Folau believes only one thing...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by bubblebobble2, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,809
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @leo25 I was just about to delete that bit of my post because it goes off tangent from what I consider the point is ie how contracts protect property rights. But I guess I’ll have to leave it in.

    But it does raise another question I just thought of. Is corporate reputation a property right? Certainly the right to hire/fire is. In other words, can anyone - individual or business- rightly own and by default rightly defend their reputation in the market place? Or is reputation just some abstract concept in the same way as ideas are. I’m sure this has been argued about by Libertarians at some point.
     
  2. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    2,692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    Putting aside who's right and who's wrong as that will be settled in the courts eventually, the next stage could be quite interesting...."Discovery"

    If anyone has been involved in a civil matter in court (generally business dealings), each side can apply and usually be granted the right of discovery to the other sides emails, notes, minutes, policies etc so they can review, use to prove their point, refute comments made against them etc via affidavit pre the court case starting. This works both ways for both sides of course.

    Folau's lawyers will undoubtedly be making representation to the Federal Court for discovery of all RA's (Chairman, CEO, other officials etc inc Michael Cheika who made comment against Folau), Rugby NSW and that of Qantas (Alan Joyce and others) documents on the matter as they will want to know what RA and others were thinking, doing and why. When this ends up in court, these affidavits come into the public domain as the contents will be used to examine witnesses. Expect a conga line of RA, NSW Rugby and some Qantas officers to be called to testify (by Folau's lawyers) and be grilled over what they have said, written etc if they find a smoking gun or two during discovery.

    Reputation is an interesting point.....lets see what "discovery" brings out into the public domain. There may well be some "unfortunate / ill advised comments" to be found emanating from either side that may end a career or two regardless of who wins.
     
  3. yennus

    yennus Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Shanghai:Sydney
    As in the Ngole vs Sheffield judgement in the UK, RA wrongly confuses the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g.that‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds.

    Folau having and sharing his personal opinions are not in and of themselves a breach of RA's Code of Conduct.

    It will cost everyone a lot of money to come to the same conclusion.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  4. yennus

    yennus Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Shanghai:Sydney
    Alas, this is an important case in establishing whether an individual can express a position that runs counter to the prevailing culture. If RA's position is upheld, almost any employee can be sacked for what they say in public or in private.

    The repercussions of RA's decision being upheld are serious to any freedom loving person.
     
  5. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,809
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @yennus was Nogle bound by a Code of Conduct? Was he employed and a party to a contractual obligation with his employer to maintain the integrity and inclusivity of the organisation? Was Nogle paid in exchange for providing a service to the organisation that was both expected at the elite level of athletic ability and in a manner that enhanced the core values of the organisation?

    In short, no.
     
  6. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    Mmm these questions are normally better discussed in person over a few drinks.
    Off the top of my head I don’t think anyone can own a reputation as it’s relative. Things get too messy when you start to quantify abstract things into law. RA can say IF hurt their reputation/brand, IF can say RA and media hurt his reputation/brand. Also different people will have different view points on who has a good or bad reputation/brand.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  7. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,809
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    I'll have your drinks on your behalf then. And of course, I'll have a few for me too. Tonight.

    Abridgements to freedom are characteristic of the workplace for a whole variety of reasons eg underground miners are to be clean shaven. These abridgements may also extend beyond the workplace, though in many cases they have relaxed eg I think police officers couldn't have beards years ago although teachers doing night-work as prostitutes may still be a no-no. How far these abridgements extend beyond the workplace and what they cover would of course depend upon the nature of one's employment and the rationale behind the particular censorship of freedom. Most of them deal with safety and morality, though reputation certainly would come in to play if a 23 yo kindy teacher was supplementing her daily income stripping at the Red Lion Hotel in Richmond on the weekend.

    That doesn't doesn't she any light on the matter though does it? Just more confusion.
     
  8. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    Wouldn't bother me the least. If she is a good teacher on the clock then what she does off the clock doesn't bother me (excluding some extreme cases) This is the confusion I'm talking about. Lets say she was a model instead, can that be grounds to claim a bad reputation by the kindy? At the end of the day it's not that different from a stripper, as both use their sexuality to acquire money. What if this 23yo goes clubbing on the weekend dressed in a very sexy way to attract a partner, could you say that hurts the kindys reputation? and so on and so on. With almost every case some will say yes and some will say no as they are not fundamental wrongs and are all relative. So as you said before the idea of reputation becomes abstract.

    With all things people should use good reason and logic. Sadly something not taught at schools and our media thirst on confusion and outrage.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  9. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,809
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @leo25 an employer may have a different view, especially under pressure from customers who in the case of a school will be parents.

