Would You Support Law That Protects Religious Discrimination?

The three issues that will face opposition within the Liberal party room are the inclusion of a “Folau clause” that would give legal protection to someone expressing a statement of belief; conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment; and the ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”.

But Wertheim said it was larger faiths including Christian churches which “want to preference members of their own faith in staffing” while Jewish institutions were “far too small to have that luxury”.

It looks like the Christians want the power to protect future Folaus who would like gays to die, allow doctors to refuse to treat people and would like to officially discriminate when hiring staff. The Religious Freedom bill that is being pushed through by Australian Christian Lobby and more. After all, the Hillsong supporter PM Scott Morrison, says he got the calling from god.

In case you thought that Scott Morrison and the LNP are doing nothing in government. Here it is. There's not much one can do about this. I feel bad for the people affected, including women and young girls who face a future where their doctor can refuse the morning pill just because, religion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/religious-grou...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2021/apr/26...

Comments

      • +2

        Maybe catholics could start their own hospitals and schools where they could live out their beliefs and hire staff they feel will reflect or at least not contradict them?

        • But what if somebody wanted to work in their schools and promote secularism :(

          • +1

            @CommuterPolluter: I don't think the schools should have to facilitate the undermining of their own beliefs.

            • @jerrus: Isn’t that unfair to people who want to do that :(

              • @CommuterPolluter: Start your own secular promoting school and parents can send their kids there if they want it.

                Even the UN Universal declaration of Human Rights sasy in article 27 point 3 "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." ie if you want to teach kids secularism their parent's should be aware and consent to it.

    • +2

      The answer to the above, in my opinion, is clearly no.

      On the flip side, I would entirely support a Jewish school's right not to serve pork, a Muslim publican's right not to serve alcohol, and a Christian doctor's right not to perform an abortion.

      • +1

        Sure, but let's investigate the areas of grey.

        What about a doctor in regional Australia, hundreds of kilometres from the nearest clinic, who has a strong religious belief against supplying birth control pills? Are his female patients out of luck?

        • +5

          There will be any number of areas of grey, and any number of scenarios that can be painted in "what about" questions … we'll never answer all of them.

          But in respect of this specific issue, the two most obvious solutions are (1) telehealth that will enable the person to get what they need, and (2) on an assumption that the doctor in question has been posted there under a public health program (i.e. is not in private practice), one or two complaints will pretty quickly see the doctor counselled/replaced.

          In my humble experience, many problems can be solved by simply changing what "you" do as opposed to trying to get "someone else" to change. I ultimately have far more control over what I do than what someone else does, and therefore prefer to take action myself, rather than trying to get someone to do something they don't want to do.

          • +1

            @Seraphin7: I agree, the tricky part is unpicking the parts of society where religion has woven its way into the structure - I mean, the Seventh Day Adventists own entire hospitals. Hospitals employ a lot of people from a lot of fields, and they get a lot of public money.

            Whether or not they choose to employ those levels of powers ("No more Muslims, thanks") is not the question - it's whether they should have that power in the first place.

            • +3

              @CrowReally:

              Whether or not they choose to employ those levels of powers ("No more Muslims, thanks") is not the question - it's whether they should have that power in the first place.

              Do they have these powers? I don't know. Would they use these powers? Unlikely. Why? It's bad for business.

              While I'm not familiar with the precise commercial arrangements, in Sydney, the Seventh Day Adventists operate a large and popular private hospital in Wahroonga, I believe the Mater Hospital in North Sydney has connections to the Catholic Church, and no doubt there are many other private hospitals with connections to religious groups dotted across the city and the country.

              There are also any number of purely commercial/secular operators out there.

              They all compete with each other.

              Speaking with some experience about the Mater, the "religious feel" of the place is very passive. There are Christian statues/artwork, etc. dotted through the place, with if I recall correctly some optional religion-based activities, but that's about it. There's certainly no "mandatory classes" or anything getting rammed at you as either a patient or visitor. There is certainly no requirement to "be a Catholic" to be treated there, etc.

              Will some people not go to a religion affiliated hospital such as those above? Probably. They'll be more than adequately serviced by the commercial/secular operators.

              Equally, are they people who don't identify strongly with a religion (or at all) who are being serviced by the religion affiliated hospitals? Absolutely.

              The reality of it is that most of these outfits (and certainly the major ones) are in practical terms operating an entirely commercial-based facility. Obviously profits from those operations go to fund their other works, but there is a clear separation between the two in practical terms.

              Where this all gets to is the market decides.

              Those who are "anti-religion" will take their business elsewhere. Those who are strongly religious will favour these outfits. Those who are somewhere in between (really the majority of the population) will take their business to whoever can provide them with the service they require adding up all the factors that go into any "purchase". In reality those people care little for who happens to operate the outfit so long as that operation doesn't "cut across" them going about their lives.

