Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

acquiesce
/?akw???s/
verb
accept something reluctantly but without protest



Well you certainly can't accuse Israel Folau of this.

Unfortunately there are a lot more that will just go a long to get a long.

I have a genuine respect for him like I did not have before.

I may or may not agree with him but he has a right to voice his opinion.

Of course the media portrays him as some kind of pariah which makes him the guilty party in most eyes.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

I would use examples such as Kurtley Beale, Quade Cooper and James O'Connor who have repeatedly (more than twice) breached the Player Code of Conduct, and been given many many chances. These players have committed CRIMINAL offences repeatedly and not been terminated.

Maybe RA needs to be reminded of how soft they actually are when the offence is not something they are pathetically virtue signalling....

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

Adriano said..


This is however consistent with religious institutions taking money from individuals in order to further their own interests.

Taxes for practically everything is the law. Taking money from individuals to further the purpose of Big Government.

Donations are not mandatory lol.

Churches/ religious groups don t pay any tax

Religious schools receive billion a year of tax payer dollars

so we get tax exempt, tax deductible, tax payer funded bigotry

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

Select to expand quote

Main said..

I would use examples such as Kurtley Beale, Quade Cooper and James O'Connor who have repeatedly (more than twice) breached the Player Code of Conduct, and been given many many chances. These players have committed CRIMINAL offences repeatedly and not been terminated.

Maybe RA needs to be reminded of how soft they actually are when the offence is not something they are pathetically virtue signalling....

I won't disagree on the softness when it comes to alcohol and drugs on these players, especially regarding Beal who I can't believe is still playing with a rap sheet that long. But I guess as long as you say sorry and try to do better you keep playing. Beal is probably on a MacDonald wage by now....

I would still maintain the termination is solely because of Folau's refusal to change his behaviour. That's the key difference. I'm not saying he should change his behaviour if it goes against his faith, and he has every right to stand his ground. But you can't expect to openly and very publicly breach a Code of Conduct and and effectively challenge your employer on some fundamental aspects of your employment conditions and still expect to keep your employment.

I also don't get all this talk about virtue signalling and militant left....many people that I know who agree with the way Rugby Australia have handled this are very right wing Liberals who aren't supporting them because of the political correctness, but because they see the absolute chaos that would ensue if people could do and say want they wanted in the name of religion irrespective of Laws.

No one is saying people can do and say whatever they want in the name of religion, that is an extreme view, talk of slavery and stoning etc for example.

However people should be free to do or say whatever LAWFUL thing they want in their capacity as a private person in their own time. Nothing Izzy has said or done is illegal.

Suggesting employers can control what you do and say 24 hours a day is bordering on ownership of your life. The left (see unions) would in most instances be totally opposed to employers having that much control of employees, in this instance the application of this control suits their virtue signalling PC agenda. They should be careful what they support because it will be turned against them in future.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

Sorry Cam, I've said it before and I will say it again. I can't see where there has been any discrimination in this case. There is no inalienable right for anyone to do or say what they want in the name of religion. Even the UN declaration on freedom of expression limits it to adherence to law or effecting others rights.

I would also point out that there are plenty of examples in the bible and other religious texts that would conflict with current Law. I am pretty sure any court will uphold the Law over a religious view if there is conflict.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Suggesting employers can control what you do and say 24 hours a day is bordering on ownership of your life.

I think you will find that is limited by control on the employment conditions being reasonable. I agree if they are unreasonable then they could be challenged and I doubt any employer would get away with conditions that impinge on peoples basic rights in favour of themselves.

However employers must have rights to protect themselves as well and that is where the balance comes in. In this case there is a clear conflict between an individuals faith and a Code of Conduct.

The test will be - is the code fair or does it place unreasonable restrictions on the individuals rights? That will be the meat of this case.

My view is that the Code of Conduct is a very balanced and fair document with respect to social and human rights. Compliance does not favour the employer at all, except for it's reputation. It merely asks the employee to treat others fairly and with dignity, even on public social media posts. I believe it will be hard for any argument say that adherence to that requirement places unreasonable restrictions on an employees freedoms, especially when that individual clearly has a role that represents the employer.

You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

So correct, I think this is the part that most people do not realize about this case. It isn't about Izzy saying all gays will go to hell etc., its that your employer has the right to terminate you for what you post online. It will be the fist work case in Aus that a person has been sacked through their use of social media. Huge presidence for the future for all of us.

