- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 22,588
- Reaction score
- 20,581
Which legal rights do you think are being eroded? There's no provision under Australian legislation which prohibits private companies from formulating their own codes of conduct for employees to adhere to. I suppose you could mount a legal argument against a company's COC on the grounds of it being discriminatory, but I do not believe Folau can mount an effective challenge when it comes to discrimination. It's hard to argue he was discriminated against when he received a massive pay upgrade not long after his first public comments expressing his beliefs about homosexuality. RA is not discriminating against him on the grounds of his beliefs, it is expecting him to show a certain level of diplomacy when it comes to making comments on publicly accessible social media platforms which could generate a backlash from supporters and shareholders. It's hard to mount an effective challenge on the grounds of religious discrimination when, so far as I know, the bible doesn't advocate hellfire and brimstone preaching....so far as I understand it, the Bible encourages people to resist sin wherever possible and to spread the word about God's grace and the concept of salvation, but it also ultimately says judgment should be left to God.....I don't think it in any way endorses Folau to tell anyone that Hell awaits them. If he had made milder, more diplomatic comments about his beliefs, he may have been able to mount a stronger case. His post was needlessly inflammatory and RA has every legal right to ask its players to be more diplomatic.Equally who would want to live in a world where your legal rights are able to be eroded by a corporate contract?
Last time I checked, corporations have to adhere to government's legislation, not the other way around!
There are certain things I couldn't say publicly without fear of potentially losing my job, too. This is nothing new. Companies have always been and still are entitled to set their own standards when it comes to behaviour of employees, within reason. I don't believe RA has asked for anything unreasonable in the eyes of the law or in the name of common sense. Folau was paid to represent all Australians and should have at very least, been more diplomatic when choosing his words.
Edit: @086 .... laugh if you like....But it's looking more and more like the court will support my view that Folau doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.....but don't let truth and common sense quell your perpetual sense of outrage over the so called mistreatment of your free speech false martyr.
Last edited: