I'm not intentionally spamming this thread, I just keep bumping into things that are relevant.
Anyway, this is an interesting article that sides with David's view, while coming from a slightly different direction.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-isr ... t/11253210
The dude who wrote it is a professor of law and a Christian.
This part in particular I find interesting.
How Rugby Australia should have responded
That said, the saga that has enveloped Folau raises a number of profound social and legal issues that should concern us all. The entire débâcle, I believe, could have been avoided with a little more wisdom from Rugby Australia. To describe Folau’s views ― which addressed a range of forms of conduct he regards as sinful ― as “homophobic” was a massive distortion of the whole thrust of his Instagram post. It ignored the fact that he listed a range of categories of sinners or unbelievers.
Asking Folau to choose between his career and his faith was also utterly unreasonable ― and may yet prove to have been unlawful under s.772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 as discrimination on the basis of his religious beliefs. His faith includes a desire to help others to experience a relationship with God, in this life and the next.
All that Rugby Australia needed to do in response to Folau’s Instagram posts was to reaffirm its strong commitment to diversity, which includes acceptance of the range of religious and non-religious beliefs in a multicultural society. Rugby Australia could also have explained that it does not endorse Folau’s religious views and that rugby is a sport open to all. It could have pointed out that these were Folau’s own views expressed on a personal Instagram account which had no connection to Rugby Australia or his teams. It could have emphasised its commitment not only to diversity but to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
It could have stressed that it has no right, as an employer, to control what its players say when they are not representing Rugby Australia. While Folau could not be allowed to express religious views while giving a television interview after a rugby match, he is not employed 24/7 by Rugby Australia. He is entitled to a sphere of life that is not under the control of his secular employer. If he chooses to preach on a Sunday morning, for example, Rugby Australia has no right to censor the content of his sermons.
By affirming its commitment to diversity, and its acceptance of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Australians to hold and express their own religious, political or other views, Rugby Australia could have signalled its virtue and its principles.
Lets unpack that for a second.
Lets firstly consider that RA didn't want to sack Folau, they felt they had to. They were paying him more than $1M per year to play rugby and also marketed him as the face of the game. They rely on gate receipts, TV rights and sponsorship to make enough money to stay in business. The sponsorships in particular are very "Brand" based, with companies wanting to associate their name with yours. (Folau has lost personal sponsors because of this, companies that no longer want to be associated with his "brand".
So, the question is, if RA had responded in the way the article suggests, would it have worked?
My thoughts are maybe. The shriekers on social media would have eventually calmed down and moved on to the next target. gate receipts would be unlikely to be effected much, but they don't contribute much either.
Could they have continued to promote Folau as the face of the code? Unlikely I think, they would have needed to push him into a more background role. What impact would that have on TV rights? Unknown.
The final consideration is sponsors. Qantas would have likely left, and they're the major sponsor. Would they be able to find another? Maybe. Some Saudi airlines wouldn't be bothered, but is that a good fit for Australia's national team?
So my take is that RA felt between a rock and a hard place. Folau refused to take the post down and they could not get a guarantee he wouldn't post similar in the future, so they made a financial decision that while sacking him would be costly, they couldn't afford to keep him.
And to my mind, that's the nub of the argument that his actions were employment related. If you, by your actions as a private individual, cost your employer millions of dollars in income, how can that not be employment related?
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
) is putting up a Go Fundme page hoping to raise $3m for a massive piss up in Vegas.