Select to expand quote

Gazuki said..
So correct, I think this is the part that most people do not realize about this case. It isn't about Izzy saying all gays will go to hell etc., its that your employer has the right to terminate you for what you post online. It will be the fist work case in Aus that a person has been sacked through their use of social media. Huge presidence for the future for all of us.

wow....no, not even close. Plenty of previous cases.

Here is just a couple:

www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/social-media-five-unfair-dismissal-cases-lessons/

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Main said..

I would use examples such as Kurtley Beale, Quade Cooper and James O'Connor who have repeatedly (more than twice) breached the Player Code of Conduct, and been given many many chances. These players have committed CRIMINAL offences repeatedly and not been terminated.

Maybe RA needs to be reminded of how soft they actually are when the offence is not something they are pathetically virtue signalling....

I won't disagree on the softness when it comes to alcohol and drugs on these players, especially regarding Beal who I can't believe is still playing with a rap sheet that long. But I guess as long as you say sorry and try to do better you keep playing. Beal is probably on a MacDonald wage by now....

I would still maintain the termination is solely because of Folau's refusal to change his behaviour. That's the key difference. I'm not saying he should change his behaviour if it goes against his faith, and he has every right to stand his ground. But you can't expect to openly and very publicly breach a Code of Conduct and and effectively challenge your employer on some fundamental aspects of your employment conditions and still expect to keep your employment.

I also don't get all this talk about virtue signalling and militant left....many people that I know who agree with the way Rugby Australia have handled this are very right wing Liberals who aren't supporting them because of the political correctness, but because they see the absolute chaos that would ensue if people could do and say want they wanted in the name of religion irrespective of Laws.

I think RA has been very badly managed for a long time and the state of Rugby in Australia is testament to that.

It has never been worse and shows no signs of improving. Raylene wrecked the Bulldogs and she is now unintentionally giving RA the coup de grace.

RA's handling of Folau until now is just another example of their mismanagement of the game. A player with his risk profile should have been closely manged from the moment that realised there was a potential liability. But like everything else they've totally stuffed it up.

I see this as a catalyst for a complete clean out and resetting of the running of Rugby in Australia. I want them to go down for the good of the game.

Im not alone - fans have already voted with their feet....

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Select to expand quote

Main said..

Paradox said..

Main said..

I would use examples such as Kurtley Beale, Quade Cooper and James O'Connor who have repeatedly (more than twice) breached the Player Code of Conduct, and been given many many chances. These players have committed CRIMINAL offences repeatedly and not been terminated.

Maybe RA needs to be reminded of how soft they actually are when the offence is not something they are pathetically virtue signalling....

I won't disagree on the softness when it comes to alcohol and drugs on these players, especially regarding Beal who I can't believe is still playing with a rap sheet that long. But I guess as long as you say sorry and try to do better you keep playing. Beal is probably on a MacDonald wage by now....

I would still maintain the termination is solely because of Folau's refusal to change his behaviour. That's the key difference. I'm not saying he should change his behaviour if it goes against his faith, and he has every right to stand his ground. But you can't expect to openly and very publicly breach a Code of Conduct and and effectively challenge your employer on some fundamental aspects of your employment conditions and still expect to keep your employment.

I also don't get all this talk about virtue signalling and militant left....many people that I know who agree with the way Rugby Australia have handled this are very right wing Liberals who aren't supporting them because of the political correctness, but because they see the absolute chaos that would ensue if people could do and say want they wanted in the name of religion irrespective of Laws.

I think RA has been very badly managed for a long time and the state of Rugby in Australia is testament to that.

It has never been worse and shows no signs of improving. Raylene wrecked the Bulldogs and she is now unintentionally giving RA the coup de grace.

RA's handling of Folau until now is just another example of their mismanagement of the game. A player with his risk profile should have been closely manged from the moment that realised there was a potential liability. But like everything else they've totally stuffed it up.

I see this as a catalyst for a complete clean out and resetting of the running of Rugby in Australia. I want them to go down for the good of the game.

Im not alone - fans have already voted with their feet....

Its a great shame that RA is being used as a platform to forward social agenda's rather than what its meant for.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Contracts are written within the law. There's no law that says "you have to wear the workplace uniform" but you're still open to losing your job is you don't comply.

No doubt there are few employers who would appreciate their representatives being self-righteous judgemental jerks to their customers...

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Main said..

Paradox said..

Main said..