              Or to put it another way, when the religion affiliated hospital is practically the same as the secular one, most people won't really care all else being equal … people will care if the religion is "shoved down their throat" and then they take their business elsewhere … which is bad for business and therefore they don't do it.

        • What about a doctor in regional Australia, hundreds of kilometres from the nearest clinic, who has a strong religious belief against supplying birth control pills? Are his female patients out of luck?

          Yes, just like Alex Jones is out of luck since there are no social media companies that will let him on. Tough shit.

          Why do all the progressive leftie organisations love the right to deny service or discriminate based on vax status, but the moment someone else helps themselves to the same privilige it's a bleeding-heart outrage.

          These people are the anathema of equality

          • @SlavOz: "Why do all the progressive leftie organisations love the right to deny service or discriminate based on vax status"

            Yeah, that's a thing about the left, they hate exposing themselves to heightened risks of COVID. Unlike the right, I guess?

            These are purely American talking points of course. Do you listen to a lot of Joe Rogan/American YouTube and so forth?

            Australia doesn't have the same left/right split on whether COVID is real/whether wearing masks are political.

            • -1

              @CrowReally:

              Australia doesn't have the same left/right split on whether COVID is real/whether wearing masks are political.

              Only if you live in a bubble. Thinking the government shouldn't mandate a facial uniform (the only purpose of which is to show conformity) is not an American talking point, it's common sense.

              The right has never advocated for anyone to be forcefully exposed to covid. You're free to stay indoors permanently if you want to live in fear. What goes on outside your home shouldn't bother you as the virus can't really breach concrete buildings and enclosed doorways.

              • @SlavOz: [Notice how he didn't answer the question if he watched a lot of American politics or not. I wonder what that means. Maybe it ties in with him deciding to use "Alex Jones" as an example of the sorts of things that happen in the world… ].

                Well, is the current government right or left? Are the Liberals/National party a sort of progressive, anti-conversative group like all the lefties are?

                I think it's fair to say the government is on the right.

                So, why is the government mandating all these 'wear a mask, businesses can refuse service to the unvaxxed' rules, then?

                Isn't that the opposite of what the right should be doing?

                [Incidentally, "masks are only there to show conformity" etc. Low level tier trolling, dude. Get better. Why are you so terrible at this?]

                • +1

                  @CrowReally:

                  Well, is the current government right or left?

                  Mostly left. You said it yourself - Australia doesn't have a typical left vs right divide in our political parties. This is just American projectionism. The truth is that both Liberal and Labour are progressive lefties, the Liberals are just slightly less woke and closer to the centre. Policy wise, they are not a typical right-wing party. Right wing parties do not create welfare states, legalise same sex marriage, or rely on mass migration for votes. Those are all left wing strategies.

                  At best, they're a centre-left government with a few conservative ideas to pander to Australia's large right wing populace.

                  • @SlavOz: Well, there we have it. SlavOz is a person who fills his brain with American politics and thinks the Liberal/National party is too left leaning.

                    File this moment away in history for the next time he says about what "the left" do.

                    I don't personally see what he has to gain from cosplaying on here as a disappointed American wishing "you" Australians would reflect "their" views, but maybe he's developed a sort of cold fusion engine that's powered by disappointment and constantly being told they're wrong [which would explain a lot of his messageboard topics, come to think of it…].

                    Incidentally, I saw the "Edit: I've changed my mind. Childcare is important, I've seen how unsuitable some of you are to raise kids" addendum you added to the "Childcare is a waste of taxpayer money because no one needs it WFH" topic that you got roundly hammered on.

                    I'll admit, it raised a smile. A smile in the "spotted in the wild: the passive aggressive poison of a spiteful, crushed creature" way. (chefs kiss). It wouldn't have been a true SlavOz post if you actually learned something or just slinked off quietly with your tail between your legs.

        • Lucky to have a doctor and if the religious doctor is removed who does that help? They can get proscribed the pills by telehealth and even recieve them in the mail.

  • I don't think you can pull the religion card if you know the rules before you sign up. If I choose to work at a place that requires no meat on Fridays, then I can't complain about it after I start working there.

    • +5

      You can believe vaccinations are harmful and you can believe you're OK to drive after a dozen schooners. Doesn't affect the need for you to comply with laws, really, does it?

      • +2

        You're right.

        This bill if passed will be the law. Will people that disagree comply and take it on the chin when they get kicked out?

        • +1

          Not sure what you’re fishing for here.

          If the thing gets passed and becomes a valid law, yes, I expect some (most?) people to not appreciate how it is applied to them.
          I have no doubt they will campaign against it and provide political pressure for a new replacement law to come into place or for this law to be repealed.
          This is.. this is how society and laws work.

