The Israel Folau saga

[Quick Hands]

There is a causal issue here with the calculation of damages that includes anything other than his contract. You can clearly identify the loss of four million dollars being what he was due under the contract.

But the loss of sponsorship and alternative employment opportunities have as much or more to do with what he has said, as opposed to his sacking.

That would be for the court to decide. But the way that the law works is that if a party has been found to have acted unlawfully then they are liable for what follows.

RA could certainly put a case to mitigate any damages but again there’s no certainty in any of these things

 

[Derpus]

That would be for the court to decide. But the way that the law works is that if a party has been found to have acted unlawfully then they are liable for what follows.

RA could certainly put a case to mitigate any damages but again there’s no certainty in any of these things

Correct, I'm pointing out that its unclear that what has followed is causally related to the action.

I can't imagine the NRL would have a very big issue hiring him if he was simply sacked without cause.

 

[sidelineview]

Correct, I'm pointing out that its unclear that what has followed is causally related to the action.

I can't imagine the NRL would have a very big issue hiring him if he was simply sacked without cause.

Remembering that the mouthpiece for the NRL is Beattie.
I'm not alone when I say I struggle to take him seriously.

 

[Derpus]

^^
NRL was just an example.

 

[Adam84]

I think people that are on the side of the fence with Folau are pissed at Joyce and QANTAS because

1) if all what has been said is true about Joyce, people seem to be pissy at him because he dictated terms about another organisation and a player, ASICS and Landrover just said “we don’t like what’s happened we’re out” fair enough. The dislike from Joyce comes from him holding AR over the proverbial barrel and essentially demanding change because it didn’t align with his personal beliefs...again this is all if the whole Joyce actually did intervene is true

2) Following the above Joyce seems to by highly hypocritical because he’s taken such a stance here but his company is more than willing to be associated with Emirates and other such airlines..which understandably rubs people up the wrong way. If you’re gonna have strong convictions and really push them then do it consistently and not just when it’s convenient

That’s why no one is going at ASICS or Landrover

1) that didn’t happen
2) companies don’t want their brand associated with controversy, Folaus comments are controversial by social standards, that’s all that matters as far as sponsors are concerned. Your issue is with social standards, not the CEO of a company.

 

[Adam84]

On religious freedom, it doesn't open it up for anyone to say anything.
No one has the right to promote hatred or violence; and before anyone claims Folau did promote hatred of homosexuals in referring to the Bible, lets agree to disagree.

Who are you to dictate where religious freedoms starts and stops though? There are religious beliefs out there that 100% promote hatred and violence towards other demographics and nonprofits, there are religions beliefs and interpretations in existence today which promote a way of life as been right, and a way of life been wrong. What happens when these religious beliefs conflict with basic human rights and Australian law, does religious freedoms trump the former?

 

[Derpus]

Yeah, it'd be good to heed what Sully said earlier. Let's not speculate on what Joyce may or may not have done.

 

[Show-n-go]

1) that didn’t happen
2) companies don’t want their brand associated with controversy, Folaus comments are controversial by social standards, that’s all that matters as far as sponsors are concerned. Youre issue is with social standards, not the CEO of a company.

You have no clue if it happened or not same as everyone else here, it’s all hypothetical and heresay

Well I dont really have an issue, what’s done is done I don’t really care for the whole situation anymore was simply providing an explanation to why people who are still pissed are.

BUT in saying that, are you saying that a brand that is fairly outspoken in its support of the gay community but is willing to conduct business with a company that is government owned with that government condoning gay activities by imprisonment/death, not controversial by social standards??

 

[Show-n-go]

Yeah, it'd be good to heed what Sully said earlier. Let's not speculate on what Joyce may or may not have done.

All speculative and happy for them to delete if they think it crosses a line

 

[Adam84]

You have no clue if it happened or not same as everyone else here, it’s all hypothetical and heresay

Well I dont really have an issue, what’s done is done I don’t really care for the whole situation anymore was simply providing an explanation to why people who are still pissed are.

