Yep. All about the money clearly.

He'd make a great televangelist.

The fools would be lining up to give him more of their hard earned.

Money buys salvation of course.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

TonyAbbott said..
Well done Izzy

I wish he didn't take the settlement through, he should have taken them all the way in the courts for their crimes against him. That would stop others trying it again.

An apology is not enough

Izzy now needs to go after Joyce

Love it. Confirmation bias here anywhere??

Folau took everyone else's money to fund a defence on a religious freedom principle. He had more than enough of others people money to take it all the way to a high court resolution, but instead of spending that money on what it was given to him for, he kept the bulk of that money, took the offered amount RA would have to had spent on legal costs anyway in exchange for accepting the termination and then scuttled under a rock.

RA walks away with the sacking and their rights to do it again firmly in place. All they have lost is the money they would have had to spend defending the case anyway and would never have got back.

If you want to call that a win, go for it....

Izzy did not raise the money, the Aust Christian Lobby raised it on his behalf.

The left over will go to a good cause


Izzy won, ra accepted they were wrong and apologized. It could have been better, but good enough

He may have technically won the legal argument in the minds of some, but I think Australia won by highlighting obnoxious bigotry thinly wrapped in "religious freedom".

I think the highlighting of obnoxious bigotry and intolerance of ra and the gaystapo will help bring about freedom of speech protection

The following statement might be controversial but I will say it anyway.... God, heaven and hell do not exist. They are fake.

I will not be offended if you think that I will now go to one of these imaginary places after I die. Or have you fired from your job. You are free to believe what ever you want.

I agree we need a national Bill Of Rights. Including free speech. The more enlightened state governments have done this already to some degree.

So why is the LNP government focussing of religious freedom and clamping down on protesters instead of protecting all rights?

Probably because they are controlled by spineless religious authoritarians.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
I think the highlighting of obnoxious bigotry and intolerance of ra and the gaystapo...

Hey it wasn't just gays Izzy was trying to tell how to live with his bigoted public statements.....

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
TonyAbbott said..

Izzy did not raise the money, the Aust Christian Lobby raised it on his behalf.

The left over will go to a good cause


Izzy won, ra accepted they were wrong and apologized. It could have been better, but good enough

Fair enough on the original defence cash, although there was a fair bit in a gofund me originally wasn't there? Maybe that got returned. So perhaps he only got the money RA were going to spend on legal fees.

Still, there was no reason for him to stop, he was using other peoples money. Unless of course he had advice that a payout of RA's likely legal costs were probably the best outcome he could hope for. That's not a win or even good enough from those funding him I would say.

I also disagree that RA accepted they were wrong to sack him or in any other sense of the word. That is a completely false statement.

RA's apology was for any hurt the Falou's had suffered. Folau also apologised for any harm caused to the game. Both empty statements that mean nothing in the context of the issue. The sacking stands and all players are now vary aware of what can happen if they repeatedly breach the code of conduct, irrespective of what their religious views are.

Both RA and World Rugby will count this as a good outcome.

Yep. Interpreting RA's apology as an admission of error is quite naive. Naivety is probably why Falau's happy - he thinks it's a win. LOL

I'm sure in reality RA is happy to be totally rid of the narcissistic bigot and so a simple apology and payout is a great outcome.

Anything to shut him up and keep his abhorrent views where they belong...in a church and on Youtube.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
I'm sure in reality RA is happy to be totally rid of the narcissistic bigot and so a simple apology and payout is a great outcome.

I can't see a better outcome for RA really. Even if it went all the way to high court and they won, they would not have been awarded legal costs. It rarely works like that, especially when it's an employee V employer. So they paid less than what they were going to be stung for in legal fees and walk away with the termination in place.

Everyone likes to bash RA, but they did a good job in a terrible situation in this case I think. They are also doing well in signing on talent for long periods. Green shoots out of the poo hopefully.

No pun intended of course...

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
I'm sure in reality RA is happy to be totally rid of the narcissistic bigot and so a simple apology and payout is a great outcome.

I can't see a better outcome for RA really. Even if it went all the way to high court and they won, they would not have been awarded legal costs. It rarely works like that, especially when it's an employee V employer. So they paid less than what they were going to be stung for in legal fees and walk away with the termination in place.

Everyone likes to bash RA, but they did a good job in a terrible situation in this case I think. They are also doing well in signing on talent for long periods. Green shoots out of the poo hopefully.

Wow talk about putting a positive spin on it.

RA had to settle because he was unfairly dismissed - end of story

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Yep. Interpreting RA's apology as an admission of error is quite naive. Naivety is probably why Falau's happy - he thinks it's a win. LOL

I'm sure in reality RA is happy to be totally rid of the narcissistic bigot and so a simple apology and payout is a great outcome.

Anything to shut him up and keep his abhorrent views where they belong...in a church and on Youtube.

