There is only one relevant point.  That is whether RA went too far (an illegality) in imposing that condition in its Code of Conduct and or Contract.

I say it is well within requirements. It does not require 'thou shalt not be a poof or thou shalt not be a religious fanatic etc etc.'  It simply says 'in your public utterances and conduct at all times show tolerance in such a way as does not bring RA into disrepute or embarrass its sponsors.'

Simple example......I have a vacancy in the Cab for a driver.  Bloke comes along...tells me he hates poofs thieves adulterers etc etc.  I say bugger off.  He could have a go at me for some sort of discrimination.  If I say, "Okay...I don't care, but when you are driving my Cab or if you become closely and notoriously associated with me and my Cab in the public domain, do not in that public domain express those views."  He says...'Okay.'

If he breaches that condition.....bye bye.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 5:16pm:


Well said.

Freediver:

Quote:


Both statements are correct....and also irrelevant to Folau.

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:


So...Effendi.......If I right into that Contract:

You agree, in signing this document, that you irrevocably (unless done on notice and in writing) consent to me having sexual intercourse with you.

'You' accept.

Where to from here?

Aussie wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 7:39pm:


I would find a solicitor who can spell...

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 7:32pm:


For a start it is not the "same (legal) sense" - as you are comparing a "right" to do something with a stipulation that you cannot do something. Its apples and oranges. Plus the fact that rape is illegal anyway, and obviously no organisation is able to put a clause in a contract saying their employees can do it. Not vilifying people on the basis of sexual orientation, on the other hand, is not illegal - funnily enough. So your comparison is absurd.

And whether or not an organisation is allowed to specifically put in their contract that someone must not express their religious views, the point is RA didn't do that, as they didn't need to. Their clause was the perfectly reasonable (to the standards of our society) stipulation that he must be respectful of all people equally in their public statements - regardless of sexual orientation. That this happened to conflict with Folau's actual religious views isn't really RA's problem, and it doesn't mean they are persecuting Folau for his religion. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Do you have to give allowances to nazis who claim that calling for jews to be burned in ovens is a legitimate expression of their "religious views"?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 7:32pm:


100% wrong. As an international football player and a role model, he has a moral responsibility and obligation to uphold accepted community standards. Also it absolutely is part of the job description - and I can show you the contract to prove it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 8:13pm:


They took a reasonable, albeit vague clause and interpreted it in an illegal way - by firing Folau for his religious views.