          If you’re trying to equate vaccination acceptance with religious belief then you’ve got a lot more legwork to do.

      • -2

        i'm pretty sure islam is against the vaccine - doesn't allow abortion or the use of stem cell technology …

        does that mean they should be force-vaccinated?

        • +5

          Your "pretty sures" don't add up to a compelling argument.

          Especially because it's wrong - here's the Australian confirmation Islam is not against it: https://www.anic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AFC-Coron...

          Let's say you were right and Islam had forbidden that vaccination, though. How would that have anything to do with what's being discussed here? Islamic people would choose not to get vaccinated, and then they'd follow the same rules everyone else does about where unvaccinated people can and can't go.

          None of that has to do with the Folau clause that "give legal protection to someone expressing a statement of belief; conscientious objection provisions that would allow health practitioners to refuse to provide certain treatment; and the ability for religious institutions to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”."

    • +2

      Well, you've just hit on the key thing here rektrading.
      It is not illegal to discriminate - it is only illegal to discriminate based on certain grounds - race, sex, religion etc.
      You can discriminate against tall people, or pretty people, or people with blonde hair, as much as you like.
      You can discriminate based on vaccination status or hair-style as much as you like.
      But you can't discriminate against someone because they happen to be in a protected class.

  • +4

    Private schools receive a large chunk of public money so should not be an exclusive club, and bigots should not be given any sort of power. They already enjoy tax free status. Supposed to be a seperation of church and state or we end up with taliban type government

    • +4

      I think you've skipped over a lot of steps to connect a religious-based school receiving public money … to a Taliban-type government.

      • +1

        I think you missed the legislation proposed to legalise religious discrimination

      • +1

        Religious based schools were where the Taliban began.Talib, essentially means scholar.

    • the schooling system would fall over without private schools.. there just arn't enough schools, and the govt can't provide education as cheap as private schools do (net cost to govt).. so be careful what you wish for.

    • Private schools recieve less funding than public schools so they taxpayer is net way better off than if the schools where closed

  • +7

    isn't Australia a secular country?

    In that case, no….they get no benefits

    Religion needs its tax free status removed world wide

    • Sure, let's tax our charities!

      Also, isn't a key feature of a secular country having freedom of religion, which also includes freedom from religion? Society or the government should not force people in or out of religion. It should be protected to maintain secular values.

      I don't think secular means what you think. Having no religion is still a form of religious belief.

      • +3

        Freedom of religion is alright, but the state should not fund them. Charity doesn’t need religion, but religion definitely needs charity to fund for their overhead organisation(s) and to pull in more believers to strengthen the cult.

        • Sorry, but you seem confused about atheism or indeed agnosticism, religion and secularity.

          Atheism and agnosticism are not religious beliefs. They may be very outspoken (e.g. Richard Dawkins) but they are individuals who have arrived at a particular philosophical position. Secularism is the separation of religious beliefs of any kind from the processes and functioning of the State. France is a typical example. If you want to get married, the only legal obligation is to do it through the local government jurisdiction. If people want a religious wedding, there's no problem but that is not a legal wedding, just a religious ceremony.

          Personally, having lived in both secular and 'Christian-values' countries, I am all for secularism. Humanistic values exist outside religious frameworks, and religion should be a personal endeavour, not a State endeavour. Our resources should be going into public education and public health where people are treated as equally and inclusively as possible. For those who want be special, in God's eyes or deserving of special treatment, let them pay for that, but they should have no power over the general public or its laws.

          Also, I'm in agreement with many of the comments that this bill is about pandering to Christian fundamentalists, rather than other religious groups, and embedding discrimination against anyone outside their narrow construct.

          • @Lastchancetosee: I agree @Lastchancetosee and I’m very clear on the difference in case this comment was intended ti me.

          • @Lastchancetosee: Atheist is a religious belief in that is a belief about the religious nature of the universe. I suppose that you’d prefer to use the term philosophical, which may be true of some atheists but not all.

            It’s unsurprising that atheists and agnostics favour secularism. Secularism implies agnosticism by being indifferent to religious beliefs. It’s just agitating for dominance of your own worldview.

        • Charity doesn’t need religion

          Haha the biggest charities in the world are religious organisations. Wtf you on about? Clearly non-religious organisations don't give as much as religious ones, so yes charity does rely on religion.

          It's also quite well proven that religious people are individually more charitable than non-religious people.

          • -1

            @SlavOz:

            Clearly non-religious organisations don't give as much as religious ones, so yes charity does rely on religion.

            It helps when religions coerce you into "donating" because you won't get into heaven if you don't.

          • +1

            @SlavOz: Obviously when it is deep-rooted in the mythological stories such as Ananias and Sapphira religious followers will donate out of fear and want of so-called God’s love.

