- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined June 2019
0
Views
0
Published
202
Comments
Published
Comments
”The bit about ambiguous legal views – I don’t know if they were at the point where they reaslised that yet.” They were realised by anyone who was having an impartial view on the matter, just not to those who were cheering on from the sidelines (happy in their echo chamber.)
Raelene Castle resigns as Rugby Australia CEO
It was a critique of your hyperbole, holding a mirror up to it so to speak. Similarly though, find me some who thinks “rugby was a thriving business” before her appointment.
Raelene Castle resigns as Rugby Australia CEO
“Really? How could it have been solved in a different way? Enlighten me, please.” Two possibilities spring to mind without giving it much thought, after the first instance they could have required vetting of any social media posts, that should have prevented the second instance. Failing that, after the 2nd instance, come out and say that it is reprehensible what he has said and we don’t agree with it in any way shape or form, but the employment law and case history is somewhat ambiguous so, unfortunately, we can’t sack him due to the significant risk of a wrongful defamation case being bought against us. Yes, it’s not the outcome we would choose, but unfortunately, we don’t have any say when it comes to employment laws. Either of those paths would likely at least have diffused the situation.
Raelene Castle resigns as Rugby Australia CEO
“The way some go on one would think she took a thriving business and drove into the abyss.”
Similarly, that the Wallabies won back to back world cups and she signed record-breaking broadcast deals.
Raelene Castle resigns as Rugby Australia CEO
“People like you fail to understand that it was Izzy that messed up, not RA or Castle.” If this was the case Izzy wouldn’t have got a multi-million dollar payout.
Raelene Castle resigns as Rugby Australia CEO
As I mentioned above, that’s the equivalent to saying to a pregnant woman, we aren’t sacking you because you are pregnant, but because you are going to need too much time off, the two are inextricably linked.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
It needs to be an objective reason not a subjective, otherwise, what is the point of workplace law’s you can’t just fire someone because you feel like it, you need a demonstrable reason. Your rationale would be like someone firing a pregnant woman and then claiming it wasn’t because she is pregnant but because she would need to much time off, the two are inextricably linked.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
So he was fired for the perceived homophobic nature of his religious comments. If however he believes and can show that sharing those comments are integral to his religion, then he was fired on the basis of his religion.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
It definitely comes from the bible, but isn’t a direct quote. I wouldn’t argue against him being disingenuous for posting and it and refusing to amend it though, I might argue to defend his right to post it, I don’t think he should have posted it though.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
It’s a bit disingenuous to argue that a meme paraphrasing a Bible verse isn’t religious. I think the real question is what if a religious post is perceived to also be homophobic? The method he used to spread it is pretty irrelevant wherever he posted it, even if it was just on a sign out the front of his house, the media would have still ensured it spread far and wide. In regards to burden of proof, the way these cases work is that it is the employer who has to prove it wasn’t due to his religion, not the other way around. Sacking him based on one small aspect of his religion (even if they view it as homophobic) whilst being happy with the remainder of his religion still equates to sacking him due to his religion. I am not claiming it is clear cut though, just laying out one side of the argument. As I have mentioned elsewhere, legal opinion is pretty divided on it from what I have read, and they all know the law far better than I pretend too. But that is part of what made it so interesting, once you remove to emotion a look into the details.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
“Are you deliberately not reading or missing the point?” No, you took my comment out of context and created a strawman argument which is why I didn’t subscribe to the snuck premise. What this whole case boils down too is that yes, he was found guilty of the code of conduct breach as determined by RA which was in the contract that he signed. But his contract and the referred to code of conduct are secondary to the FWA which states that you cannot be fired on the basis of your religion, he obviously believes that as part of his religious beliefs that he is called to warn people of the dangers of sin, which is what he did. Contrary to popular belief, he did it without singling out or discriminating against any particular group, whether the courts agree with him, we, unfortunately, won’t get to find out now. That is the difference between this and the MP case. And for your reference, I clarified my “Except he wasn’t at work, if you did it in your home then you wouldn’t be fired.” with “I was just swinging the pendulum to the other extreme to highlight the obvious shortcomings of your example.”
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
Have no desire to take it back, makes it exactly the same to the rest of the list though which pretty much covers everyone, ie everyone is condemned by their choices, not who you inherently are. The rest of the Christian message is that although everyone is condemned by their choices (Christians included), they can be redeemed by grace.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
But he wasn’t fired, so it kind of nullifies your point!
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
No, we weren’t debating what could be done in a living room, we were discussing the differences between doing something in a workplace environment as opposed to one’s own home. If MP had done that in his workplace there would likely have been a much harsher punishment, hence there are differences between work time and personal time.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
I just had a look, can see IF being verified but nothing about it mentions “the rugby player” do you have a link.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
I don’t even know where to start with the vast differences between the two comparisons, but an interesting one is a big difference between the punishment when I think MP transgression was many magnitudes worse.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
I wouldn’t be surprised if they did
Castle insists Folau settlement cost less than going to court
It would have been decided in the court of law, not the court of public opinion. The Captaincy claim and the upping of the $$$ figure was pretty obviously a negotiating tactic, when I first heard it I though negotiations must be serious, before that I was pretty sure it would go to court. And yes his recent comments didn’t help his appearance, but wouldn’t have affected the legal case. Remember, it wasn’t going to cost him anything to fight it, if it was only 300K on the table it would have been better to roll the dice given the large degree of uncertainty.
Castle insists Folau settlement cost less than going to court
No I am not Falou, but would like the fat cheque he just got from RA, yes I just joined up to comment on the Falou case, but if you are suggesting that makes any of my points any less valid, then that is just an ad-hominem. Do I watch rugby, used to watch the wallabies but not so much any more (prior to the Falou thing) Probably the kind of person RA needs to get more involved as opposed to less if it wants to remain a relevant football code in Australia.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
Legal opinion that I have read seems pretty divided, there is no chance he would have rolled for 300K, may as well fight it for that amount unless you are certain of a loss, which if it was certain RA wouldn’t have offered him jack, better to have your day in court and be totally vindicated.
Castle insists Folau settlement cost less than going to court
So it was a rugby account, was it? That’s news to me, I guess they could have just taken it down and nipped it in the bud then!
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
“One’s a choice, one isn’t – how many times does this need to be said?”
. It isn’t referring to same-sex attraction (not a choice) it’s referring to gay sex (a choice), How many times does this need to be said.
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
But the media is unlikely too in the near future whilst she is still there
Rugby Australia CEO on Folau: 'We didn't get it wrong'
Definitely sounds like some weasel words being trotted out there. I suspect that the total settlement is nowhere near, either the 8m claimed in some news outlets, or just the legal costs being alluded too here. Seems a lot like RC just trying to save some face here, fair enough shooting down the 8m claim, but then to counter with something equally as unbelievable actually makes you look worse than IF who has thus far kept quiet on the amount.
Castle insists Folau settlement cost less than going to court
She got rid of him and several millions of dollars all in the one go!
Raelene Castle resigns as Rugby Australia CEO