lawyer.
OK, so you think it's just about money.
Fair enough.
 
S

sidelineview

Guest
Two separate issues
- can you be fired for posting things on social media? There are many examples of this in Australia - Angela Williamson, Scott McIntyre and Michaela Banerji. Each have their own quirks but there was little uproar about their sacking from many who support Folau’s free speech. In some cases the firing was supported - the whole right to have free speech as long as I agree with it.
- the second is religious beliefs protected from the first.

There are way too many examples of the first for Folau to win on a free speech argument. On the religious exemption - that pretty much opens up anyone to say anything. Who gets to define which religions are protected?

On religious freedom, it doesn't open it up for anyone to say anything.
No one has the right to promote hatred or violence; and before anyone claims Folau did promote hatred of homosexuals in referring to the Bible, lets agree to disagree.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
There are way too many examples of the first for Folau to win on a free speech argument. On the religious exemption - that pretty much opens up anyone to say anything. Who gets to define which religions are protected?
We need to run a crash course on 'Free Speech', and how we don't have it.

Even in the US where they specifically do, you can legally enter into a contract that restricts your speech.

I almost hope RA and Folau settle, just to expose how hollow Folau's claims of religious righteousness are.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
As you say, RA has nothing to do with that. So why should they be expected to pay for Folau's stupidity?
His position is that his termination was unlawful and that one of the consequences of his termination is the loss of earnings from his contact. Another consequence is that the termination has also made it more difficult for him to obtain employment elsewhere.

He may well lose his case, but that in a nutshell is the argument regarding money.

If on the other hand RA are found to have acted unlawfully then the consequences of their actions have caused loss to an innocent employee.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
His position is that his termination was unlawful and that one of the consequences of his termination is the loss of earnings from his contact. Another consequence is that the termination has also made it more difficult for him to obtain employment elsewhere.

He may well lose his case, but that in a nutshell is the argument regarding money.

If on the other hand RA are found to have acted unlawfully then the consequences of their actions have caused loss to an innocent employee.
There is a causal issue here with the calculation of damages that includes anything other than his contract. You can clearly identify the loss of four million dollars being what he was due under the contract.

But the loss of sponsorship and alternative employment opportunities have as much or more to do with what he has said, as opposed to his sacking.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
[quote="James Pettifer, post: 1071173, member: 21270. Who gets to define which religions are protected?[/quote]
Parliament, the law and the courts.

It’s largely untested in Australia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top