            • @gentlecrack: Well, that's valid theory, but it only just proves that most people are by nature not charitable and generous enough to give on their own. They need some sort of extra motivation to do so, which is one of many functions of religion.

              Perhaps that only proves how valuable religion is to society.

          • +1

            @SlavOz: @SlavOz citation needed for your preposterous assertion that religious people give more money than others.

            If you mean tithing in church groups, that's investment, not charity, to pay the priests'/pastors' wages, upkeep of the buildings, etc. Not much 'charity' there.

            We have a thing called taxes, which if collected and distributed appropriately, can have a significant equalising and humanitarian function in our society, without any recourse to collective or personal spiritual beliefs.

            • @Lastchancetosee:

              citation needed for your preposterous assertion that religious people give more money than others.

              Source here It's not preposterous at all.

              If you mean tithing in church groups, that's investment, not charity, to pay the priests'/pastors' wages, upkeep of the buildings, etc. Not much 'charity' there.

              So now you're the moral arbiter on what constitutes charity based on the cause? lol…no.

              Most churches provide many outreach programs, priests work on call to resolve family disputes or other spiritual emergencies. People rely on these services, and they're only made possible by the donations of fellow parish members.

              The source above doesn't distinguish between charity within or outside the church, so you'll have to take the facts as they are instead of finding desperate ways to pretend they're not true because they don't align with your narrative.

              We have a thing called taxes

              Which are mandatory. They're the very opposite of charity.

      • politicians shouldn't oppose legislation which their community supports due to their religion

        ahem nsw and assisted dying laws

        or abortion prior to it being legalised

        religion is so far from "charity" its not funny. the catholic church and its various other brands have left a train wreck of devastation around the world which people seem to casually forget

        • the catholic church and its various other brands have left a train wreck of devastation around the world which people seem to casually forget

          So has our own government. So has Coca Cola, Ford, General Motors (read up on their association with the Nazis during WWII).

          So has Facebook, Nike with their child labour, etc.

          Unless you're boycotting those things too, stop being a hypocrite. Our own government literally tried to wipe out the rightful inhabitants of this land and abused them for decades by stealing their children. The same government you continue to rely on and give money to every single week. Nice.

          The Catholic church funds thousands of hospitals, shelters, schools, orphanages, food aid groups etc and is the single largest charity group in the world.

      • Taxes won't force people in or out of religion, just like taxing a bakery won't force people to buy/not buy bread. It also won't force the bakery out of business.

        As for taxing our charities - My thoughts would be it should be treated like any other business, with the same tax loopholes other businesses get.

        • -1

          lol, no. The Catholic Church in Australia pays for a lot of your healthcare/hospitals, schooling, domestic violence support, and so on.

          Guess what happens when you tax them? Their contributions cease or reduce, which decreases the quality of our public sevices, raises your taxes to offset the loss, and leaves millions of people worse off.

          You'd ruin all that just to win a battle in a silly ideological culture war propped up by the media. Come on dude

          • +1

            @SlavOz: The government should be doing that, not relying on others to their job.

            • @stunspore: They do. The issue is that the government can't afford it because they're under pressure to keep taxes low so you and everyone else can afford the cost of living.

              Healthcare doesn't grow on trees. It costs a lot of money. If the government took on the entire burden, it would come out of your pocket, and a side note the quality would probably decrease too since the government is too hampered by red tape to do these things on their own.

            • @stunspore: let's increase taxes even more..
              FYI religions pay taxes on any income related to promoting their faith. It's only the charitable arms that don't pay tax. This is often misunderstood.

  • +1

    If I am a conservative christian doctor and you come to me asking me to perform your abortion - should I be compelled to give you one? Isn't that a form of slavery? Is my only option to leave the medical profession?
    If I am a conservative muslim sportsperson am I allowed to say that I think homosexual behaviour is sinful - or must I not be allowed to ever voice my religious views? Isn't this a form of anti-religious discrimination when other people are allowed to express their opinions? Isn't this a clear breach of my right to free speech and freedom of religion?
    If I am a conservative jewish school principal shouldn't I be allowed to say that teachers in my school should support the ethos of the school? Aren't all secular schools allowed to do the same thing? Why can't I provide the environment my parents want for their children just because my school's ethos is religious rather than secular?

    • +12

      If I am a conservative christian doctor and you come to me asking me to perform your abortion - should I be compelled to give you one? Isn't that a form of slavery? Is my only option to leave the medical profession?