I would use examples such as Kurtley Beale, Quade Cooper and James O'Connor who have repeatedly (more than twice) breached the Player Code of Conduct, and been given many many chances. These players have committed CRIMINAL offences repeatedly and not been terminated.

Maybe RA needs to be reminded of how soft they actually are when the offence is not something they are pathetically virtue signalling....

I won't disagree on the softness when it comes to alcohol and drugs on these players, especially regarding Beal who I can't believe is still playing with a rap sheet that long. But I guess as long as you say sorry and try to do better you keep playing. Beal is probably on a MacDonald wage by now....

I would still maintain the termination is solely because of Folau's refusal to change his behaviour. That's the key difference. I'm not saying he should change his behaviour if it goes against his faith, and he has every right to stand his ground. But you can't expect to openly and very publicly breach a Code of Conduct and and effectively challenge your employer on some fundamental aspects of your employment conditions and still expect to keep your employment.

I also don't get all this talk about virtue signalling and militant left....many people that I know who agree with the way Rugby Australia have handled this are very right wing Liberals who aren't supporting them because of the political correctness, but because they see the absolute chaos that would ensue if people could do and say want they wanted in the name of religion irrespective of Laws.

I think RA has been very badly managed for a long time and the state of Rugby in Australia is testament to that.

It has never been worse and shows no signs of improving. Raylene wrecked the Bulldogs and she is now unintentionally giving RA the coup de grace.

RA's handling of Folau until now is just another example of their mismanagement of the game. A player with his risk profile should have been closely manged from the moment that realised there was a potential liability. But like everything else they've totally stuffed it up.

I see this as a catalyst for a complete clean out and resetting of the running of Rugby in Australia. I want them to go down for the good of the game.

Im not alone - fans have already voted with their feet....

Its a great shame that RA is being used as a platform to forward social agenda's rather than what its meant for.

Yeah a real shame...

Oh you think Izzy's sermon had no social agenda? That's cute

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

The point has already been made that demonizing a minority is not acceptable in an ethical society, regardless of the religious standing of the bigotry.

Here's a scenario, What if Scott Morrison who labels himself as a Pentecostal type christian suddenly started spouting the same bull that Izzy has been posting.
How do you think that would go down? Not very well I think even though some may consider it be free speech it would be totally inappropriate and his own party would probably give him the boot.

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

cammd said..

Paradox said..

NotWal said..

Isn't that a breach of contract? I think you'll find it is.

Yes it is, the CoC is part of the employment conditions and compliance with it is almost certainly referenced in the actual contract.

With regard to other breaches of the Code, firstly other breaches have no impact on an individual case legally, however I can see the point from a fairness perspective.

The level of severity of the actual actions could be seen as worse in many of the other public cases that did not receive a termination. However you need to note that Rugby Australia is actually pretty lenient on wayward employees behaviour and tends to give second chances provided the individuals acknowledge they have breached the code and let down their team, provide public apologies regarding their behaviour, agree to never do it again and generally accept whatever sanctions are handed down by the tribunal - which could include additional clauses in the contracts, promises not to repeat, possible reductions in salary or fines etc....

These sanctions are generally accepted by those individuals and they get on with playing rugby in the knowledge further breaches are not going to be taken well.

Do I need to comment how the Falou attitude to all that was after his multiple breaches? He won't even acknowledge he has breached the code of conduct, refused to apologise, refused to take down the posts and refused to agree to stop posting the offending content. Exactly what choice were RA left with but termination??

To demand a religious person show contrition and apologise for practicing their religion or lose their job is unreasonable, thousands though out history have given their life in often horrible circumstances before doing such a thing, it is discrimination.

It seems that the application of the RA code of conduct is in conflict with Christianity and most other religions for that matter, the test will be what the court deems most important. The freedom to practice religion vs an employers right to demand compliance with their employment conditions 24 hours a day.

My guess is even if RA and the militant left wins this battle the war will be lost, we already have legislation to prevent such discrimination taking place but if the court gets it wrong then the Parliament will make it clearer, you cannot discriminate based on religion, you cannot have a multicultural tolerant inclusive society if views that are in conflict with modern Western political correctness are not tolerated.

The point has already been made that demonizing a minority is not acceptable in an ethical society, regardless of the religious standing of the bigotry.

The point is it is not for an employer to decide what is and what is not an acceptable religous view when it is legal and private and unrelated to work.

Say you offend one person in 25 million is that unacceptable. Whats the scale ?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Contracts are written within the law. There's no law that says "you have to wear the workplace uniform" but you're still open to losing your job is you don't comply.

No doubt there are few employers who would appreciate their representatives being self-righteous judgemental jerks to their customers...

Has an employer got a right to enforce uniform standards whilst you are not at work.

My guess is you will not answer that with a straight yes or no.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..

cammd said..
You are ignoring the fact that Izzy did not break any law, he did not deny anyone's rights unless of course you think we all have a right to not be offended which is of course ridiculous.

I 100% agree the meat of the case will be about what is and is not reasonable for an employer to enforce.

I share your view on the code's reasonableness whilst working or representing the employer, I disagree that Izzy is the property of RA given his high profile. He is person and should be free to live his life outside of work as should we all.

Cos contract law isn't a law?

No his contract is not a statute law, use your common sense, companies do not write laws. Governments do, Section 772 of the Fair Work Act is one of them

Contracts are written within the law. There's no law that says "you have to wear the workplace uniform" but you're still open to losing your job is you don't comply.

No doubt there are few employers who would appreciate their representatives being self-righteous judgemental jerks to their customers...

Has an employer got a right to enforce uniform standards whilst you are not at work.

My guess is you will not answer that with a straight yes or no.

If that's included in the contact then yes. Easy, next question.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Its a great shame that RA is being used as a platform to forward social agenda's rather than what its meant for.

That comment is so totally ignorant of the game of Rugby it's not funny. I am talking about the grass roots club level Rugby, not the high stakes international test level. There is no leftist "social agenda" being pushed by Rugby Australia. What they are pushing is the World Rugby core values. Try googling the inclusiveness policies of Rugby Australia or World Rugby. They are protecting the very fabric the code is built on at the grass roots.

Try reading this article from 2017, the issue is not a recent one.
www.world.rugby/news/271808?lang=en

I have said multiple times that Rugby Australia had no choice but to sack Folau. That's not just from a contractual perspective, its from a core value perspective. His actions haven't just breached an Australian employers contract, they have breached the World Rugby Code of Conduct and the very heart of the games inclusiveness policies. If they did not sack him, World Rugby would have stepped in and sanctioned both Rugby Australia for not taking action and sanctioned Folau themselves.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

cammd said..

Its a great shame that RA is being used as a platform to forward social agenda's rather than what its meant for.

That comment is so totally ignorant of the game of Rugby it's not funny. I am talking about the grass roots club level Rugby, not the high stakes international test level. There is no leftist "social agenda" being pushed by Rugby Australia. What they are pushing is the World Rugby core values. Try googling the inclusiveness policies of Rugby Australia or World Rugby. They are protecting the very fabric the code is built on at the grass roots.

Try reading this article from 2017, the issue is not a recent one.
www.world.rugby/news/271808?lang=en

I have said multiple times that Rugby Australia had no choice but to sack Folau. That's not just from a contractual perspective, its from a core value perspective. His actions haven't just breached an Australian employers contract, they have breached the World Rugby Code of Conduct and the very heart of the games inclusiveness policies. If they did not sack him, World Rugby would have stepped in and sanctioned both Rugby Australia for not taking action and sanctioned Folau themselves.

True I am reasonably ignorant of the game, however I was under the impression though that grass roots Rugby was heavily supported by the religious Pacific Islander community. If Rugby Australia's inclusiveness polices result in practicing Christians from being excluded from the game I expect RA will have more problems than just Izzy taking them to court.

If World Rugby's core values are intolerant of religious beliefs than religious people will be excluded, there is no other option as you said, RA had no choice, World Rugby will have no choice but to exclude religious people. Which I think is a great shame for the game- -apologies for the ignorance.

It's rugby, not church

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
It's rugby, not church

Spot on, leave religion out of it, RA have no business getting involved in a persons religion.

As unfortunate as it is to have to bear a "tax" on society in the form of non-producing, highly paid legal practitioners I'm now realising how necessary it is to have people educated enough who can read the law, understand it and implement its intent.

The lack of understanding across the general populace is astounding. And where does that position trial-by-jury of one's peers if that misunderstanding is so prevalent??!!

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Kamikuza said..
It's rugby, not church

Spot on, leave religion out of it, RA have no business getting involved in a persons religion.

Quite. What a shame Izzy took his dog over the fence to crap on RA's lawn. Repeatedly. If he'd kept religion out of rugby he wouldn't be unemployed...