BUT in saying that, are you saying that a brand that is fairly outspoken in its support of the gay community but is willing to conduct business with a company that is government owned with that government condoning gay activities by imprisonment/death, not controversial by social standards??

Sure, you have no clue either so don’t speculate.

No, I’m clearly saying that QANTAS don’t want their brand associated with controversy, social standards dictate Folaus comments extremely controversial.I haven’t commented on Emirates because I’m not the one dictating what’s controversial and what isn’t, where’s the thousands of articles of controversy on the issue? like I said your issue is with social standards not the CEO of a company.

 

[Show-n-go]

Sure, you have no clue either so don’t speculate.

No, I’m clearly saying that QANTAS don’t want their brand associated with controversy, social standards dictate Folaus comments extremely controversial.I haven’t commented on Emirates because I’m not the one dictating what’s controversial and what isn’t, where’s the thousands of articles of controversy on the issue? like I said your issue is with social standards not the CEO of a company.

Did you not also speculate by saying he didn’t do that hmmmm...

Google qantas emirates hypocrisy and tell me if you get zero search results

And again I don’t have an issue I fly qantas and emirates all the time and will continue to do so I just don’t agree it’s a social norms problem just it’s hypocritical

 

[sidelineview]

Who are you to dictate where religious freedoms starts and stops though? There are religious beliefs out there that 100% promote hatred and violence towards other demographics and nonprofits, there are religions beliefs and interpretations in existence today which promote a way of life as been right, and a way of life been wrong. What happens when these religious beliefs conflict with basic human rights and Australian law, does religious freedoms trump the former?

Did Folau's post conflict with basic human rights and Australian law?
Did it promote hatred or violence?

 

[sidelineview]

All speculative and happy for them to delete if they think it crosses a line

Castle mentioned the loss of sponsorship dollars in her statement and the sponsor expressed its satisfaction and said its RAs problem to fix.

 

[Slim 293]

Did Folau's post conflict with basic human rights and Australian law?
Did it promote hatred or violence?

It came in conflict with his employers code of conduct, for which he was found guilty of seven breaches.........

 

[Slim 293]

Google qantas emirates hypocrisy and tell me if you get zero search results

This is routinely brought up..........

But Qantas' strategic partnership with Emirates, which benefits both parties being able to operate their airlines in their respective regions, is not the same as Qantas handing over sponsorship money to a sporting team, who in return are expected to align with their sponsor's values while they're representing their brand.......... as would be expected by any major sponsor of a sporting organisation.

 

[Kiwikrs]

Another consequence is that the termination has also made it more difficult for him to obtain employment elsewhere.

That is not a result of his termination at all. That is a direct result of his actions.

No other employer is saying they won't employ him because RA sacked him. They're saying his values and actions are not compatible with their organisations and that he places his religion above any potential employers commercial values.

So again, RA have no responsibilities for Izzy's inability to find suitable employment elsewhere

 

[sidelineview]

It came in conflict with his employers code of conduct, for which he was found guilty of seven breaches...

That is being challenged legally and you didnt answer the question.

 

[sidelineview]

This is routinely brought up....

But Qantas' strategic partnership with Emirates, which benefits both parties being able to operate their airlines in their respective regions, is not the same as Qantas handing over sponsorship money to a sporting team, who in return are expected to align with their sponsor's values while they're representing their brand.... as would be expected by any major sponsor of a sporting organisation.

Exactly. The sponsors didnt like his post which brings up questions of basic rights.
Therefore corporations assume the right to set social standards, which in itself is a bone of contention.

 

[Slim 293]

Exactly. The sponsors didnt like his post which brings up questions of basic rights.

Except it doesn't..........

 

[Slim 293]

That is being challenged legally and you didnt answer the question.

Because I thought it was irrelevant, and not Adam's point..........