      Slavery is a ridiculous parallel to draw, am I a slave because my boss at McDonalds told me to mop the toilets even though I don't want too? In any case, if anyone has a job that they refuse to do a part of that job when directed that would be grounds for dismissal. If you're a private practice doctor then maybe you can get away with it (assuming we aren't talking about any emergency situations), but if I'm employed at a hospital or at a clinic run by someone other than myself then I can be directed to perform duties and if I don't like it then I can get a job elsewhere.

      If I am a conservative muslim sportsperson am I allowed to say that I think homosexual behaviour is sinful - or must I not be allowed to ever voice my religious views? Isn't this a form of anti-religious discrimination when other people are allowed to express their opinions? Isn't this a clear breach of my right to free speech and freedom of religion?

      What if it was a small family-run restaurant and I hired a waiter that was religious that now hurls abuse at gay customers under the guise of their religion. Now I'm getting bad reviews and losing customers should I be forced to keep the waiter on staff despite all this, since they are just expressing their religious views?

      If I am a conservative jewish school principal shouldn't I be allowed to say that teachers in my school should support the ethos of the school? Aren't all secular schools allowed to do the same thing? Why can't I provide the environment my parents want for their children just because my school's ethos is religious rather than secular?

      What if I was a gay, Jewish teacher and I worked at the school. I support all the school ethos, and I never discuss my sexuality or personal disagreements with the religious view on homosexuality to the students. One day a parent sees me at the shops with my partner and reports it to the school who now fires me even though I've never done anything that would affect my ability to do the job I was hired for.

      In the end, if religious people want to be protected from discrimination then that is fine, but they should also lose their ability to discriminate. If they give up their protected class then they can be free to discriminate as they see fit. I don't see why they should get protections just so they can use those protections to attack others.

      • how about instead of abortion, it was a future state with euthanasia …

        it was euthanasia …
        what if the person was intellectually disabled …
        what if the disabled person had signed over power of attorney …
        what if the power of attorney person demanded the disabled person be euthanised?
        your job as a doctor, you were legally bound to kill this person who was begging for their life and if you didn't, you would go to gaol …

        • +3

          Your situation sounds objectionable regardless of religion, so I am not sure what your point is.

          In fact your scenario sounds so extreme I find it hard to believe that any one would be ok with it occurring unless they are a sociopath.

          • -3

            @sheamas88: Without religion, the sanctity of life itself is questionable. This scenario doesn't seem extreme or objectionable if we are not sovereign individuals and we are judged only on our usefulness to society.

            • @locknuts: I believe you're talking about eugenics and we've already had major instances (Holocaust anyone?) of why this would not be acceptable

              • @Carmen Sandiego: But why was it unacceptable? What is the underlying philosophy that makes killing socially burdensome people wrong? Where does it come from?

        • This sounds increasingly like Eugenics…

          Never mind religion, that goes against law and why the current laws for Voluntary Euthenasia is being hotly debated because people think this will happen…newsflash, that sounds illegal and psychotic to demand that

        • +2

          Ah, the good old 'slippery slope' argument appears.

          How many cases do you know of where a doctor performs involuntary euthanasia? Is anyone advocating for involuntary euthanasia?

        • doesnt take religion to know what's right or wrong

      • What if I was a gay, Jewish teacher and I worked at the school. I support all the school ethos, and I never discuss my sexuality or personal disagreements with the >religious view on homosexuality to the students. One day a parent sees me at the shops with my partner and reports it to the school who now fires me even though >I've never done anything that would affect my ability to do the job I was hired for.

        When I worked in Catholic schools the only time they would consider fireing a Gay teacher is if the teacher was openly shoving it in the students lesons or during school time. The Gay members of staff didn't mind and wanted to work at the Catholic schools

    • You can refuse to perform abortions as a general matter but you have a different case if it's refusing to perform abortions only for a particular group.

      The state will not generally force anyone to perform anything, particularly not in private business, except if it deems it is beneficial for preservation of the state - eg military conscription.

    • +5

      If I am a conservative muslim sportsperson am I allowed to say that I think homosexual behaviour is sinful - or must I not be allowed to ever voice my religious views? Isn't this a form of anti-religious discrimination when other people are allowed to express their opinions? Isn't this a clear breach of my right to free speech and freedom of religion?

      No one is stopping anyone from voicing their views. The police aren't going to arrest you over voicing your views (unless you're going further than that and inciting mob violence). The government isn't going to put you in jail for voicing your views.

      At the same time, if you express those views wearing the shirt of your private sector employer, no one is stopping said employer from voicing their view that you're not a good representative for them and terminating your employment.

      Also no one is stopping everyone else from voicing their view that they don't like your view and voicing their view that you might be a bit of a knob.

      See how free speech works?

      • At the same time, if you express those views wearing the shirt of your private sector employer

        I think that's fair enough, but not when you're not wearing the shirt. Like how some people have in their twitter bio that " my views are my own" and it seems most people understand that.

        terminating your employment.