Yep having to pay someone out millions after unfairly sacking them is the outcome most organisations are hoping for. What a joke, what a seriously ridiculous thing to say - wake up they did the wrong thing and were punished for it. As they should be.

www.zerohedge.com/political/92-americans-feel-their-freedom-threatened


Colleges should serve as centers of intellectual debate and inquiry, but if you have policies telling you can't protest unless you submit a request two weeks in advance, or you can't use words that other people find offensive, that ends up being impossible," she told The Epoch Times.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
I'm sure in reality RA is happy to be totally rid of the narcissistic bigot and so a simple apology and payout is a great outcome.

I can't see a better outcome for RA really. Even if it went all the way to high court and they won, they would not have been awarded legal costs. It rarely works like that, especially when it's an employee V employer. So they paid less than what they were going to be stung for in legal fees and walk away with the termination in place.

Everyone likes to bash RA, but they did a good job in a terrible situation in this case I think. They are also doing well in signing on talent for long periods. Green shoots out of the poo hopefully.

Wow talk about putting a positive spin on it.

RA had to settle because he was unfairly dismissed - end of story

I bet they were glad to get rid of the pr!ck tbh..

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Yep having to pay someone out millions after unfairly sacking them is the outcome most organisations are hoping for. What a joke, what a seriously ridiculous thing to say - wake up they did the wrong thing and were punished for it. As they should be.

Yep. pretty much the norm really. Go find me someone who was on a multi-million dollar contract and was terminated and didn't get some sort of payout at a settlement if they challenged it. Illegal behaviour excepted of course. He got sunk legal costs to go away, in any corporate world that's a win and a best case scenario. In fact this outcome is even better than winning the court case for RA as the whole thing was damaging. Even if RA won the case they would never have been awarded legal costs.

So, tell me how you think RA were punished or have been shown to have done the wrong thing?

There were never going to be any winners out of this, but there could have been losers and RA is not one. The sacking stands, their right to sack the next person for the same behaviour is now even more entrenched, but of course everyone's contracts will be tightened up a bit more now too.

Sorry, but I'm wide awake and there is nothing ridiculous about it. Best outcome in a bad situation for RA by a long way.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

holy guacamole said..
Yep. Interpreting RA's apology as an admission of error is quite naive. Naivety is probably why Falau's happy - he thinks it's a win. LOL

I'm sure in reality RA is happy to be totally rid of the narcissistic bigot and so a simple apology and payout is a great outcome.

Anything to shut him up and keep his abhorrent views where they belong...in a church and on Youtube.

Yep having to pay someone out millions after unfairly sacking them is the outcome most organisations are hoping for. What a joke, what a seriously ridiculous thing to say - wake up they did the wrong thing and were punished for it. As they should be.

No one got punished and it most certainly wasn't a case of unfair dismissal. The dismissal would only have been unfair if Folau hadn't breached his contract, more than once. He was warned, but persisted. Nothing unfair about that. Nothings indicates unfair dismissal.

It was a settlement deal to get the dickhead to legally piss off, or "go to hell".

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

cammd said..

Yep having to pay someone out millions after unfairly sacking them is the outcome most organisations are hoping for. What a joke, what a seriously ridiculous thing to say - wake up they did the wrong thing and were punished for it. As they should be.

Yep. pretty much the norm really. Go find me someone who was on a multi-million dollar contract and was terminated and didn't get some sort of payout at a settlement if they challenged it. Illegal behaviour excepted of course. He got sunk legal costs to go away, in any corporate world that's a win and a best case scenario. In fact this outcome is even better than winning the court case for RA as the whole thing was damaging. Even if RA won the case they would never have been awarded legal costs.

So, tell me how you think RA were punished or have been shown to have done the wrong thing?

There were never going to be any winners out of this, but there could have been losers and RA is not one. The sacking stands, their right to sack the next person for the same behaviour is now even more entrenched, but of course everyone's contracts will be tightened up a bit more now too.

Sorry, but I'm wide awake and there is nothing ridiculous about it. Best outcome in a bad situation for RA by a long way.

RA had to pay a settlement to avoid going to court, you don't do that if haven't done anything wrong.

What your putting forward is just spin, you sound like a politician. Facts are RA have lost millions of dollars, RA have lost one of their best players, RA have lost the World Cup quarter finals was it, RA have lost their coach and RA have lost credibilty. Every way you look at it RA are losers.

All they has to do was nothing and ignore it or at worst just put out a statement saying his religious views are his own. An employer rying to enforce someone to stop practicing their religion in their private own time in their own private capacity was always going to end badly for them and so it should. Employers have no right to tell people how to live their life

^^ I see your point cammd, however it's simply not accurate.

Mr Falau signed a contract with conditions that were straightforward.

RA argued that Mr Falau broke that contract.

If Mr. Falau didn't like RA's Code Of Conduct, he should have negotiated with RA before signing up. All sorts of professional jobs have Codes Of Conduct, with severe penalties for breaches. This is no different.

Nothing to do with employers telling employees how to live their lives.

Nothing at all.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Paradox said..

cammd said..

Yep having to pay someone out millions after unfairly sacking them is the outcome most organisations are hoping for. What a joke, what a seriously ridiculous thing to say - wake up they did the wrong thing and were punished for it. As they should be.