    In that case, I would support the school’s decision to ask the teacher to not strip or find a job somewhere else. Teachers also have to abide by codes of conduct.

    As far as getting dressed up to go clubbing, there are degrees of acceptance and as the school “owns” the job the teacher is being paid to do, it is well within its rights to specify the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, both within and outside of work - within reason.
     
    leo25 likes this.
  10. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,950
    Likes Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    This is the crux of it. And requiring religious discrimination in the workplace should be allowed. For instance catholic schools requirements that teachers be heterosexual. I could also argue that beauty salons should be allowed to discriminate based on skin colour as different complexions require different sensibilities.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  11. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    I agree that as an employer you have to do what's in your best interest to be profitable. Having been both a employer & employee and i can see both sides to the argument, my views are always bouncing between them.

    I guess this issue is deeper and is more of a social problem, why do people feel the need to always be outraged about petty things and then enforce their views onto others.

    Regarding RA and IF, maybe it was Alan Joyce that is trying to enforce his personal views onto RA by threatening to pull Qantas as a sponsor. If that is what happened then i can't be upset with RA.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  12. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    I thought the courts said they can't do this? So can a religious school dismiss a teacher if they later find out they are gay without legal consequences?
     
  13. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,950
    Likes Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    No. You can't stipulate any unrelated "requirements" that aren't specific to the skillset required. (e.g young, blonde shop assistant required".

    Being gay, married, short, old, etc etc is unrelated to skillset.

    Presumably there is a religious case that being a "practicing - insert religion" is related to skillset in some way ( which would mean that acts such as gay sex, divorce, pork eating, or whatever would break your employment contract), however it's not currently allowed.
     
    leo25 and mmm....shiney! like this.
  14. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,809
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Human nature? :p

    For me it only becomes a problem when people (ab)use the State to do the forcing because of the subjective nature of value. People who pump bible verses into me or used oversized coloured fonts for example are a bother, but I just ignore what they say.
     
    leo25 likes this.
  15. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ok so what you're saying is that it should be allowed, not that it is allows. Sorry i miss read it. So the issue is that if one group does something it's considered good, while if another group does something it's vilified.

    I'm guessing shiney's view would be a religious business should have the freedom to dismiss someone for being gay as it could affect the reputation and therefore profit of that business? Or a health food company should be able to dismiss someone if they became overweight as that too could affect the reputation and therefore profit of that business?
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  16. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    2,692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    Alan Joyce is a interesting aspect to this. Whilst the following has been noted before, worth stating again as this could come back to bite Joyce / Qantas both at court as part of Folau's case and with regards to reputation.

    Alan Joyce (a gay man and outspoken supporter of the SSM vote) says he supported RA's decision to tear up Folau's contract and was quoted as saying "Israel’s comments were terrible for a large element of the community, a vulnerable element of the community."

    Okay Alan, so Folau's comment re homosexuality were terrible, but with your other corporate hat on, you have alliances with Qatar and Emirates airlines which are government owned institutions for which those governments fine, imprision, may chemically castrate or public flog homosexuals. How does Joyce and Qantas explain this as it looks pretty damn hypocritical to have have two policies on the same issue. Aren't LBGT peoples in the middle east vulnerable people too Alan?
     
    JulieW, ParanoidAndroid and leo25 like this.
  17. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,809
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Wedding cakes for gay couples was a topical issue wasn’t it last year? Malcolm Turnbull’s response to that was to threaten businesses that the government would force them to bake cakes for gays. He was such a dickhead. Like doesn’t the government have better things to do than police ovens?
     
    Oddjob and leo25 like this.
  18. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    2,692
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    I remember (and some details maybe off so pls jump in and correct in need) a Perth based photographer, who was a Christian got into trouble last year for not wanting to doe the pics for a gay wedding.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  19. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,950
    Likes Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    I always wonder why, if you're gay, would you support a business that either hates you or pities you? Leave them to their ignorance.
     
  20. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,950
    Likes Received:
    2,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Dismissal for breaching the work contract. If condition of employment includes a body weight then getting fat breaches that condition, so you get fired. Ditto pregnant, tanned, tattooed or whatever you've signed up for.

    If you as the employer say "no blacks, gays or women, and have a signed workplace contract that says "I am not ....." and it comes out that you are ".....", the contract is breached, and you're out the door.

    Considering how talented blacks, gays and women are, you'd be pretty stupid to exclude them but it's your business (for the brief time it would be open! :p )
     

Share This Page