        That's mainly what this whole thing is about. No issue with them voicing their opinion on someone else's opinion.

      • +1

        Who are you talking about?
        Israel Folau was not wearing any employer's shirt, and posted his views on his personal social media. They had nothing to do with his club.
        Didn't stop him having his contract cancelled.
        If you voice an unpopular opinion on your private social media and your employer doesn't like it, would you be ok with being canned for it?
        I am fine with free speech. I am against your employer exercising control over what you do in your own time on your personal fora.
        Do you see how the right to a private life works?

        • +6

          Israel Folau signed a contract that had the following Code of Coduct rules in it:

          • 1.3: Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.

          • 1.7: Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.

          • 1.8: Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.

          He broke those rules, they tore up his contract. This isn't "my employer is mindcontrolling whether I can hate the colour pink on Twitter" thought police stuff.

          • +2

            @CrowReally: Many people seem to think his contract prohibited him from posting religious material on his social media. Nope.
            Some people think that his behavior was a clean and simple breach of contract. Nope.
            Israel's contract, like many employment contracts nowadays, obliged him to follow his employer's policies. It was a contract that was consistent with the players' Bargaining Agreement and had no specific Izzy social media or religious content ban.
            Your employer probably has its own policies on things like OHS and Sexual Harassment. RA's policy, relevantly for this matter, is the Code of Conduct.
            The thing he 'broke' was his contractual obligation to abide by the RA Code of Conduct. He was terminated for a "high level" breach of the Code.
            The relevant parts of the Code of Conduct are as follows:
            "1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying,
            harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
            1.6 Do not make … any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of
            the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.
            1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
            1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby."
            The real issue is, reading those clauses, do you think that agreeing to abide by those standards means you can no longer post Biblical verses on your personal social media that some might find offensive? Do you surrender your right to share your faith on social media if you agree to abide by the Code?
            And, which parts of the Code do you think Israel broke?
            If you think Izzy broke clauses 1.3, 1.6 or 1.8 then it wouldn't have mattered if he'd said what he said on social media or the pulpit of his Church - so long as it was in public it would still be a breach. RA may have chosen not to label it as 'high level' if it hadn't been so public, but videos of Izzy's preaching is now major news - so the content would still likely have made a pretty big splash.
            So tell me, do you think a Code of Conduct which would silence someone preaching the biblical view on morality in their own Church is an acceptable basis for termination?
            If that is the case, then it is the Code of Conduct which is the problem.

            • +3

              @Almost Banned: so you are saying it is immoral to be gay? What are they supposed to do? Have no love in their lives? Come On, wake up. Hes an extremist bigot hiding behind the Bible. And stirring up bigotry. In my eyes, thats a sin,to deny others love, and cause trouble for them

              • +1

                @screensaver: I am saying that bible-believing Christians believe that the guy who gets to decide who goes to heaven has said that certain people don't get in - including liars, fornicators, drunks and homosexuals.
                If you don't believe in that, how does it harm you if someone else does?
                If you do, then you should already be aware of it - again no harm.
                If your morality is based on the bible, then yes, you probably do think that homosexual conduct is immoral, and should be refrained from - just like every other form of sin. Strangely I don't see the adulterers or drunks getting upset about Izzy's post.

                • +2

                  @Almost Banned: Homosexual conduct is not immoral and not a sin. Why? Because they are born this way and have to live their lives, and have love like everybody else. God made Adam and Eve, but he also made Adam and Steve

                  • -2

                    @screensaver: Well, YOU say its not immoral and not a sin - but you aren't the foundational text for a major world religion, so I don't think your view has much relevance to the discussion.

                    • +2

                      @Almost Banned: except mine is the truth. Obviously a homophobe helped write the Bible, one of your mates distant ancestors. They are innocent, because they were given a sexuality NOT of their choice. So an innocent person is NOT a sinner

                • +1

                  @Almost Banned: If you canr see that it causes harm then you should have gone to specsavers. This Im ok but you are not philosophy is shameful, and harmful

                  • -1

                    @screensaver: How does it cause anyone harm for someone to think certain conduct is a sin? Especially when those same people acknowledge that EVERYONE sins?

                    • @Almost Banned: yes but that (profanity) wasnt born with a sexual orientation he didnt ask for

                • +3

                  @Almost Banned: "I am saying that bible-believing Christians believe that the guy who gets to decide who goes to heaven has said that certain people don't get in - including liars, fornicators, drunks and homosexuals.
                  If you don't believe in that, how does it harm you if someone else does?"

                  Beliefs do no harm at all. You can believe homosexuals are sinners, the Christian Porter is a rapist, that stegosaurus is the best dinosaur, that the Holocaust didn't Happen, that black is actually white.

                  You can believe any of that.