Yep. pretty much the norm really. Go find me someone who was on a multi-million dollar contract and was terminated and didn't get some sort of payout at a settlement if they challenged it. Illegal behaviour excepted of course. He got sunk legal costs to go away, in any corporate world that's a win and a best case scenario. In fact this outcome is even better than winning the court case for RA as the whole thing was damaging. Even if RA won the case they would never have been awarded legal costs.

So, tell me how you think RA were punished or have been shown to have done the wrong thing?

There were never going to be any winners out of this, but there could have been losers and RA is not one. The sacking stands, their right to sack the next person for the same behaviour is now even more entrenched, but of course everyone's contracts will be tightened up a bit more now too.

Sorry, but I'm wide awake and there is nothing ridiculous about it. Best outcome in a bad situation for RA by a long way.

RA had to pay a settlement to avoid going to court, you don't do that if haven't done anything wrong.

What your putting forward is just spin, you sound like a politician. Facts are RA have lost millions of dollars, RA have lost one of their best players, RA have lost the World Cup quarter finals was it, RA have lost their coach and RA have lost credibilty. Every way you look at it RA are losers.

All they has to do was nothing and ignore it or at worst just put out a statement saying his religious views are his own. An employer rying to enforce someone to stop practicing their religion in their private own time in their own private capacity was always going to end badly for them and so it should. Employers have no right to tell people how to live their life

I think you need to go and pray for Izzy, sounds like he needs it

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

RA had to pay a settlement to avoid going to court, you don't do that if haven't done anything wrong.

Sorry mate, but you obviously have no experience in that area. That is exactly what happens. Being right rarely means you get to walk away with no costs, especially if you are a corporation.

To clarify your statement RA paid no more than the legal costs they would have incurred anyway. That money was already gone, either to Folau or to legal fees and their insurance company would have been pushing for a settlement to fix the loss and minimise the payout.

Corporations have to pay legal costs to defend unfair dismissal challenges. In most cases they will never see their legal costs awarded back to them, even if all claims from the individual are thrown out and the dismissal upheld. A corporation will only chase it all the way to a judgement if they want to ensure their legal rights in the matter are fully enforced and to ensure a precedent is set and no one else tries doing the same thing and costing them more legal fees.

If there is no gain from going to judgement and the challenge is viewed as a one off that others are unlikely to copy, they will look to settle to minimise their loss and get on with their core business. That is what happened here.

There have been no winners from this. The damage caused to Rugby has been significant and Folau has destroyed his career for a year or two of wages. A much touted test of employment laws v religious freedom has no result and the status quo remains. While many of the public who are emotionally invested like to think both sides should have kept going, the reality is that management and players at RA would probably prefer to see Folau take that money rather than it go to lawyers. No one there wanted to see him lose everything.

www.eternitynews.com.au/world/englands-version-of-israel-folau-wins-his-case/?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au




Appeal condemned the position of the university whereby people would live in fear if private expressions of views were overheard and could be reported anonymously.

The court ruled that: "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." It was further recognised that Felix had never been shown to act in a discriminatory fashion.

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50861259

Select to expand quote

awkward customer said..
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50861259

Im sure he will be comfortable

Select to expand quote

roodney said..

awkward customer said..
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50861259

Im sure he will be comfortable

LOL. No closets in the slammer.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
www.eternitynews.com.au/world/englands-version-of-israel-folau-wins-his-case/?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au

Appeal condemned the position of the university whereby people would live in fear if private expressions of views were overheard and could be reported anonymously.

The court ruled that: "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." It was further recognised that Felix had never been shown to act in a discriminatory fashion.

Interesting case and probably the right outcome in that situation. The University terminated him for expressing his religious views on private media. They were very clear about this. Folau's case is a little different. Namely:

1) he was terminated for repeatedly breaching the code of conduct, not for expressing religious views.
2) he was in a highly paid position that primarily required him to represent both his employer and country in an international sport.
3) his employment and position allowed him to develop a large following on his private media accounts, therefore they are not easily separated.

Falou's case has no bearing on anyone in a situation where their personal and professional lives are not so closely linked. If this guy was the dean of the university it may have been different.

According to the BBC article 15 years in jail for this.....


He was found guilty last month of hate crime harassment, reckless use of fire and being a habitual offender.


You can be put in jail now for 15 years for burning a flag?

Select to expand quote

Hunter S said..
^^^
Yep, Izzy showed his hand.
It was all about the money, and had very little to do with religious freedom.

Not true at all. It wasn't all about the money.

It was all about Izzy. And how devout he is.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Hunter S said..
^^^
Yep, Izzy showed his hand.
It was all about the money, and had very little to do with religious freedom.

Not true at all. It wasn't all about the money.

It was all about Izzy. And how devout he is.

Devout Christian?
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

russia-insider.com/en/en/hungary-axes-worlds-largest-song-contest-because-it-too-gay-eurovision/ri28005?ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=a3871557ad&mc_eid=4030a10227

^^ Gay people have families too you know. Hateful crap.