                  Society has rules that say you can't say things that harm others (defamation, slander, libel etc).

                  If you state a belief that harms someone else, you're in the wrong. And no, you don't get to gaslight them and say "Well, that doesn't harm you because checkmate you don't follow our belief system". That's not how any of this works.

                  If Bible bashers just viewed the Bible as a magical book that taught them the rules to live a positive, helpful life, no one would have a problem with it. It's the fact that they have decided it gives them the right to label other people's lives and behaviours as OK or not, and there's some sort of prevailing right of them to label, recruit, discriminate and so forth on that basis.

                  Go follow your magical rules on the promise you'll be allowed infinite plates of sky cake. Don't tell other people they're living their lives wrong.

              • @screensaver: He said that a God they don't think exists (at least his version) would send them to a place they also don't think exists. If they continue in behavior that contradicts the religion. Most faiths ultimatly believe the unbelivers will be treated worse than the believers why does it matter what he believes if you don't share his belief?

                • @jerrus: But they are being bashed for just existing. They were given a sexuality not of theirr choosing, then being told they cant love anyone, and his summoning others up against them

                  • @screensaver: I wouldn't have said what he said, but he wasn't inciting violence he was saying repent. I'm Catholic and I was told it is imoral to sleep with anyone outside of marriage, I managed to make it till I was married at 33. I never felt that I should go bashing people who sleep together before marriage. I think you will find that most people bashing gays are not particularly religious but just throw it out there as an excuse after the fact. I don't think anyone did get bashed in relation to his post.

            • +1

              @Almost Banned: I don't see how you feel quoting the exact same parts of his contract that he broke right back to him is somehow a refutation of my point, but Ok.

              The thing he posted explicitly broke the rules in 1.3 and 1.7. 1.8 is the "pub test" and he failed that one too.

              What would be the point of having an agreement on what someone can and can't say if they could trump it with "but it's religious".

              And of all the things you wanted to pick to allow someone to break the contractual laws of society with, why would you pick a thousand year old religious text filled with literal justifications of slavery and genocide that makes as much sense as a drugged up horse?

              That's the hill the "poor Folau" people want to die on.

              • @CrowReally: My point is that most ordinary people would not read the Code of Conduct and conclude it meant silencing their private (in the sense of not club-related, not in the sense of no-one else sees it) religious communications.
                As I said above, the Code, applied in the way you seem to think it works, would mean that Izzy could not give a sermon at his Church on a Sunday which touched on morality. That is an entirely unacceptable restraint on his rights and no reasonable person would have considered the Code should extend that far.
                If religious people cannot teach their morality because their employers might sack them for it then religious people are far more constrained than non-religious people, which is prima facie discrimination.

                • @Almost Banned: but his morality is discrimination

                  • @screensaver: Well, his morality is only discrimination in the sense that he believes that is the basis on which God decides who gets into heaven and who doesn't.
                    And since God and heaven fall well outside the jurisdiction of our anti-discrimination laws, I don't see it as an issue.
                    If Issy's view of who gets into heaven impacts on his conduct, it MIGHT constitute discrimination - but that would depend not on what he THOUGHT, but on what he DID. And so far, I haven't seen any evidence that Issy has discriminated against anyone.

                    • +1

                      @Almost Banned: My employer would likely fire me for the sort of shit he said, if people knew I worked for the company I do (in Folau's case there's no doubt people knew who his employer was). It reflects badly on them and can therefore have a negative financial impact as well as an impact on their staff and customers. They are very clear that they are an inclusive employer and discrimination is not allowed in the workplace, or in other places where it impacts the workplace or reflects on the company.

                      If I listed the company as my employer and called people boomers in a negative way they can fire me for being ageist. I'm okay with that. I don't link my social media to my employer (unavoidable for Folau without a fake name) and I don't discriminate against people.

                • @Almost Banned: You're doing a lot of extrapolation and interpretation that isn't there. It's well and easy to say "even if he had just said these remarks in just a church to a bunch of parishioners, he would have been pinged the same way" but a decent lawyer worth his salt might well mount the case that such a venue wasn't open to the public at large and so forth. We frankly don't know how that would have resulted —- because that's not what happened. It never happened, so it wasnt critically tested.

                  Those sorts of things are tested by the courts. his case was tested by the courts because he actually tweeted it to the world at large, intended to be read by everyone and anyone. That's what he actually did, and he actually.broke his contract that way.

                  • @CrowReally: I think you will find it was NOT tested in the Courts, because it never reached a judgment.
                    I think you will also find that RA paid Issy - which would be a rather odd outcome if Issy's termination had clearly been lawful.
                    So, on balance, I lean to the view that RA decided that they were better off paying Issy out because they believed they had real risks they had improperly terminated his contract.

                    • @Almost Banned: "I think you will also find that RA paid Issy - which would be a rather odd outcome if Issy's termination had clearly been lawful.
                      So, on balance, I lean to the view that RA decided that they were better off paying Issy out because they believed they had real risks they had improperly terminated his contract."

                      Alright, I think you will find that Australia voted Yes on the Same Sex Marriage Referendum - which would be a rather odd outcome if the majority of Australia thought there was something wrong with being homosexual or that a marriage had to be between a man and a woman.

                      So, on balance, I lean the the view that Australia decided that homosexuals aren't aberrations, they're equal citizens and anyone who thinks differently are wrong.

                      Issy needs to update his world view. "We" have agreed he's wrong.

                • +2

                  @Almost Banned: Here's an interesting little side note, if there's nothing wrong with religious people having their beliefs and its all morality and wonderful stuff, why do they need a special law to be proposed to indemnify them against repercussions, anyway?

                  Do scientists get a special rule about their beliefs? Holocaust deniers? DC comic book fans? No, just the religious people, because of course. One of the most insulated and privileged groups of society, complaining how they're so much more constrained than anyone else. Pay some taxes and we can discuss how hard you guys really have it.

                  • @CrowReally: yeah - this is completely wrong.
                    There are numerous groups who are protected classes, and plenty of laws already exist for this. We protect people from discrimination in various fields on a variety of grounds. Those include the provision of employment, goods and services, and extend to discrimination based on sex, age, disability, and others.
                    Our society has decided not to outlaw all discrimination - that would be impractical - but to specify certain qualities that deserve protection. In fact, our society goes further than that - not merely outlawing negative discrimination but legalising 'positive' discrimination for certain classes.
                    The issue here is not whether people should be protected from discrimination - but how those protections interplay with each other when they come into conflict.
                    So, when a gay person has the right to be employed, and a religious employer has the right to employ based on their religious ethos.
                    For many people in our society they immediately assume the religious must give way to the sexual deviancy. But why is that just a given? Why should one group's rights to live in the way they choose trump another group's rights to live in the way they choose?
                    That is the issue our society is grappling with - and particularly in this issue.
                    As for tax - the advancement of religion has been a charitable purpose since the concept was first legislated. Churches should pay taxes at exactly the same rates as every other charity. However, some people think charities are only the causes they agree with. That is a very narrow and dangerous approach to charity.

                    • @Almost Banned: sexual deviants? You are more than a bible bashing christian. you are an ignorant homophobe gay basher. That is your society and I dont see you getting into heaven, because of your dark heart. Gays are not choosing this lifestyle, it was given to them by nature whether they like it or not. This is more than just stupidity on your part. It has a sinister overtone to it, you and countless others. I dont see many of you getting to heaven. As for me, I will take my chances, sticking up for the downtrodden

                      • @screensaver: Deviancy is defined as differing from the norm. The word is perfectly appropriate to deal with a minority position in any aspect of life.
                        You seem a little touchy about this subject.

                        • @Almost Banned: its normal for them. Just because you are not one of them doesnt give you the right to say, we are notmal and you are not

                          • @screensaver: You aren't getting this, are you?
                            Differing from the norm is not a complicated issue.
                            In Australia it is estimated that more than 90% of people are heterosexual. That makes it an overwhelming sexual norm.
                            Everyone else DIFFERS FROM THAT NORM.
                            It is not a qualitative issue, but a quantitative one.

                            • @Almost Banned: yes, but it is normal to them .Because they are smaller in numbers doesnt make it abnormal. thats just another myth

                    • +3

                      @Almost Banned: "So, when a gay person has the right to be employed, and a religious employer has the right to employ based on their religious ethos.
                      For many people in our society they immediately assume the religious must give way to the sexual deviancy. But why is that just a given? Why should one group's rights to live in the way they choose trump another group's rights to live in the way they choose?"

                      And here we have on display the "wanting it's cake and eating it too" magical thinking of the religious.

                      Because of course they're entitled to label other things aberrations, and deviants, and being wrong and needing to change and all the rest. Of course they should be allowed to decide which of us can work in what jobs.

                      Of course a religious institution should be allowed to decide it won't employ someone who lives a gay lifestyle that has a different idea of what's acceptable behaviour.

                      But how dare a nonreligious institution employ a religious football player and then try and make him stop talking in public about his ideas, because that would be unfair.

                      Everyone else needs to make sure the religious people are allowed to do whatever they wish, whether it's as an employer deciding who they hire or as an employee deciding which rules they will follow.

                      Anything less would be unfair. On them.

                • +3

                  @Almost Banned: I'm actually curious why God created homosexuals. Was it just to vilify them and to give others people to vilify and feel superior to?

Login or Join to leave a comment